Evidence from Sola Scriptura - right from the Bible itself

MennoSota

Sola Gratia
Dec 11, 2015
2,535
964
US
✟22,574.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Doubt it.

If you are so against non-biblical heretical teachings, why do you still hold to the false teachings of Sola Scriptura and OSAS?

Actually I have full support, it's called the Bible, and the witness of the Church Fathers. You have Calvin and hate sites.

Yeah, perhaps you need to work on your tact then, because you are coming off as being pretty hateful.

So let's set this straight.
I believe that God's word is authoritative over church tradition. God's word is not tradition, it is...God's word. Therefore, Sola Scriptura means that God's word acts as the supreme court judge on all church decisions and traditions. If the church statement and tradition are contrary to God's word, they must be thrown out. I have laid out specific teachings of the Roman church that must be thrown put because God's word judges them as heresy.

Second, the Bible clearly teaches predestination and God's work of adoption. Since these are facts (Read Ephesians 1) the truth is firmly spoken by God. God makes us alive (Read Ephesians 2 :1-10). Where does the Bible say that the God who makes spiritually dead people alive changes His mind and then makes them spiritually dead again? Please show us where God does that.
Erose, you are using phrases that are silly. Why do you insist on all the efforts of salvation having to come from humans? You have made up a whole list of requirements and procedures to maintain relationship with God. These commands may seem valuable on the surface, but they are spiritually powerless. (Colossians 2:21-23)

Erose, you don't have the Bible. You cannot support infant baptism for salvation, indulgences, merit of the saints, purgatory, etc..., in the Bible. You have no source from God's word. You, instead, rely upon the Roman church to guide your blind eyes. Unfortunately, the Rc has made up those teachings out of the figments of their imaginations. No biblical support, Erose.

All the Apostles and second generation Christians would be appalled at the heresy, which has crept into the church at Rome. Toss out Jezebel, Erose.

Erose, I have the saints of Hebrews 11, the prophets of old, the Apostles, Polycarp, Augustine, Hus, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wycliffe, Bunyan, the Puritans, Edwards, Spurgeon, Pink, Piper, Begg, etc... who all read the Bible and let God's word direct their thoughts.

When any church teaches a message contrary to God's word, that church must repent of its heresy and turn to Christ, the head, the King and the Sovereign Lord.

Your frustration is because you are mad that I point out the heresy of your church leadership. You refuse to let God's word stand in authority over your church. You want to make your church the arbiter over God's word. That is wrong. Stop it.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,530
10,738
Georgia
✟924,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You have consistently made an unsubstantiated claim that church tradition includes the Bible. It is a lie you need to perpetuate in order to maintain Roman church totalitarianism.
God is not a tradition and His word is not subservient or even equal to tradition. His word always measures tradition as beneficial or heretical. .

Hence the example that we have in Mark 7:6-13 where Christ hammers the traditions of church magisterium "sola scriptura".

A demonstrated practice by Christ that is "not supposed to even exist" according to "some" on this thread.

Bob, the Church as an institution didn't exist yet.

The RCC would not evolve into existence for many more centuries after Christ's statement to the church leadership of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - in Mark 7.

But in Romans 11 that same - single - tree - where both OT and NT saints are grafted in -- is seen again in Rev 12 as the pure woman that gives birth to Christ and then for 1260 years in the dark ages is persecuted by Satan and his agents.

Thus when Christ hammers the leadership, the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai "sola scriptura" in Mark 7 -- he shows us "how it is done"!

notice that in Mark 7 the discussion is about worship, church tradition and doctrine.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7:6-13

.

In Isaiah 8:20 we find this "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them".

There again we have sola scriptura - being taught.



Well thanks for contradicting yourself all in one single post. That made things quite easy.

False factless accusations of that sort are a dime-a-dozen.

next.

The Scribes and Pharisees, would not have been considered the magisterium of the Jewish nation Bob.

until you read the actual Bible where Christ points to them as "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." Matt 23:2 -

Less false accusation - more Bible facts please.


Actually you have no such thing. I know you want it to be there, but no matter how much you want it to be, it isn't there. Do you not see what Jesus is referring to here? Their tradition, not THE Tradition. THE Jewish traditions, are those handed down from Moses all the way to Jesus' time and beyond.

This is where you shoot yourself in the foot.

Much of Catholic tradition has no such "Moses speaking from God" source to it all. Most of us know that.

Yet we all know that God spoke to Moses - and at least some of what the jews had at the time of Christ came from that infallible source. STILL they had traditions that could be hammered - sola scriptura as we see Christ doing in Mark 7.

The point remains.

He is going after the added requirements above and beyond THE Tradition of the Jews.

Christ said He was going after their tradition and not "requirements beyond tradition" -- read the actual text instead of making stuff up.

Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition,

No it is not. Read Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye


it is as simple as that. Then you throw in the fact, that the concept of Sola Scriptura is also in Isaiah 8:20 and has worked at every step you can avoid the mess that Christianity discovered in the dark ages when ruled by the RCC

Actually we have someone greater Bob, we have Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Whether or not you like it, the Catholic Church is the tree that Christ planted and grew.

not according to the bible. Hence this thread on the "sola scriptura" topic.

Ok this shows that you really don't know what Tradition is. The Jewish Sacred Tradition is the whole Old Covenant. All of it handed down to them from Moses and the Prophets.

Not according to Christ in Mark 7. In Mark 7 Christ points to some of their tradition (as they themselves aslo mention in that chapter) that can be found nowhere in the OT text. Much like prayers to the dead, purgatory, indulgences, worship of images, confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ in the mass, Bible burning, Bible banning... (a long list here)

That is Sacred Tradition of the Jews. What Jesus criticized them for was adding additional moral requirements to what was handed down

Kinda like that list just given -- " prayers to the dead, purgatory, indulgences, worship of images, confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ in the mass, Bible burning, Bible banning... (a long list here)"

To some extent I do agree with you - Christ was condemning stuff that they made up - which contradicts the text of the OT (scripture) -- but notice he is doing it "sola scriptura" in Mark 7:6-13.

It just goes to prove my point, Sola Scriptura fails because of the lens of faith tradition.

to the contrary - Mark 7 is a great example of the lense of faith tradition being shattered 'sola scriptura' - by Christ.

The point remains.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MennoSota
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,530
10,738
Georgia
✟924,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Here is a not-so-subtle secret on this topic. The standard "death to sola-scriptura playbook" becomes a train wreck when it slams into the Mark 7:6-13 wall. So those who use playbook solutions simply back the train up a bit and try running it again into that Mark 7:6-13 and Gal 1:6-9 wall "again" rather than thinking about the problem and solving it in favor of tradition ignoring the Bible.

Without taking the time to solve the problem - you are just seeing the train wreck 'over and over' as it slams into Mark 7.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
14,033
3,585
✟326,521.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
God was not obscure in sharing His word. He speaks plainly to us. Those who hear the Shepherd's voice, respond to His word.
I'm not sure if you've thought this through. The bible is often quite unclear on many matters. It was never intended to be a creed or catechism, for examples. And this is why sincere people, scholars included, often disagree on issues such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, justification, the role of free will even tho the church, east and west, has been settled for the most part on these matters from the beginning, manifest in both their teachings as well as their practices. Even the deity of Jesus is no slam-dunk affair, which is why many followed Arius in his heresy centuries ago, and why the church needed to hammer out and definitively establish the doctrine of the Trinity.
When the church presents a message that is contrary to the Shepherd's, the sheep must ignore and reject that voice. Any church that speaks in contradiction of the Bible, God's word, must be reprimanded as speaking falsely.

Infant baptism for salvation is false.
You divide here with many Protestants as well as with the practice of the church since the beginning of Christianity.
Indulgences is false.
Merits of the saints is false.
Works salvation is false.
Beginning with God's call, salvation is both an individual and a communal or corporate effort; God calling, man responding, and helping each other to respond as well; grace building on and leading to even more grace. That's the role of the church, God's people. As individuals we work out our salvation with He who works in us; grace always preceding. We must work because only a dead faith would resist the work God has prepared for us in Christ Jesus, and a dead faith saves no one whereas a living faith leads to love, transforming us into the image of God, and love works by its nature as per Gal 5:6, expressing itself as per Matt 25:34-40, which becomes a basis for our very judgment.
Salvation via communion is false.
Nope. Salvation has everything to do with communion with God, 'Apart from Whom we can do nothing but with Whom all things are possible', paraphrasing and conflating a couple well-known passages. This ongoing communion is the basis of the New Covenant, the source of changed hearts, of transformation, of our justice/justification.
Purgatory is false.
Even some Protestants disagree on this.
Mary worship is false.
No one I know of worships Mary. Certainly not an RC position.
Shine and icon making is idol worship and false.
They've never been sources of idolatry.

So congratulations on your pontificate; you've managed to make what for all practical purposes amount to several infallible declarations here.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,530
10,738
Georgia
✟924,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure if you've thought this through. The bible is often quite unclear on many matters. It was never intended to be a creed or catechism, for examples. And this is why sincere people, scholars included, often disagree on issues such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, justification, the role of free will even tho the church, east and west, has been settled for the most part on these matters from the beginning, manifest in both their teachings as well as their practices. Even the deity of Jesus is no slam-dunk affair, which is why many followed Arius in his heresy centuries ago, and why the church needed to hammer out and definitively establish the doctrine of the Trinity.

Which is not unlike what the Jewish magisterium was saying to Paul regarding that "sect of Judaism" that they referred to as "the Way".
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,530
10,738
Georgia
✟924,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
MennoSota said:
When the church presents a message that is contrary to the Shepherd's, the sheep must ignore and reject that voice. Any church that speaks in contradiction of the Bible, God's word, must be reprimanded as speaking falsely.

Infant baptism for salvation is false.

You divide here with many Protestants as well as with the practice of the church since the beginning of Christianity.

.

1. Not according to the Bible.
2. Not according to what Christianity Today claims is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world.
3. not according to your own RCC church - "Catholic Digest" when it did a review of the history of infant baptism.
4. not according to your own RCC historian - Thomas Bokenkotter when he did a review of how the elders and presbyters eventually evolved into the sacred priestly clergy.

Your sources -- #3, #4 in that list both claim that this practice "evolved" over time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MennoSota

Sola Gratia
Dec 11, 2015
2,535
964
US
✟22,574.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
It's interesting when Christians over think and imagine themselves to be wise.
We let God's word speak plainly and we obey. Most people who earn a living in religious studies do so to earn a living. Christians need less of other human opinion and more of simple faith in the plain sense of the Bible.
I identify as a Calvinist, not because of Calvin, but because when I read God's word, Calvin reads it similarly. It's just common sense.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,530
10,738
Georgia
✟924,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It's interesting when Christians over think and imagine themselves to be wise.
We let God's word speak plainly and we obey. Most people who earn a living in religious studies do so to earn a living. Christians need less of other human opinion and more of simple faith in the plain sense of the Bible.
I identify as a Calvinist, not because of Calvin, but because when I read God's word, Calvin reads it similarly. It's just common sense.

Since you did not invent Calvinism you have no skin in that game if it turns out that Calvinism differs with the Bible on a few points -- and in that case you would be free to go with the Bible at each of those forks in the road.
 
Upvote 0

MennoSota

Sola Gratia
Dec 11, 2015
2,535
964
US
✟22,574.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Since you did not invent Calvinism you have no skin in that game if it turns out that Calvinism differs with the Bible on a few points -- and in that case you would be free to go with the Bible at each of those forks in the road.
We seek God's viewpoint, not man's.
 
Upvote 0