Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Root of Jesse · Sep 7, 2016

Albion said:
No, he doesn't. You know better than to say something like that.

St. Paul provides some of the clearest and strongest biblical teachings on Purgatory. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians Paul describes how each of us, after death, will be tested by fire:

For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw — each man’s work will become manifest; for the day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)

The fire of loss is the fire of Hell. The saving fire is the purgative fire of Purgatory. The purgative, saving fire brings a soul to full holiness; for “without holiness, no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). This is why a soul who desires to dwell with God and glorify God desires to be purified before seeing the face of the Lord. A soul burden with the residuals of sin is encumbered in its ability to glorify God. Through His infinite mercy, God purges the residuals of sin with fire and lovingly draws the soul in.

Root of Jesse · Sep 7, 2016

Albion said:
That's not a doctrine.

Actually, it is. Not to you guys, of course. You removed several books and parts. As they continue to try to do today.

Root of Jesse · Sep 7, 2016

South Bound said:
There are numerous verses supporting the Biblical doctrine of sola scripture and numerous writings by the ECFs. which the Catholics love to claim as there's until they say soething inconvenient. but essentially what the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura comes down to is. if you don't believe the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura then what authority do you believe is higher and more authoritative than God's Word.

((Note to moderators: By pointing out the inconsistency Catholics show regarding the ECFs I am in no way stating nor implying that Catholics are not Christians.))

I don't take your statement to be implying such a thing. But let me explain something to you: Nothing is more authoritative than God's Word. We believe this, our Church teaches this, and always has. Where we differ is in what we believe to be God's Word.

Root of Jesse · Sep 7, 2016

Albion said:
Having had a few minutes to peruse those links, Wolf, I see that not a single one of those ECF is from the first century, when, as I said, no belief in a Purgatory was present. In addition, a selection of EFCs doesn't mean much anyway since its the UNANIMITY of the ECFs that determines the correctness of a teaching (at least according to the RCC). And then too, we still have no actual "Purgatory!" At best, what we have there are the bare bones of a concept of some sort of purification process, but not Purgatory which, as I said, has a lot of specific functions and processes etc. None of that is to be found there. So, as we can say with all sorts of ideas that were kicked around by Origen or Tertullian or Augustine in antiquity, they remain just speculation, although not in this case since the RCC decided to build a very specific and new place in the afterlife (but not until the 15th century) to meet the thinking of the Late Middle Ages.

The bolded is entirely wrong, Albion. Your understanding of what purgatory is, is flawed.

Root of Jesse · Sep 7, 2016

Albion said:
They were provisionally accepted in the 4th century; the Jews (from whom we got them, obviously) were divided right down the middle themselves as to whether they were part of the Scriptures or not. After Luther, the RCC removed some of the Apocrypha itself. Incidentally, the Lutherans and Anglicans did not eliminate them. They both still read them in worship, but they are not considered appropriate for establishing any doctrine, being instead studies in "morals and manners."

Why do we go to the Jews for our canon of Scripture? Even at the time of Christ, there was no canon of Scripture for the OT.

Root of Jesse · Sep 7, 2016

JohnRabbit said:
interesting, given that he quoted from Deuteronomy, Samuel, and The Psalms, in romans 15 for starters.

I made a typo. Reread, please.

Root of Jesse · Sep 7, 2016

Albion said:
On the contrary, I do. It's not just passing along what's otherwise in the Bible except by word of mouth instead of the printed word.

Nothing in Sacred Tradition contradicts the Bible. Nothing.

Root of Jesse · Sep 7, 2016

Albion said:
Oh, please. Tetzel, who was the indulgence peddler in the German states had been sent out to get money for the building of St. Peter's basilica!

Right-he was commissioned to raise money for the building of St. Peter's.

He gave out certificates and paid kickbacks to the local prince for the privilege of soliciting there and the rest was sent to Rome.

So Tetzel, as I was saying, did something he was not empowered to do. Exactly.

You'd be a good apologist for the Clinton Foundation, if they still need any.

W2L · Sep 7, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
Nothing in Sacred Tradition contradicts the Bible. Nothing.

Selling indulgences is like selling a license to sin. Isn't than an RC tradition?

JohnRabbit · Sep 7, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
I made a typo. Reread, please.

ok, i guess i missed it.

samir · Sep 7, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
Why do we go to the Jews for our canon of Scripture?

Not just any Jews, but Jews who rejected Christ. Protestants don't really get their OT canon from Christ-rejecting Jews. They got it from the Catholic Church and used those Christ-rejecting Jews as an excuse to reject scripture that didn't agree with their new man-made traditions.

South Bound · Sep 7, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
I don't take your statement to be implying such a thing. But let me explain something to you: Nothing is more authoritative than God's Word. We believe this, our Church teaches this, and always has. Where we differ is in what we believe to be God's Word.

Don't care

Philip_B · Sep 7, 2016

We do turn to the Old Testament as canon of Scripture because Jesus used it. Almost certainly at that time Jesus was using the Septuagint, a Koine Greek translation that includes what today we call the deuterocanonicals (2nd canon). When the Jews fixed the Masoritic canon Hebrew Scripture they excluded the deuterocanonicals.

The western Canon was established at the Council of Carthage in 397 under the auspices of Augustine, the Deuterocanoncals were included. A number of scholarly approaches have been taken to this, including those who include (RCC EO), those who exclude (most of the reformation Churches).

Then of course there is the Anglican Position, where the Deuterocanonicals are accepted as good to hear and learn from, however specifically excluded from being used to establish doctrine. They may well be used to support what is seen elsewhere in scripture, however they can not be used on their own.

Hope that helps in a thread which seems to be beyond help.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 7, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
Can you list a single tradition/doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture? If you can't do that than, complete it is.

I have asked Catholics this and they can't. Maybe you can.

Root of Jesse said:
The Canon of Scripture.

It was asked for something not in scripture.

PapaZoom · Sep 7, 2016

samir said:
No. It's a fact.

No. I said just the opposite.

Well you're just plain wrong. The RCC was selling indulgences. It's clear from the study of history. But spin away if you like.

PapaZoom · Sep 7, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
Some people sold indulgences, but not with knowledge of the Curia. The Church has never TAUGHT that indulgences could be sold to get out of Purgatory-that's the myth. It is true that some people made it seem like they could buy their way out. But it's a big difference. I have hear of Catholic parishes that have their own recipe for communion wafers which include eggs, yeast, butter, sugar, and so on. That's not what the Church allows, though. In the case of indulgences, some Catholics sold indulgences in the name of the Church, but they had not the authority or the permission to do so. The Church asked for donations to build the new St. Peter's Basilica. Some thought it would sound good to offer something in return for making donations, but that wasn't the case.

Well part of Luther's complaint about the Church had to do with the selling of indulgences.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 7, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
Can you list a single tradition/doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture? If you can't do that than, complete it is.

I have asked Catholics this and they can't. Maybe you can.

Albion said:
As we see now, no he cannot. But neither can any of the others here who have been asked the same question repeatedly and by different posters.

The Catholics can't because then they would be condemning all the SS Protestant Christians to Hell. They might as well call them heathen. But, the RCC does teach that those from other denominations are among the saved people of God.

So why do Catholics argue endlessly over something insignificant like purgatory, but "give up" defending a doctrine as important as something necessary for salvation that might be missing from the Protestant faith?

PapaZoom · Sep 7, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
Nope, his is historical fact. Even Luther got it wrong, among many other things. It wasn't the Church selling indulgences. Indulgences are specific things-you do some charitable work with a certain intention, and go to Mass, and give alms, and go to confession, and then you might lessen your purgatory time. Christ told us to give alms, and pray, did he not, in order to go to heaven?

There were those in the church selling indulgences and the Church was allowing it. It was a big deal.

"
Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They also want to remove stumbling blocks that prevent non-Catholics from taking a positive view of the Church. As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false.

This is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

Indulgences are part of the Church’s infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them"(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent’s anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching. "

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 7, 2016

sculleywr said:
You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.

AnticipateHisComing said:
Can you list a single tradition/doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture? If you can't do that than, complete it is.

I have asked Catholics this and they can't. Maybe you can.

Root of Jesse said:
The Canon of Scripture.

Albion said:
That's not a doctrine.

Root of Jesse said:
Actually, it is. Not to you guys, of course. You removed several books and parts. As they continue to try to do today.

Remember the thread? Remember what it was about? SS.

It was asked for a doctrine necessary for salvation that was not in scripture. RoJ, you fail in answering the question, but continue to defend your position. Can you give an honest answer to the question?

Berean777 · Sep 7, 2016

The easiest way to defend Holy Sciptures as the highest authority is by the fact that it is the first hand testimony and eyewitness account to the living Word.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. (1 John 1:1)

Church doctrine resulting from church tradition must be in submission and compliance to 1st century apostolic eye witness account. If it isn't then it is based on hearsay and it must therefore be rejected.

Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

just trying to understand

Well-Known Member

I stand with Israel.

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency