Evidence from Sola Scriptura - right from the Bible itself

[EastCoastRemnant]

The problem is you don't rely on Scripture, but rather someone's interpretation of it. Sola Scriptura doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work in practice. Everyone reads Scripture through a lens. It just can't be helped.

We have instruction for that... the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. The question isn't whether someone can have an interpretation of scripture and share it with others, it's whether it can be verified through the written Word. Think of sola scriptura as the scientific method of Divine revelation...

 

[Erose]

Whether we have a lens or not doesn't matter. What matters is we agree to what we read. In this case Scripture.

No what really matters is if we all have one faith. The problem is that there are so many different interpretations of Scripture on very important issues. That is a huge problem. My point being is that if we settle with just that, then Scripture really becomes meaningless, and that is not the intent of Scripture.

Again, we can agree that your Magisterium is the authority, the only valid lens wearer/seer. Now, all it has to do is agree to use Scripture alone in coming to its conclusions about doctrine and practice.

The lens is Sacred Tradition, not the Magisterium. Your lens is the faith tradition you are part of, and hopefully not your preacher only. The Magisterium's, and hopefully your preacher's, function is to preserve the understanding of our faith, and to pass it on to the current and next generation of Christians.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Yeah, I know the definition of SS.

So then why bear false witness against it? To make a point based on a lie?

 

[Erose]

We have instruction for that... the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. The question isn't whether someone can have an interpretation of scripture and share it with others, it's whether it can be verified through the written Word. Think of sola scriptura as the scientific method of Divine revelation...

Yeah, so how well has that worked? The only way I would buy the fallacy of SS is if all those that adhere to SS, believed the same set of doctrines. But you don't have that, you have a wide range of interpretations by denominations that believe as you do that the Holy Spirit led them to those interpretations. So you fall into one of two things. Either there is only one Protestant faith tradition that is 100% right; or that the Holy Spirit teaches one person one thing and the next another, and that later one I just can't believe to be true. Thus that leads one to the former, and then the question is, which one? Is it yours, SUs or some other denomination? And if so how would one truly know?

 

[Erose]

So then why bear false witness against it? To make a point based on a lie?

No the point is based on truth, a truth that sadly you don't want to admit.

 

[MennoSota]

Your right it is a God exercise. On this we can agree.

Actually we have God speaking to humanity through His Prophets and then His Son.

Yep, we call that the Protestant Rebellion.

Hum. A couple of errors here. When St. Paul was evangelizing the people in Berea, they were not a Church but a Synagogue of Jews.

What part of knowing who you evangelize and using what you share in common to get your message across? Have you not read the rest of Act Ch 17? When St. Paul was evangelizing the Athens, who were Gentiles, did he at any time quote Scripture to them? No he did not. Why? Because they wouldn't have cared one way or another what Scripture would have said. Rather he used in his evangelizing a statue of an unknown god, and the Greek poets.

See how that works? The Jews of Berea are not evidence, and never has been evidence of Sola Scriptura. What they are evidence of is St. Paul's incredible skill of using that which was familiar to evangelize his audience.

I'm not say that what the Bereans did was wrong, what they did using Scripture to fact check what St. Paul said, was definitely the right way to go about it, especially if you are convinced that Scripture is the Word of God. I use Scripture all the time to fact check what one says, it is part of what we should do as Christians. Here on this board there is one thing we have in common, and that is we all recognized the authority of Scripture, and as such here we have to a certain point a common point.

One thing I don't do here is use the books that the Protestants threw out of Scripture, to debate with, because these are not accepted by most Protestants. So for me to quote the book of Sirach, would be a waste of time. This is what St. Paul shows in Chapter 17. Use that which the people you are evangelizing are familiar with.

What an ignorant statement. You know it is these types of statements that makes me ask the question why some denominations feel the need to lie to their congregation about history to demonize another group of Christians.

One of the greatest inventions of the Devil.

I understand that you are going to cling to the robes of the Roman rulers rather than to God's word in the Scriptures.
When Paul talked, the Scriptures always informed his discussion. This is true in Berea, Athens and everywhere he went. Paul did not make up doctrines from his own mind as the Roman church has done for the past 1500 years.

No lies, I am just pointing out the obvious heresies prevalent within the Roman church.
Mary and saint worship, indulgences, combining grace with works, no marriage for clergy, need for a priest for confession, etc...
The Solas are bible based. Sadly, the Roman church worships it human traditions and ignores God's word.

 

[MennoSota]

Yeah, the difference is we don't deny the fact. For some reason many of you do.

What fact? Try fantasy.

The lack of biblical data on those issues is a stark reminder of the false path the rcc has taken.

 

[Root of Jesse]

First of all -- 2 Mac is not in the Hebrew OT. it is Apocryphal even by Jerome's standard.

Why must we go by the Hebrew OT? And Jerome corrected his own mistake.

Secondly - 2 Mac does NOT contain "prayers TO the dead" - nor "communion WITH the Dead".

We don't pray to the dead.

Thirdly

- 2 Mac states clearly that IN the state of death - the prayers had no effect at all - it is only in view of the resurrection that they had any benefit -- according to the explicit statements in the text.

Spiritual death.

Fourthly - the DEAD in 2 Macc died in acts of pagan worship and idolatry - that even the RCC considers to be a mortal sin - and those who die with mortal sin do NOT go to purgatory - they go straight to hell according to RCC doctrine so the 2Mac example would be one of praying TO the wicked in hell if the RCC "communion with the DEAD" 958 -- were correct.

It's only a mortal sin if they knew it was a mortal sin. It's also only a mortal sin if they decided to commit it even though they knew it was wrong. We don't know those details, so prayer FOR the dead may be useful. It's only not useful if they're really spiritually dead. In that case the prayers are still efficacious, God uses all prayer.

So nothing at all like speaking to the dead as if they hear you and can answer your prayers.

Who does this??? Seems like you're judging people's hearts and actions...

That has to be a "wake-up call" for someone. It would be for me if I were appealing to that 2 Macc case.

But, of course, you're not, so it's not.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

No the point is based on truth, a truth that sadly you don't want to admit.

You just were shown that a statement you made was false and now you are calling it truth again...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It's only a mortal sin if they knew it was a mortal sin. It's also only a mortal sin if they decided to commit it even though they knew it was wrong.

Interesting you mention this... against what standard did the pre Sinai people sin... how did Joseph know adultery was wrong, or Moses killing the Egyptian? How could God have punished Cain without his knowledge of Divine Law? Why did God kill millions of His own creation with the flood?

You see, the Decalogue, the principles of which were given to Adam and passed down through the generations are by what God judged the fallen race... otherwise, God would not be Just, correct?

 

[BobRyan]

Chair of Moses is like a metaphor; see Neh. 8:4-8.
Mannah is a symbol of Christ that awaited NT.
Nazarene is found in the OT as applied to Christ.

Point is still you've no reference to Christ quoting from tradition, rather than scripture.

Chair of Moses indicates the highest known position of Church authority - appealing to the Apostle that God Himself established at Sinai. Hard to believe our Catholic brethren would be struggling with that concept.

Hint: Nobody in the NT talks about someone "sitting in the seat of Peter" or James or John or... The only one replaced - was Judas.

 

[BobRyan]

Some. Prayer for the dead is one, of course that is also found in the 2nd Book of Maccabees. Veneration of previous Saints is another.

First of all -- 2 Mac is not in the Hebrew OT. it is Apocryphal even by Jerome's standard.
Secondly - 2 Mac does NOT contain "prayers TO the dead" - nor "communion WITH the Dead".
Thirdly - 2 Mac states clearly that IN the state of death - the prayers had no effect at all - it is only in view of the resurrection that they had any benefit -- according to the explicit statements in the text.
Fourthly - the DEAD in 2 Macc died in acts of pagan worship and idolatry - that even the RCC considers to be a mortal sin - and those who die with mortal sin do NOT go to purgatory - they go straight to hell according to RCC doctrine so the 2Mac example would be one of praying TO the wicked in hell if the RCC "communion with the DEAD" CCC958 -- were correct.

So nothing at all like speaking to the dead as if they hear you and can answer your prayers.

That has to be a "wake-up call" for someone. It would be for me if I were appealing to that 2 Macc case.

Why must we go by the Hebrew OT?

Depends on whether you want an OT or not. Did you think it was written by the Pope??

What language did you think it was written in??

And Jerome corrected his own mistake.[/quote]

Jerome never stated that he made a mistake. He stated that his "arm was twisted".

regarding the RCC doctrine on "communion with the DEAD" CCC 958

We don't pray to the dead.

So then - no "Communion WITH the dead" for you??

Spiritual death.
It's only a mortal sin if they knew it was a mortal sin. It's also only a mortal sin if they decided to commit it even though they knew it was wrong.

So then "only if' the Jews who died as worshippers of pagan false gods -- actually knew about the TEN Commandments - only then would it have been wrong?

Notice that in 2Macc the death of those Jews was attributed to their pagan worship. So they were accountable enough to be executed but not accountable enough to have it as a mortal sin??

2 Macc 12
38Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the Sabbath there.
39On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs.
40But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
41They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes he did, but where in the OT does it speak of the Chair of Moses as being passed down?

Changing goal posts.

Still nothing it seems. Guess you can finally admit that the prophecy that the Messiah was to bring Manna, isn't in the OT.

You're supposed to be finding where Christ quoted tradition as authoritative from the OT period, rather than the "it is written".

Forgot that one did you?

Guess you gave up on finding the prophecy in the OT were Jesus was suppose to be a Nazarene. So can we now move on, and call this debate done, or are you going to keep trying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(title)

What about John's baptism?

 

[Standing Up]

Chair of Moses indicates the highest known position of Church authority - appealing to the Apostle that God Himself established at Sinai. Hard to believe our Catholic brethren would be struggling with that concept.

Hint: Nobody in the NT talks about someone "sitting in the seat of Peter" or James or John or... The only one replaced - was Judas.

The idea of a seat of Moses sources to this:

Ex. 18:13
And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.

Since a chair/Moses was mentioned in Jesus' time, then it was obviously passed down.

RC then took over this OT role with its Magisterium and with its substituting Sinai Pentecost for Zion Pentecost (can't have one without the other because Zion is qualitatively different from Sinai).

 

[Erose]

Changing goal posts.

Yeah, I wished you would stop that, and admit it ain't there in Scripture.

You're supposed to be finding where Christ quoted tradition as authoritative from the OT period, rather than the "it is written".

I did, you just deny that fact. There are plenty of things that Jesus said, that doesn't start with "It is written..."; in fact most of the things He says does not start with "It is written...".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(title)

From your link: The Gospel of Matthew explains that the title Nazarene is derived from the prophecy "He will be called a Nazorean",[4] but this has no obvious Old Testament source.

What about John's baptism?

Where is it at in the OT?

 

[Erose]

You just were shown that a statement you made was false and now you are calling it truth again...

What statement did I make that was false?

 

[Erose]

What fact? Try fantasy.

The lack of biblical data on those issues is a stark reminder of the false path the rcc has taken.

What the lack of biblical data on this myth of Sola Scriptura? That isn't our doctrine that is yours.

 

[Erose]

I understand that you are going to cling to the robes of the Roman rulers rather than to God's word in the Scriptures.

Now you are just being silly. The Scriptures led me to the Catholic Church and away from your new faith traditions, so...

When Paul talked, the Scriptures always informed his discussion. This is true in Berea, Athens and everywhere he went. Paul did not make up doctrines from his own mind as the Roman church has done for the past 1500 years.

When St. Paul preached, he taught the Gospel of Christ, he didn't have the New Testament for inform his discussion, all he used was the Old and the teaching he received from the Apostles and Christ Himself.

No lies, I am just pointing out the obvious heresies prevalent within the Roman church.
Mary and saint worship, indulgences, combining grace with works, no marriage for clergy, need for a priest for confession, etc...

Considering some of these points are not doctrine, others are not what we do, and so forth, one can assume you are talking of matters that you are ignorant of.

The Solas are bible based. Sadly, the Roman church worships it human traditions and ignores God's word.

No. Solas are based upon someboby's interpretation of Scripture...except for one that has no basis in Scripture which is the Sola we are discussing.

 

[Erose]

First of all -- 2 Mac is not in the Hebrew OT. it is Apocryphal even by Jerome's standard.
Secondly - 2 Mac does NOT contain "prayers TO the dead" - nor "communion WITH the Dead".
Thirdly - 2 Mac states clearly that IN the state of death - the prayers had no effect at all - it is only in view of the resurrection that they had any benefit -- according to the explicit statements in the text.
Fourthly - the DEAD in 2 Macc died in acts of pagan worship and idolatry - that even the RCC considers to be a mortal sin - and those who die with mortal sin do NOT go to purgatory - they go straight to hell according to RCC doctrine so the 2Mac example would be one of praying TO the wicked in hell if the RCC "communion with the DEAD" CCC958 -- were correct.

So nothing at all like speaking to the dead as if they hear you and can answer your prayers.

That has to be a "wake-up call" for someone. It would be for me if I were appealing to that 2 Macc case.

And Jerome corrected his own mistake.

Again back to the tactic of ignoring what is actually said so that you can argue against something that wasn't said, how SDA of you.

 

[Erose]

Chair of Moses indicates the highest known position of Church authority - appealing to the Apostle that God Himself established at Sinai.

Ok where is that taught in the OT?

Hint: Nobody in the NT talks about someone "sitting in the seat of Peter" or James or John or... The only one replaced - was Judas.

Ok, I get it, you believe that the Church ceased to exist 2000 years ago, and we are all doomed. Makes sense.