Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Albion]

It is a teaching of God, the Holy Spirit, that is absent from the Bible.

It IS the Bible that we're speaking of.

I believe, we Catholics and Orthodox believe, that Jesus taught more than what was written.

We all believe that, since the Scripture teaches it. That doesn't mean that we ought to invent ideas and justify them by saying, "Jesus said more than is in the Bible, so let's consider this to be in that category." Especially not, considering that the Bible says that we don't need that unrecorded information, whatever it might have been.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's true. However, the supposed benefit that's supposed to come from an indulgence relates to Purgatory, and both of these are doctrinal inventions that came from "Sacred Tradition."

And Scripture.
In Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59 Christ is condemning sin and speaks of liberation only after expiation. “Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” Now we know that no last penny needs to be paid in Heaven and from Hell there is no liberation at all; hence the reference must apply to a third place.

Matthew 12:32 says, “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Here Jesus speaks of sin against the Holy Spirit. The implication is that some sins can be forgiven in the world to come. We know that in Hell there is no liberation and in Heaven nothing imperfect can enter it as we see in the next part. Sin is not forgiven when a soul reaches its final destination because in heaven there is no need for forgiveness of sin and in hell the choice to go there is already made.

Purgatory is an expression of God's Mercy. Consider this:
Imagine a Christian man, justified by the Lord, loses his temper and yells at his next door neighbors for letting their dog dig a hole in his yard. We can see that the man treated his neighbors rudely, albeit the neighbor’s behavior was also reprehensible. His actions would be considered a light sin (called venial sins by the Catholic Church). It’s not of the same moral weight as theft or murder, but it’s still a sin.

After shouting at the neighbors, with all the anger and stress in his body the man walks into his house, has a heart attack, and dies having just committed a small sin in the final moments of his life. Remember, this man is Christian and justified by the Lord, yet has committed a sin. Does he go to heaven or does he go to hell? Are all sins created equal? No, all sins are not equal and even justified men of the Lord can make mistakes and sin.

If purgatory didn’t exist, the man would go to hell for his small sin. God’s mercy is so great and our God is a just God that it seems unfathomable that he would condemn a justified man to hell for a small, yet unrepented sin. The man’s soul is dirty. His actions have defiled his soul, but not the point where he has cut himself off from God. Onlymortal sins cut off a person from God’s grace. So, the man, having been justified by the Lord, is destined for heaven, yet his soul is defiled by his sin (Matthew 12:36, 15:18). His soul is in need of cleansing because nothing defiled can enter heaven. This is the purpose of purgatory. Out of mercy and love God sends the man through purgatory on his way to heaven so that his soul can be purified to be able to join God in heaven.

Remember, purgatory is not a second chance for conversion; the man is already justified. If there is no place of intermediate state of purification, the man would be damned to hell! Who would be saved? Those who teach against purgatory teach an unreasonable doctrine.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not really. It was over indulgences themselves, and he indicted the Pope and the whole church for sponsoring them.

Yes, but he was wrong. The Church was already trying to stop abuses, and having a hard time doing it. The same as today. The Church constantly needs reform, as do we all.

 

[Root of Jesse]

We seem to be making some progress. Previously you claimed that this fundraising was a purely local matter.

I said no such thing. I said that those selling indulgences were locals. They were authorized to fund-raise for the building of St. Peter's. They overstepped their authority by implying that people could get out of purgatory by donating.

It's not. It's a practice or policy. However, the church does and did teach that an indulgence would get your future time in Purgatory shortened or eliminated or that you could apply it to someone else.

You can gain indulgences by meeting all the requirements with the right frame of mind, but you cannot buy indulgences. During this year of Mercy, Pope Francis declared that an indulgence would be granted those who made a pilgrimage to a cathedral with a Holy Door. To gain the indulgence, you must also go to Mass, receive the Eucharist, and go to confession. All of these are pious acts, when done with the right intention. You can't write a check to the Vatican and gain indulgence, and you never could. Tetzel implied it, as did others, but it wasn't the doctrine of the Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It IS the Bible that we're speaking of.

The Contents of which were determined by the Magisterium under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

We all believe that, since the Scripture teaches it. That doesn't mean that we ought to invent ideas and justify them by saying, "Jesus said more than is in the Bible, so let's consider this to be in that category." Especially not, considering that the Bible says that we don't need that unrecorded information, whatever it might have been.

If that's what the Church did, you'd be right. But since that's not what the Church did or does, you're not.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

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?

Oh, I answered the question, unless you're saying that the canon of Scripture is not necessary for salvation.

I am saying for this discussion at this point in time there is no difference between using the word scripture, Bible or canon of Scripture. And, a list or table of contents is not doctrine that saves or rules a church. It is the words in the books that save and teach.

From Wikipedia: A biblical canon or canon of scripture[1] is a list of texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture.

So I ask for something not in scripture and you answer scripture.
You think that an honest answer?

I believe, and my Church believes, that the Sacred Word of God is necessary for salvation. If you don't, I wonder many things about you...

I started this thread to defend SS. I believe it is the only source of incontrovertible truths necessary for salvation. You believe it is necessary for salvation. We agree on so much for even in your church, scripture is the basis for the majority of your doctrine.

I Wonder as I Wander;
I wonder what bug makes people think additional unnecessary teachings that can't be listed are so important.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but he was wrong. The Church was already trying to stop abuses, and having a hard time doing it. The same as today. The Church constantly needs reform, as do we all.

Got any evidence of that, since it was the Vatican that sent Tetzel out to collect money through distributing indulgences in return for contributions to the building fund of St. Peter's in Rome?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am saying for this discussion at this point in time there is no difference between using the word scripture, Bible or canon of Scripture. And, a list or table of contents is not doctrine that saves or rules a church. It is the words in the books that save and teach.

Wrong, because this gives anyone who desires to do so to carve out books they feel don't match up to what they believe. The Canon of Scripture contains all that saves and rules the Church.

From Wikipedia: A biblical canon or canon of scripture[1] is a list of texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture.

So I ask for something not in scripture and you answer scripture.
You think that an honest answer?

I didn't answer scripture. I answered Canon of Scripture, which is different. The Canon provides for us what God meant for us to learn in order to be saved.

I started this thread to defend SS. I believe it is the only source of incontrovertible truths necessary for salvation. You believe it is necessary for salvation. We agree on so much for even in your church, scripture is the basis for the majority of your doctrine.

And yet you cannot even agree as to what is in Scripture. That alone makes one wonder.

I Wonder as I Wander;
I wonder what bug makes people think additional unnecessary teachings that can't be listed are so important.

Who decides what's unnecessary? Christ left us an authority to decide. But some fell away. In fact a lot fell away.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Got any evidence of that, since it was the Vatican that sent Tetzel out to collect money through distributing indulgences in return for contributions to the building fund of St. Peter's in Rome?

Yes, there is evidence of that. Plenty. I agree with you that the Vatican sent Tetzel out to collect money. The Vatican did not give him authority to distribute indulgences in return for contributions. Tetzel overstepped the authority he was given. That happens a lot, just look at our President.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Is the "canon" a tradition/teaching passed down from Christ? Is it a teaching of Christ that is absent from the Bible?

It is a teaching of God, the Holy Spirit, that is absent from the Bible. I believe, we Catholics and Orthodox believe, that Jesus taught more than what was written. John even tells us this.

You Catholics rest/wrest so much on 1 Corinthians 11:2 and John 21:25. Now you add to traditions with any new traditions you want and say it is a teaching of God, the Holy Spirit. Is there no end to what you will say and what a Catholic will say is God's incontrovertible truth?

You defend your unwritten traditions as being passed down from Christ as Paul was doing with the Corinthians. Understand, that requires it to have been said previously; not a new revelation. I asked for an example of one of those traditions passed down from Jesus and necessary for salvation. You have yet to give an honest answer to it.

An unanswered claim by sculleywr was the discussion. He argued that Jesus taught more than what was recorded in our scripture/canon. I just ask for one simple example of something that Jesus taught that is required for salvation and is not stated in scripture.

We also believe that God continues to reveal himself to us.

This is not a tradition from Jesus life on earth and not what I asked. It is a completely different question.

I think what you need to do is define what "necessary for salvation" means.

Do you not understand English that I have to define necessary?
Do you not understand Christianity that I have to define salvation?
Do you just want to play word games in hopes that you never have to provide an honest answer?

I believe that the Word of God as spoken in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and taught through the Magisterium, is all necessary for salvation.

Getting back to my point then.
Are the SS Protestants that lack your "Sacred Traditions" and "Magisterium" going to hell?

Let me answer that one for you because other Catholics have already answered it. SS Protestants that lack your traditions and magisterium will still be saved. That means you profess something necessary that your doctrine says is not.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The Contents of which were determined by the Magisterium under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

More like your church created a table of contents. Your church did not create the contents.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

From Wikipedia: A biblical canon or canon of scripture[1] is a list of texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture.

So I ask for something not in scripture and you answer scripture.
You think that an honest answer?

I didn't answer scripture. I answered Canon of Scripture, which is different.

Not according to Wikipedia. Nice try to weasel out from providing an honest answer yet again.

And yet you cannot even agree as to what is in Scripture. That alone makes one wonder.

More like you can't agree with what scripture is even when I quote Wikipedia. What makes me wonder is how your posts play with words to deceive the meaning thereof.

 

[JohnRabbit]

I believe that the Word of God as spoken in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and taught through the Magisterium, is all necessary for salvation.

????

but paul said:

2 Timothy 3:15(KJV)
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

now correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the old testament all they had when paul wrote this?

so if paul said that the old testament scriptures were able to make one wise unto salvation, then why would we need sacred tradition and the "magic thingy"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You Catholics rest/wrest so much on 1 Corinthians 11:2 and John 21:25. Now you add to traditions with any new traditions you want and say it is a teaching of God, the Holy Spirit. Is there no end to what you will say and what a Catholic will say is God's incontrovertible truth?

Actually, there are no new Traditions. There are new practices which might or might not be good. But not new Traditions. I'd love for you to name one, and let's see if we're talking about the same thing.

You defend your unwritten traditions as being passed down from Christ as Paul was doing with the Corinthians. Understand, that requires it to have been said previously; not a new revelation. I asked for an example of one of those traditions passed down from Jesus and necessary for salvation. You have yet to give an honest answer to it.

The gospels were Tradition before they were written. But not everything that Jesus said, did, or meant is written.

This is not a tradition from Jesus life on earth and not what I asked. It is a completely different question.

Do you not understand English that I have to define necessary?
Do you not understand Christianity that I have to define salvation?
Do you just want to play word games in hopes that you never have to provide an honest answer?

Actually, I'm not playing word games. Words mean things. They sometimes meant something different when they were coined than what they do now. Take, for instance "liberal" and "conservative".

Getting back to my point then.
Are the SS Protestants that lack your "Sacred Traditions" and "Magisterium" going to hell?

I have no decisional authority to determine who goes to hell. Neither does anyone here on earth.

Let me answer that one for you because other Catholics have already answered it. SS Protestants that lack your traditions and magisterium will still be saved. That means you profess something necessary that your doctrine says is not.

I don't know that SS Protestants will be saved, either. It's above my paygrade. It's not for me to judge someone's final resting place.
The difference between Protestants and Catholics is that we have the entire banquet. You folks limit yourself to a portion of that feast. I know that just because I'm Catholic doesn't mean automatically I'm going to heaven, there's lots of imperfection out there. What I say a lot is that our Protestant brethren do so much with so little, while we do so little with so much.

 

[Root of Jesse]

????

but paul said:

2 Timothy 3:15(KJV)
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

now correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the old testament all they had when paul wrote this?

so if paul said that the old testament scriptures were able to make one wise unto salvation, then why would we need sacred tradition and the "magic thingy"?

We don't know what Scripture was at the time, do we? Much of it wasn't written yet. But Paul also tells the Thessalonians "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not according to Wikipedia. Nice try to weasel out from providing an honest answer yet again.

More like you can't agree with what scripture is even when I quote Wikipedia. What makes me wonder is how your posts play with words to deceive the meaning thereof.

I don't take Wikipedia as my primary source. Sorry, they have no authority.

 

[Root of Jesse]

More like your church created a table of contents. Your church did not create the contents.

My Church contains all the authors of the New Testament, as well as those who determined the table of contents.

 

[Albion]

Yes, there is evidence of that. Plenty.

I guess I should have been more explicit and asked what it is.

 

[redleghunter]

That's true. However, the supposed benefit that's supposed to come from an indulgence relates to Purgatory, and both of these are doctrinal inventions that came from "Sacred Tradition."

Thought we should recount a Tetzel indulgence story. From Christian Courier:

An “indulgence” is the promise of the remission of temporal punishment upon the basis of certain prescribed “good works,” e.g., fasting, prayers, pilgrimages, etc. Mainly, though, it was alleged that the pains of purgatory could be minimized by the payment of money into the Church treasury. The construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome was partially financed by the sale of indulgences.

Pope Leo X (A.D. 1475-1521) commissioned John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to travel throughout Germany selling indulgences on behalf of the Church. Tetzel declared that as soon as the coins “clinked” in his money chest, the souls of those for whom the indulgences had been purchased would fly out of purgatory.

These indulgences not only bestowed pardon for sins committed already, they were used to license the commission of future transgressions as well. In the classic volume, The Life and Times of Martin Luther, noted historian Merle D’Aubigne relates an amusing episode relative to this practice.

A certain Saxon nobleman heard John Tetzel proclaiming his doctrine of indulgences, and the gentleman was much aggravated at this perversion of truth. Accordingly, he approached the monk one day and inquired as to whether he might purchase an indulgence for a sin he intended to commit.

“Most assuredly,” replied Tetzel, “I have received full powers from his holiness for that purpose.” After some haggling, a fee of thirty crowns was agreed upon, and the nobleman departed.

Together with some friends, he hid himself in a nearby forest. Presently, as Tetzel journeyed that way, the knight and his mischievous companions fell upon the papal salesman, gave him a light beating, and relieved him of his money, apparently taking no pains to disguise themselves.

Tetzel was enraged by the foul deed and filed suit in the courts. When the nobleman appeared as the defendant, he produced the letter of exemption containing John Tetzel’s personal signature, which absolved the Saxon of any liability. When Duke George (the judge before whom the action was brought) examined the document, exasperated though he was, he ordered the accused to be released.

Error is its own worst enemy!

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1082-john-tetzels-indulgences

Ping; @PeaceByJesus

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

????

but paul said:

2 Timothy 3:15(KJV)
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

now correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the old testament all they had when paul wrote this?

so if paul said that the old testament scriptures were able to make one wise unto salvation, then why would we need sacred tradition and the "magic thingy"?

We don't know what Scripture was at the time, do we? Much of it wasn't written yet.

Paul knew what scripture was and declared it sufficient for salvation. You think it took another 300 years for your church to put a stamp on something as theirs and you still consider it not sufficient for salvation.