Sola Scriptura defined....

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes. All have sinned except the Master Yeshua Messiah Savior King of the Jews Healer Counselor Prince of Peace Comforter Shepherd Redeemer Rabbi .... ... .. .

"Your must be born again" applies to all except Yeshua.

"Without faith it is impossible to please YHWH" is always truth, perfect truth.

This is not all only Sola Scriptura though - everyone in Christ Jesus regardless of if they hold to Sola Scriptura
rejoices in the experiential knowledge of salvation regardless of what country, school, church, ethnic group or any other criteria / group/ they were in or are in....

Everyone in Christ Jesus rejoices in salvation in union with Jesus along with everyone else in Christ Jesus , all being born again by the will of the Father in heaven and all being immersed in Jesus buried and resurrected in newness of life, walking in/by faith and grace as YHWH pleases. Jesus never turns anyone away who comes to HIM. (to Jesus).

 

[Tayla]

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

Seems there are at least a zillion definitions of Sola Scriptura. Thank you for providing one of these for our consideration.

It seems you are saying I can't use archaeology (for example) as evidence the Bible is true; rather, I have to jump right in from mid-air and believe the Bible. When witnessing to new potential believers, don't we first have to demonstrate to them the Bible is historically trustworthy and worthy of belief?

You don't mention whether Christians have to believe every detail of the Bible. Are only certain details necessary? If so, how do we know which ones?

I assume you would wish we exclude provable errors (if any) from our belief.

 

[Tayla]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So now I'm Catholic.

I did that too. Fundamentalist evangelical Protestant to Catholic.

 

[Tayla]

you argue against Sola Scriptura without knowing what it actually means.

I know what Sola Scriptura means and I reject it.

I believe the apostles are the authority for the Christian faith, and that they wrote the New Testament.

 

[Tayla]

My main point is and has been that nobody knows what it means. Or everyone disagrees on what it means, which I suppose comes to the same.

They do know what it means; you can read the zillions of definitions. (I know you know this; I'm just feeling playful.)

 

[Tayla]

Catholics do not accept the Scriptures as God's Word.

Simply not true, sorry.

 

[Tayla]

the reason why you and any other Catholics do not accept sola scriptura is because you are a Catholic

I'm Catholic. The reason I don't accept Sola Scriptura (or Sola Fide, for that matter) is because it was not taught by the apostles. I don't accept anything as Christian unless it was taught by the apostles.

 

[Tayla]

The Bible says there are no second chances after death, but the RCC says there is "Purgatory".

Please tell me you're kidding. Purgatory has nothing to do with being a "second chance".

 

[Tayla]

Try reading Song Of Solomon or Revelation to a four year old some time. Let me know how it goes.

Good example.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I know what Sola Scriptura means and I reject it.

I believe the apostles are the authority for the Christian faith, and that they wrote the New Testament.

Somewhere the definitions got mixed up.

The apostles and disciples all believe TORAH and that all SCRIPTURE is TRUTH.

The apostles and disciples also prove rcc catholicism often wrong in many of the catholic rcc teachings and practices.

All of this regardless of what definition of Sola Scriptura you know or thought you know, or use, or whoever uses it.

 

[BBAS 64]

Seems there are at least a zillion definitions of Sola Scriptura. Thank you for providing one of these for our consideration.

It seems you are saying I can't use archaeology (for example) as evidence the Bible is true; rather, I have to jump right in from mid-air and believe the Bible. When witnessing to new potential believers, don't we first have to demonstrate to them the Bible is historically trustworthy and worthy of belief?

You don't mention whether Christians have to believe every detail of the Bible. Are only certain details necessary? If so, how do we know which ones?

I assume you would wish we exclude provable errors (if any) from our belief.

Good day, 316

The function of scripture with in the historical cristian doctrine is the same... but there are many ways to explain it.

How does it seem that way...? you seem to bring some sort of presup to what I have said.

Sola Scriptura is about the nature and correct use for the church of that which is (the only) God Breathed.

Errors are refuted by the God Breathed out word:

"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings...And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?" - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)

In Him,

Bill

 

[Major1]

Please tell me you're kidding. Purgatory has nothing to do with being a "second chance".

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), purgatory is a “final purification” (CCC 1031) which is afforded to “all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” so that they might “achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (CCC 1030).

Now where I come from, the Great Promised Land of NA, that my friend is a Second Chance.

I am confidant that most all who debate on forums such as this are aware of what the meaning of Purgatory is.

Catholic theology regarding life after death can be summarized this way. When you die, your soul goes to one of three places:

1). If you die with unforgiven mortal sin, you go to hell.
2). If you die in a state of perfect holiness, you go directly into the presence of God in heaven. “Perfect holiness” means to be in such a state that there is no sin in your life that stands between you and Lord.
The problem with that view is that there is NO ONE who fits that standard.
3).If you die as a believer in Christ but in a state less than perfect holiness, you go to purgatory where your soul is purified until you are ready to enter God’s presence in heaven. This would include near all believers since no one achieves perfect holiness in this life.

The older Catholic writers stressed the terrible conditions in purgatory, which in the end sounded a lot like the flames of hell. Purgatory was seen as a place of punishment where you paid for your sins before entering heaven. The vision of loved ones suffering in purgatory motivated many Catholics to do whatever it took to free those suffering souls so they could go be with God.

BOOM! Right there is the reason why a "Second Chance" is thought of my friend.

Our sins are paid for by the Lord Jesus Christ and at death our spirit goes to be where He is.

There is NO WAY possible for YOU or ME to pay for our sins either in this life or any other life.

In the early 1500s a German monk named Johann Tetzel began selling indulgences, which amounted to a scheme by which the living could free the dead from purgatory by the payment of money. His view is summarized in this well-known couplet:
"As soon as the gold in the bucket rings The rescued soul to heaven springs."

The greater point is that in the Catholic understanding, all believers go to purgatory and no one goes directly to heaven. Thus there developed an elaborate doctrine of prayers for the dead, mass for the dead, the lighting of candles for the dead, saying the Rosary for the dead, and so on.

But what does the Bible say?????

Luke 23:43 ......
"Jesus said to the thief on the cross “Today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Acts 2:27,31.............
“For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption … he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.”

 

[Major1]

I'm Catholic. The reason I don't accept Sola Scriptura (or Sola Fide, for that matter) is because it was not taught by the apostles. I don't accept anything as Christian unless it was taught by the apostles.

Now that is very interesting.

Where do you find the apostles teaching on the sinlessness of Mary?

Where do you find the apostles teaching on the inability of the Bishops to marry?

Where do you find the apostles teaching on the Rosary?

Where do you find the apostles teaching on the act of bowing down to a statue of Mary?

Where do you find the apostles teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Now would you please post the Bible Scriptures where those teaching by the apostles are found.

Again, I say to you that YOU and other Catholic believers can not accept Sola Scriptura because you do not accept the Bible!

 

[Major1]

Simply not true, sorry.

I know that hurts but it is the only answer that can be produced.

IF.....IF you accepted the Bible you would not then believe in Purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the inability of Bishops to marry, praying to the dead, the Rosary and so on and so on and so on.

Sola Scriptura simply says that for a doctrine to be accepted, it must be found in the Scriptures.
The things you accept are from MEN and not the Word of God.

 

[Major1]

I know what Sola Scriptura means and I reject it.

I believe the apostles are the authority for the Christian faith, and that they wrote the New Testament.

Of course they did. That is not in question at all.

The question comes down to why you do not believe the Bible but instead believe the words and teachings of men.

I am not trying to be mean to you, but you are placing the words of men above the Word of God my dear.

If you are comfortable in that knowledge, wonderful. Please rememeber however that I am not your enemy and neither I am going to be your judge.

All I do is tell the truth of God's Word and then allow the Holy Spirit to move.

Sometimes it cause some people to get mad, and sometimes it causes people to get glad.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I don't accept anything as Christian unless it was taught by the apostles.

Which one of them gave us statues of Mary and rosaries?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Which one of them

well, "apostle" ? >
Dictionary : Vocabulary.comapostle
The Greek word apóstolos means "one who is sent out," giving it a proper connection with the word apostle. The word's original English meaning of " messenger" ...

Could be a sent out messenger of anyone... couldn't it?
i.e. not necessarily a messenger of truth.

So any group on earth could claim to have some apostles - messengers - of their message, right ?

Not just God's Truth, but any message even opposed to His Truth, opposed to His Word.

 

[Major1]

well, "apostle" ? >
Dictionary : Vocabulary.comapostle
The Greek word apóstolos means "one who is sent out," giving it a proper connection with the word apostle. The word's original English meaning of " messenger" ...

Could be a sent out messenger of anyone... couldn't it?
i.e. not necessarily a messenger of truth.

So any group on earth could claim to have some apostles - messengers - of their message, right ?

Not just God's Truth, but any message even opposed to His Truth, opposed to His Word.

Yes, however it must be considered in the "context" of where the word is found. In this case it is the Bible and the referrance is to the men that Jesus commissioned to be His spokesmen after He left.

 

[Phil 1:21]

well, "apostle" ? >
Dictionary : Vocabulary.comapostle
The Greek word apóstolos means "one who is sent out," giving it a proper connection with the word apostle. The word's original English meaning of " messenger" ...

Could be a sent out messenger of anyone... couldn't it?
i.e. not necessarily a messenger of truth.

So any group on earth could claim to have some apostles - messengers - of their message, right ?

Not just God's Truth, but any message even opposed to His Truth, opposed to His Word.

Yesterday I was checking scriptural references given by a RCC apologetics site as support of apostolic succession. Based on their citations and interpretations, apparently any follower who laid hands on another follower was an apolstle making another apostle. It reminded me of the tribbles from Star Trek.

 

[Major1]

Good example.

Reading Song of Solomon or the Revelation to a four year old makes about as much sense as Predestination does to the Catholic believer.