Sola Scriptura

[Mungo]

"Rational Discourse is Futile"

How would you know until you've tried it?

 

[David in NJ]

You can't answer my point.
Nowhere does scripture teach sola scriptura.
Nowhere did Jesus teach sola scriptura.
Search the scriptures and prove me wrong.

LMAO - how can i respond to this - it's just too funny

 

[robert derrick]

Your opinion stated without evidence.



Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition that is not found in scripture. It is you that does any judging based on that fale doctrine.


Your opinion


Been there, answered that. See post #59

You are correct about my opinions. I use them as guides.

Sola Scriptura indeed is needing Scriptural proof in things of God, and you reject that.

What if something directly contradicts Scripture?

Such as, Jesus is not the Christ.

 

[David in NJ]

You can't answer my point.
Nowhere does scripture teach sola scriptura.
Nowhere did Jesus teach sola scriptura.
Search the scriptures and prove me wrong.

OK, i will, here it is: Jesus said "It is WRITTEN"
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

What about You - will you go as it is written?
Acts 4
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being examined today about a kind service to a man who was lame, to determine how he was healed, then let this be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. This Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’a
Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

How would you know until you've tried it?

Even for you that's an absurd attempt at deflection. You have been requested dozens of times by numerous people just in this thread alone and any plain read can see it. Its not even a point of debate as to your unreasonable refusal to engage anything that doesn't fit into your world view issued to you by the RCC to do their bidding.

 

[Mungo]

LMAO - how can i respond to this - it's just too funny

What's funny about it?
If it is wrong then you will have scripture to show me it is wrong.

 

[Mungo]

You are correct about my opinions. I use them as guides.

Sola Scriptura indeed is needing Scriptural proof in things of God, and you reject that.

I haven't rejected any scriptural proof.
I'm asking for it.

What if something directly contradicts Scripture?

Such as, Jesus is not the Christ.

If something directly contradicts scripture, such as Jesus is not the Christ, then it is incorrect.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

If something directly contradicts scripture, such as Jesus is not the Christ, then it is incorrect.

And this applies to all extra scriptural RCC doctrine too?

 

[David in NJ]

What's funny about it?
If it is wrong then you will have scripture to show me it is wrong.

OK, i will, here it is: Jesus said "It is WRITTEN"
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

What about You - will you go as it is written?
Acts 4
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being examined today about a kind service to a man who was lame, to determine how he was healed, then let this be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. This Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’a
Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

 

[Mungo]

OK, i will, here it is: Jesus said "It is WRITTEN"
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

What about You - will you go as it is written?
Acts 4
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being examined today about a kind service to a man who was lame, to determine how he was healed, then let this be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. This Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’a
Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

So Jesus said "It is written". He quoted from scripture.
I quote from scripture but that is no proof of Sola Scriptura.

Jesus also quoted from Jewish tradition and non scripture.
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you.” (Mt 23:1-3). The scribes and Pharisees had a valid and binding teaching authority passed down from Moses. This is not in scripture but in the Mishnah (originally an oral tradition).

The chair of Moses outside a synagogue was the traditional place where teachers (Pharisees) sat to teach people.

The apostles quoted from non-scriptural sources
He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.” Nowhere in scripture does it say “He shall be called a Nazorean”. Matthew is quoting from Tradition.

“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses..” (2Tim 3:8)
Jannes and Jambres are not found in scripture.

“they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.” (1Cor 10:4). Scripture does not say the rock followed them, but rabbinic tradition does.

 

[Mungo]

And this applies to all extra scriptural RCC doctrine too?

This is about Sola Scriptura. I'm not going to be diverted by you into Catholic Doctrine.

 

[David in NJ]

So Jesus said "It is written". He quoted from scripture.
I quote from scripture but that is no proof of Sola Scriptura.

Jesus also quoted from Jewish tradition and non scripture.
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you.” (Mt 23:1-3). The scribes and Pharisees had a valid and binding teaching authority passed down from Moses. This is not in scripture but in the Mishnah (originally an oral tradition).

The chair of Moses outside a synagogue was the traditional place where teachers (Pharisees) sat to teach people.

The apostles quoted from non-scriptural sources
He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.” Nowhere in scripture does it say “He shall be called a Nazorean”. Matthew is quoting from Tradition.

“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses..” (2Tim 3:8)
Jannes and Jambres are not found in scripture.

“they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.” (1Cor 10:4). Scripture does not say the rock followed them, but rabbinic tradition does.

You said: So Jesus said "It is written". He quoted from scripture.
I quote from scripture but that is no proof of Sola Scriptura.

This is the lmao - you can't see your own failed logic.

 

[Mungo]

You said: So Jesus said "It is written". He quoted from scripture.
I quote from scripture but that is no proof of Sola Scriptura.

This is the lmao - you can't see your own failed logic.

There is no failed logic.
As I have already said:

Let's be clear. I am not rejecting Scripture as the true and reliable words of God.
I reject Sola Scriptura as a doctrine that says scripture is the only source of the words of God.
Scripture doesn't say it is.
Nowhere does scripture teach sola scriptura.
Nowhere did Jesus teach sola scriptura.

Quoting from scripture does not prove sola scriptura

 

[Mungo]

I'm closing down now for the evening.

I'll look in tomorrow and see what's happened.

If anyone can provide proofs from Scripture of Sola Scriptura will answer them.

But after repeated asking, and over 100 posts in the thread, no-one has provided any, I guess there will be nothing to reply to. I'll just ignore the insults and anti-Catholic diatribes.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I'm closing down now for the evening.

I'll look in tomorrow and see what's happened.

If anyone can provide proofs from Scripture of Sola Scriptura will answer them.

But after repeated asking, and over 100 posts in the thread, no-one has provided any, I guess there will be nothing to reply to. I'll just ignore the insults and anti-Catholic diatribes.

In plain non Mungo English "I'm too dizzy to spin any more so let me end this by spouting my endless rhetoric like a good drone then deny everything else while not addressing the pertinent questions"

Goodnight Mr. President, have another cone.

 

[David in NJ]

I'm closing down now for the evening.

I'll look in tomorrow and see what's happened.

If anyone can provide proofs from Scripture of Sola Scriptura will answer them.

But after repeated asking, and over 100 posts in the thread, no-one has provided any, I guess there will be nothing to reply to. I'll just ignore the insults and anti-Catholic diatribes.

We have and in love to you - PLEASE take these things spoken to you in prayer to the Lord - Peace and Good Night

 

[Grailhunter]

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (2 Tim 2)

The first step to rightly dividing the Word of truth, is to rightly divide between what is written and what is not.

Sola Scriptura does so first, and then proceeds to judge all things not written by what is written.

Sola Scriptura judges things that are not written, to be profane and vain babblings, when there is nothing written in Scriptura to prove it.

Vain arguments of the world are those who reject Sola Scriptura, and then go on to argue the things of God from their own minds with one another.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim 3)

And such arguments can indeed be intellectually stimulating, and no necessarily harmful, but never intelligent nor true with God: Not without Scripture to prove it as so.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17)

Intelligent? Is it a form of intelligence for a person to be able to speak a single sentence and be wrong on several levels?
Sola Scriptura as in Bible only, is a Protestant theological reaction to the Catholic Church's corruption and atrocities. Fundamentalism as we call it. At the time of the Protestant reform I think it was probably the best choice. But as time went on the Protestants learned that it was a choice that was difficult to understand and manage, or even stay true to. Some say 50,000 different Protestants denominations, I can only count a little over 30,000. But at that there is no way to say that sola scriptura can be agreed upon. Of course each denomination will declare that their interpretation of sola scriptura is correct.

The next problem....the written word....is static. Bible only....the Word....cannot add to it...cannot take away...cannot change. Sound familiar? The Mosaic Law and it failed. Now as far as salvation that is where it accels, most Protestant denominations lead to salvation and are interested in preaching the message of salvation. And as far as the general application of Christianity....they were better than the Catholics! In their defense I will say that the Catholics have come a long way. But still the Protestant application leaves a little to be desired. Why? Is it the fault of the static word? Not entirely.

As far as the general, the basic application of Christianity, those words are there. But they are ignored by many...and most denominations. In the truest sense this is a violation of the sola scriptura, it was not something that fell through the cracks because of misinterpretation. It has been done so commonly and for so long that it proves to be an intent.

Christ said that we should love God and love one another...But was He just suggesting lip service for love one another...a concept but no action? He also said, John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. And then He did it. Why? Was this the only time that Christ did a Good Deed? Was Christ telling the truth? Are we His friends? This is why I see life as a journey with Christ. Did I get that from the static word? No. Not written per say but that is why it is called following and literally those that were with Christ...walked with Him. In His "walk" He helped a lot of people physically. Does this mean anything to anybody? To some? But if you mention doing Good Deeds...or stand up for women in a Protestant church or here on this forum, it is like they think you are the Antichrist or anti-gospel. A testament that this is not in their religious beliefs. Good Deeds have no religious significance! Keep women Down! Second rate members of Christianity! They should know there place and keep their mouth shut! Christ like? I do not think so.

But a lot of the words for Good Deeds are their, either as directives, discussions, or the storyline. But some of that is a matter of observing and rationalizing the meaning...a human attempting to pull the over all concept and meaning from the scriptures. To understand the Spirit of Christ and Christianity? But early on the Protestants developed a distain for human reasoning.

What effect did the distain for human reasoning have on Christianity?
Well right away the Christians did not speak against polygamy and concubinage and some Christians practiced these.
And then there were things that Christians had to learn from society....like
That women should be free to marry who they want.
That there should be a process for divorce.
That slavery is wrong.
The equality of mankind in society and Christianity. Men and women equal members in Christianity.
Women's rights.

Sex! What a can of worms!!....women, sex, and nudity were certainly made by the devil....right!?

Most of this the Church did not learn on its own and was pretty much drug into it kicking and screaming. How many here think that women should not be speaking on this forum? That if her husband abuses her and or her children that she should not divorce her husband? How many here thing that a woman that divorce her husband should not remarry? And "doing the dirty" Certainly a Christen expression. When a husband and wife make love, are they doing the dirty. I can give you a Christian chart on this from the middle ages....LOL

1935 years of Christian history....1935 years of a very active God. Is recognizing God's activity important? Can we learn things from it? I think Fundamentalism was the correct course of action during the era of the reform but at some point the Protestants should have stepped back and rethought its attitude towards human reasoning because in the real world it is important. They should have not discounted all the actions of God during that 1935 years. Of course within Protestantism is the belief in Cessationism where miracles stopped at the end of the biblical era. But they should have taken a close look at reality and history and see if they could learn something from it, instead of society taking us to a higher set of morals....because we all know that it is usually not a good source.

But on the other side of the coin while straining not to learn through the Spirit of Christ, the Protestants violated sola scriptura to come up with dozens of fake sins....playing god. A lot of this is human nature...a male dominant religion, boy's clubs like making rules as they go. Sola Scriptura! Claim one thing and do another. Claim holier that thou by principal but not actually do it. It has been going on for centuries. Selectively ignoring scriptures but looking over the fence for somethings that they like....like wedding ceremonies and the doctrine of Original Sin.

And it is the Spirit of Christ that they ignored...because you actually have to analyze the words and actions of Christ to know the Spirit of Christ...the dreaded human reasoning!
Do we think that slavery is Christ like? Love one another?
Do we think that having classes of social structures are Christ like?
Do we think that religiously shackling a woman to an abusive husband is Christ like?
Do we think that treating women as second rate members of Christianity is Christ like.
The story of Christ showed how important women were to Him and Christianity...but that was ignored.
The Protestants should have used their heads and hearts to assess all those years of Christianity and grow with Christ. Take a walk with Christ.

 

[David in NJ]

Intelligent? Is it a form of intelligence for a person to be able to speak a single sentence and be wrong on several levels?
Sola Scriptura as in Bible only, is a Protestant theological reaction to the Catholic Church's corruption and atrocities. Fundamentalism as we call it. At the time of the Protestant reform I think it was probably the best choice. But as time went on the Protestants learned that it was a choice that was difficult to understand and manage, or even stay true to. Some say 50,000 different Protestants denominations, I can only count a little over 30,000. But at that there is no way to say that sola scriptura can be agreed upon. Of course each denomination will declare that their interpretation of sola scriptura is correct.

The next problem....the written word....is static. Bible only....the Word....cannot add to it...cannot take away...cannot change. Sound familiar? The Mosaic Law and it failed. Now as far as salvation that is where it accels, most Protestant denominations lead to salvation and are interested in preaching the message of salvation. And as far as the general application of Christianity....they were better than the Catholics! In their defense I will say that the Catholics have come a long way. But still the Protestant application leaves a little to be desired. Why? Is it the fault of the static word? Not entirely.

As far as the general, the basic application of Christianity, those words are there. But they are ignored by many...and most denominations. In the truest sense this is a violation of the sola scriptura, it was not something that fell through the cracks because of misinterpretation. It has been done so commonly and for so long that it proves to be an intent.

Christ said that we should love God and love one another...But was He just suggesting lip service for love one another...a concept but no action? He also said, John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. And then He did it. Why? Was this the only time that Christ did a Good Deed? Was Christ telling the truth? Are we His friends? This is why I see life as a journey with Christ. Did I get that from the static word? No. Not written per say but that is why it is called following and literally those that were with Christ...walked with Him. In His "walk" He helped a lot of people physically. Does this mean anything to anybody? To some? But if you mention doing Good Deeds...or stand up for women in a Protestant church or here on this forum, it is like they think you are the Antichrist or anti-gospel. A testament that this is not in their religious beliefs. Good Deeds have no religious significance! Keep women Down! Second rate members of Christianity! They should know there place and keep their mouth shut! Christ like? I do not think so.

But a lot of the words for Good Deeds are their, either as directives, discussions, or the storyline. But some of that is a matter of observing and rationalizing the meaning...a human attempting to pull the over all concept and meaning from the scriptures. To understand the Spirit of Christ and Christianity? But early on the Protestants developed a distain for human reasoning.

What effect did the distain for human reasoning have on Christianity?
Well right away the Christians did not speak against polygamy and concubinage and some Christians practiced these.
And then there were things that Christians had to learn from society....like
That women should be free to marry who they want.
That there should be a process for divorce.
That slavery is wrong.
The equality of mankind in society and Christianity. Men and women equal members in Christianity.
Women's rights.

Sex! What a can of worms!!....women, sex, and nudity were certainly made by the devil....right!?

Most of this the Church did not learn on its own and was pretty much drug into it kicking and screaming. How many here think that women should not be speaking on this forum? That if her husband abuses her and or her children that she should not divorce her husband? How many here thing that a woman that divorce her husband should not remarry? And "doing the dirty" Certainly a Christen expression. When a husband and wife make love, are they doing the dirty. I can give you a Christian chart on this from the middle ages....LOL

1935 years of Christian history....1935 years of a very active God. I think Fundamentalism was the correct course of action during the era of the reform but at some point the Protestants should have stepped back and rethought its attitude towards human reasoning because in the real world it is important. They should have not discounted all the actions of God during that 1935 years. They should have taken a close look at reality and history and see if they could learn something from it, instead of society taking us to a higher set of morals....because we all know that it is usually not a good source.

But on the other side of the coin while straining not to learn through the Spirit of Christ, the Protestants violated sola scriptura to come up with dozens of fake sins....playing god. A lot of this is human nature...boy's clubs like making rules as they go. Sola Scriptura! Claim one thing and do another. Claim holier that thou by principal but not actually do it. It has been going on for centuries. Selectively ignoring scriptures but looking over the fence for somethings that they like....like wedding ceremonies.

And it is the Spirit of Christ that they ignored...because you actually have to analyze the words and actions of Christ to know the Spirit of Christ...the dreaded human reasoning!
Do we think that slavery is Christ like? Love one another?
Do we think that having classes of social structures are Christ like?
Do we think that religiously shackling a woman to an abusive husband is Christ like?
Do we think that treating women as second rate members of Christianity is Christ like.
The story of Christ showed how important women were to Him and Christianity...but that was ignored.
The Protestants should have used their heads and hearts to assess all those years of Christianity and grow with Christ. Take a walk with Christ.

WOW you said a lot of errors - Here is just one : "The Mosaic Law failed"

No need to go any further here.......

 

[Wrangler]

I'm still learning doctrine here on CB and need some more time to investigate churches to choose one that is right for me.

That’s a wonderful point in your spiritual journey. My advice? Pray about it and one thing more.

Focus less on doctrine, which is intellectual. Focus more on discerning the Spirit. Where do you most feel the presence of God?

I go to a Spirit led church. A friend of mine out of town went to a RCC for years. For reasons I’m not sure, he started going to another church that he raved about. One day I went there also.

It was a wonderful Spirit led church. I’m so glad he found such a place near him.

Best of luck.

 

[Wrangler]

If it was biblical then you could prove it from the bible.

I already proved it. Others already proved it. You are just not accepting the proof. Said differently, what proof would you accept?