Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Ronald Nolette]

So it's not clearly which you you're interpreting it to mean only. It's not clearly stated like, you can see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Or eat my flesh and drink my blood for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. If it was that clear it wouldn't need your interpretation right?

But it is clear like the phrase we are saved by grace and not by works

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Let's focus on the first paragraph of what you said. A couple things--

1. Which "passages and words" do you refer to when you refer to "passages and words that say Scripture is the source for all issues of faith, doctrine and practice"?

2. What "Scripture" is referred to in these passages you have in mind? For instance, you might point to 2 Timothy 3:16, but when Paul wrote those words, "Scripture" would not have referred to what we now have as the New Testament - much of which wasn't even written by the early 60s (and all of which wasn't fully agreed upon informally until the late fourth century {and not formally settled fully until the 16th century}). Instead, Paul was referring to what we call the Old Testament; but even saying that, we have to caveat that it's not exactly clear what books Paul considered "Scripture" out of all the texts that were available at the time (since there was no formal, agreed-upon "canon" even of the Old Testament, outside of the Pentateuch, in either Jewish or Christian circles until after Paul's death - at best, it seems, we could argue that the Septuagint is what Paul had in mind here {since we know from his Old Testament quotations that he used the Greek translation of the passages he quotes, generally}, but if you concede that, then you'd have to accept the historic Christian canon {that is, the Catholic canon} including the Maccabees and the rest that Protestants have excised from their canon). If, as you implicitly seem to argue, these passages are authority for treating the existing Protestant Bible (and nothing more) as the relevant "Scripture" - well, by what or whose authority was *that* decided, since that's not the "Scripture" referred to in these passages of Scripture?

As for Matthew 4:4, you seem to acknowledge that it doesn't say anything about "sola" Scriptura. And to the extent you mean to imply that "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" means the Protestant Bible - well, that presents all the same problems in point (2) above.

As for your third paragraph, Catholics wholeheartedly agree that dogma must "conform with" Scripture; so I don't think the point is relevant to the "sola" Scriptura question.

Finally, there are a number of passages in Scripture that underscore the equal authority of verbal instruction alongside written instruction. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, for instance, Paul tells his audience to "hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." In other words, Scripture itself speaks of non-Scriptural (indeed, non-written) matters as authoritative. In other words, to use your phrasing, Paul is pointing here to something other than "Scripture" (as you seem to use the term) and yet he clearly treats it as another source for "issues of faith, doctrine and practice." How do you reconcile that with your claim?

Well I see y0ou are expert at the nit picky little details.

But let me answer. As the bible is Gods word and not mans I know God decided which books would be in teh sacred Scriptures. He used the council of Nicea to formalize (if not specifically ratify) What you call the protestant bible. The Apocryphal books were not officially made part of the catholic bible until the catholic counter reformation. Until then they were considered holy but under the category of pseudepigrapha.

If the Roman church agreed all dogma must stem from Scripture, they would not have so many non-biblical dogmas as canon law.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Try doing your hoomework, for a change.
It would be nice if YOU could stop being dishonest . . .

You write it, I report it!

WRONG, again.

Victor settled the matter that was later codified at Nicaea.

You should do your homework! If Victor settles it, itr would not later need to be codified.

You are again resorting to LIES.

“Pope” is NOT an official title of the Bishop of Rome. As I have already schooled you, It simply means “Papa” and is a term of endearment.

Here are the official titles of the Bishop of Rome, so YOU don’t have to continue to wallow in ignorance . . .
- Bishop of Rome
- Vicar of Jesus Christ, aka Vicar of Christ
- Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
- Primate of Italy
- Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
- Sovereign of the State of Vatican City
- Servant of the Servants of God

Do your HOMEWORK, son . .

I know all these titles, but evryone even all the bishops and cardinals almost universally call him pope. so while it may not be an "offical" title, it is a deacto official title.

And I am not your son.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Oh, what the heck - give me a Biblical rebutall for this Biblical defense of Mary's Sinlessless and Perpertual Virginity . . .

The Ark of the Covenant was pure and undefiled. It was NOT to be defiled by the touch pf man (Num. 4:15) – under the penalty of death (2 Samuel 6:1-7). In the same way – Mary was pure and undefiled by sin. The same applies to her with regard to the touch of man.

The following comparison chart illustrates the Old Testament type, the Ark of the Covenant (OT) with the New Testament fulfillments of that type, Mary (NT):

So where is it implied other than Romanistic dogma Mary is the fulfilment of the Ark???? Where is the evidence for this claim? And that is all it is, is just a claim.

As far as touched by Joepeh?

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

See this is clear explicit teaching! After Jesus was born and following the law- Mary had sex by Jospeh as a good Jewish wife. The only people who reject this plain unambiguous teaching are Marian devotees

. .


Oh, what the heck - give me a Biblical rebutall for this Biblical defense of Mary's Sinlessless and Perpertual Virginity . . .

The Ark of the Covenant was pure and undefiled. It was NOT to be defiled by the touch pf man (Num. 4:15) – under the penalty of death (2 Samuel 6:1-7). In the same way – Mary was pure and undefiled by sin. The same applies to her with regard to the touch of man.

The following comparison chart illustrates the Old Testament type, the Ark of the Covenant (OT) with the New Testament fulfillments of that type, Mary (NT):

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and the Holy Spirit down as fire from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

In the Book of Revelation, we see the New Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19: “Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.“

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1): “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Verse 2 says: “She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.”

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read: “She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.”

There is simply NO getting around the fact that the Woman/Ark here in Revelation 12 is Mary.

Well there is no getting around teh fact that Romanists are excellent at allegorizing passages and forming conclusion based on their own predispositions.

But the woman in Rev. 12 is Israel and not Mary.

Gen 27:
9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

God is consistent with His use of symbols- even though Rome is not!

Revelation 12

King James Version

​

12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

You should learn to keep verses and symbols in their context. It keeps you from straying!

So we destroyed the ill i mplied claims about Mary- what about Purgatory?

BTW even you rimplictions fall short. While they have similarities- similarities do not doctrine make- even your Romanist leaders teach that!

 

[GodsGrace]

Good.

You only need to attain to this standard set by God:

“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Rev 1:3, KJV)

What standard are you speaking of?

The time was near 2 thousand years ago.
It will always be near...for some this very day.

The following is speaking about what Jesus revealed during His ministry.
That really is all that we need to know.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So where is it implied other than Romanistic dogma Mary is the fulfilment of the Ark???? Where is the evidence for this claim? And that is all it is, is just a claim.

As far as touched by Joepeh?

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

See this is clear explicit teaching! After Jesus was born and following the law- Mary had sex by Jospeh as a good Jewish wife. The only people who reject this plain unambiguous teaching are Marian devotees

This is ANYTHING but “explicit”.
Your failure to understand Scripture is your folly.

Let’s look at the origin of the word, “Firstborn”.
Exod. 13:1
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”

That’s ALL it means – “the one who opens the womb.”
It doesn’t mean that there will be children AFTER this.

Let’s look at the word “Until” (he’os) in Matt. 1:25.
This word is used in MANY places in Scripture:

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children AFTER she died?

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Sooooo – did they find his grave AFTER this??

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father AFTER his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that ignorant anti-Catholics like YOU attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

Well there is no getting around teh fact that Romanists are excellent at allegorizing passages and forming conclusion based on their own predispositions.

But the woman in Rev. 12 is Israel and not Mary.

Gen 27:
9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

God is consistent with His use of symbols- even though Rome is not!

Revelation 12​

King James Version​

12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. . . .

You should learn to keep verses and symbols in their context. It keeps you from straying!

Thank you for that pathetic denial.

Now - how about giving me a cohesive Biblical rebutal of the DOZEN or so Scriptural comparisons I presented that show Mary is the fulfillment of the OT type that was the Ark??

Time to stop running . . .

So we destroyed the ill i mplied claims about Mary- what about Purgatory?

First of all – I gave you over a DOZEN Scriptural comparisons that show Mary is the fulfillment of the OT type that was the Ark of the Covenant.
YOU provided nothing but denials and cheap anti-Catholic slurs.

I asked you to give me a Biblical rebuttal – and you FAILED. Now you’re demanding evidence for Purgatory.
I’ll provide a cohesive Biblical argument for Purgatory – just as soon as you at least TRY to disprove my evidence for Mary as Ark of the New Covenant . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You write it, I report it!

No – I write it – YOU get confused . . .

I know all these titles, but evryone even all the bishops and cardinals almost universally call him pope. so while it may not be an "offical" title, it is a deacto official title.

And I am not your son.

Thank you for exposing your ignorance once again.

Almost nobody calls him “Pope”.
Most people refer to him as “Pope” – but they don’t address him as that. In any case -it is NOT a “de facto” official title, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No. The woman doesn’t represent Israel.
The vision takes place in the future as John was shown in Chapter 4.

• “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.”

Revelation 12 is in the time of the great tribulation when Satan will be expressing his dominion through the 10 kingdoms of the world that will be formed.

Satan will be persecuting the Church world wide.

It will be a time when Satan and his angels are cast down to the earth.

For then there will be great tribulation…

Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”
Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. Revelation 12:10-13

The tribulation time frame of three and a half years, is plainly stated twice.

Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. Revelation 12:6

But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.
Revelation 12:14

First of all – NOT everything in Revelation is a “future” event. MANY things have already come to pass.

The Woman in Rev. 12 gives birth to the Messiah (“who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter”), who was “snatched up to God and to his throne.” He came out of Isreal – more specifically, from His mother Mary.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

You only need to attain to this standard set by God:

“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Rev 1:3, KJV)

What standard are you speaking of?

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Well I see y0ou are expert at the nit picky little details.

But let me answer. As the bible is Gods word and not mans I know God decided which books would be in teh sacred Scriptures. He used the council of Nicea to formalize (if not specifically ratify) What you call the protestant bible. The Apocryphal books were not officially made part of the catholic bible until the catholic counter reformation. Until then they were considered holy but under the category of pseudepigrapha.

If the Roman church agreed all dogma must stem from Scripture, they would not have so many non-biblical dogmas as canon law.

Without meaning to be disrespectful (though disrespectful rhetoric does appear to be the preferred currency around here!), this is difficult to respond to because it is confused.

Let's start with the big picture: it appears that your original claim ("sola Scriptura" is taught in the Bible) is incorrect. You immediately conceded that the "phrase" does not appear in the Bible, but rather the proposition could be gleaned from various "passages and words." I asked for those passages and words, so we could speak concretely and specifically about particular passages, to test the original claim (that "sola Scriptura" is taught in the Bible). You have provided none. And you did not respond to a passage in the Bible that puts non-written teaching on equal authoritative footing with written instruction, which is not a proof-text dispelling sola Scripture entirely, to be sure, but it is one set (among a number) of "passages and words" from which it can be gleaned that "sola Scriptura" is *not* biblical. In sum, as Sherlock Holmes observed, the dog that didn't bark (in this case, your non-responsive answer) seems to prove the case against your claim, in rather short order here.

In any event, one of the key points of my few questions thus far was to drive at a core problem: sola Scriptura is a logical impossibility, because you cannot identify the "Scriptura" that you claim is the "sola" (i.e., the sole authority) without resorting to some sort of authority outside of Scripture itself. In other words, very fundamentally, a contradiction lies at the heart of "sola Scriptura."

You seem to implicitly recognize that contradiction by trying to get out of it with a bald appeal to "God decided which books" (thus having to avoid having any kind of human authority be responsible for deciding the scope of "Scriptura" that you claim is "sola"). But this is just a sort of special pleading. "God agrees with my conclusions" is the haven for every crank and heretic throughout history; it's not a very compelling reason to accept any particular assertion.

So why should we accept your invocation of it here? Especially given that what you say in support of "God decided" is just historically incorrect. The Council of Nicaea--the Second Ecumenical Council, called by Constantine (who, I surmise by some of your other comments and your penchant for using "Roman" as some kind of slur, you seem to think poisoned the church somehow)--rejected Arianism and pronounced dogmatically that Jesus is God (not bad for a corrupt "Roman" council!). First Council of Nicaea | Christianity, Arianism, Ecumenical, History, Significance, & Facts | Britannica. It did not address issues related to what texts qualified as "Scripture."

When the Church did get around to ascertaining more formally what was the scope of Scripture--which it did not do dogmatically until the Council of Trent, to be sure, precipitated by the Reformers arrogating to themselves the authority to excise books they didn't like for one reason or another; but this was not adding the "Catholic" books, as you imply, but simply defining dogmatically what had been true and essentially settled for centuries until the Reformers came along--through non-ecumenical Councils in the late fourth and early fifth century, the Bible it settled upon was the Catholic Bible. See, for example, Canon 24 from the Council of Carthage in 419, laying out what constituted "canonical scripture." (CHURCH FATHERS: Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)).

And something fascinating about the process of canonization is that the Christians of the first four centuries sorting all this out did not manifest the sort of blase "God decided" attitude that you manifest (another data point suggesting that "Sola Scriptura" is not Biblical - why didn't the early Christians manifest that mentality if it comes from Christ and the Apostles?). Rather, they decided on what qualified as "Scripture" based on a preexisting "canon" -- the "regula fidei," or "Rule of Faith," which was the orthodox, settled teaching of the Church, in large part verbal, passed down from Christ, to the Apostles, to the Bishops, and so on. (Regula Fidei). The Council of Nicaea is, in part, testimony to this--the Church was deciding dogmas before there was a settled New Testament canon, and it didn't think it had to wait until the latter to do the former. In other words, the orthodox Christians of the first few centuries settled on what books were full-fledged "Scripture" based on what we today would call the capital-T "Tradition" they had received (see, e.g., 1 Thessalonians 2:5!)--the exact opposite you'd expect if "Sola Scriptura" was "Biblical."

On all this, I would strongly commend to you The Biblical Canon by evangelical Baptist pastor Lee Martin McDonald (lest you think this is just "Roman" propaganda talking). Of course, the history is very nuanced, far more than a short blog post on a discussion thread can nearly do justice; but seriously, look for yourself and see.

All this is to say, your assertion that "God decided" the Protestant Bible is the "Scriptura" that is "Sola" doesn't withstand either Biblical or historical scrutiny.

Finally, you say "If the Roman church"--again, you seem to mean that as a slur, but we are to happy to wear the title; it's a grace and a privilege to belong to Christ's church He established through Peter that preserved the Faith for two millennia, often at the cost of many "Roman" martyrs' lives--"agreed all dogma must stem from Scripture, they would not have so many non-biblical dogmas as canon law." Again, somewhat confused (dogma and canon law occupy different places and serve different functions). Beyond that, who gets to decide what is "non-biblical"? Based on your conversations with others, and from our conversation here, your answer seems to be "me." Which, to be fair, is the default evangelical Protestant mode. But that, itself, is un-biblical. (See, e.g., Acts 15, where the Church came together to resolve a theological dispute and issued a decree based on what "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to [them]," to put that dispute to bed - doesn't leave much room for the notion that every individual believer has the ultimate discretion to decide for themselves at least the core matters of faith and practice). Further, there seems to be some serious inconsistency as to what you have decided is "Biblical" or "non-Biblical." Over the past several days on this thread, it appears you've rejected out-of-hand as inadequate "passages and words" from Scripture that support a number of the dogmas you take issue with (even though the "Catholic" interpretation of these passages is concurred in by Christians throughout history going back to the Patristics, which just as a historical matter suggests that the "Catholic" interpretation should at least be taken seriously and not blithely dismissed). But you want to be able to declare "Sola Scriptura" as "Biblical" based on evidently far thinner "passages and words" and, apparently, nothing else but your say-so. That's no way to run a railroad, never mind a faith that you'd (presumably) like people to subscribe to.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is ANYTHING but “explicit”.
Your failure to understand Scripture is your folly.

Let’s look at the origin of the word, “Firstborn”.
Exod. 13:1
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”

That’s ALL it means – “the one who opens the womb.”
It doesn’t mean that there will be children AFTER this.

Let’s look at the word “Until” (he’os) in Matt. 1:25.
This word is used in MANY places in Scripture:

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children AFTER she died?

Only to an indoctrinated mind is it not explicit. And using OT definitions from Hebrew to define Greek is disingenuous

In Greek it is proto tokos and means first born so you fail in your deception.
If you do not know how to parse a passage like 2 Sam. maybe you should go back to 3rd grade. All people I know know the meanings of both.

But to give you a FREE THIRD GRADE GRAMMAR LESSON.

iN MATTHEW IT IS A DUASLITY OF ACTIONS. FIRST WAS A NEGATIVE ACTION (KNEW HER NOT) THEN FOLLOWED BY THE POSAITIVE- AFTER JESUS WAS BORN. GO LEARN GRAMMAR BEFORE YOU TRY TO INSTRUCT OTHERS.

Now - how about giving me a cohesive Biblical rebutal of the DOZEN or so Scriptural comparisons I presented that show Mary is the fulfillment of the OT type that was the Ark??

I don't have to! Other than you offering mere opinion of Romanists of what they mean, you provide no ther evidence. Jesus in typology is shown throughout Scripture like the passover lamb, seed of the woman etc.

Also it was part of the word of God (just ten passages) in the ark, and what about the manna and Aarons rod that budded? Sorry butromanist opinion needs more than just see-!

I asked you to give me a Biblical rebuttal – and you FAILED. Now you’re demanding evidence for Purgatory.
I’ll provide a cohesive Biblical argument for Purgatory – just as soon as you at least TRY to disprove my evidence for Mary as Ark of the New Covenant . . .

When you give empirical evidence for Mary and not a passage and Romanist conclusions I will gladly do so. Priests carried that Ark wherever it travelled- what bout Mary? They built a temple to hold the ark- what about Mary?

ThThe bible shows Israel to be the woman in REv. 12. How much twisting do you have to do to make it Mary when it goes further on to say this about the woman: .

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for exposing your ignorance once again.

Almost nobody calls him “Pope”.
Most people refer to him as “Pope” – but they don’t address him as that. In any case -it is NOT a “de facto” official title, Einstein . .

Well Gomer Pyle; turn on the TV and listen to priests and bishops and Cardinals! They call him other trhings to his face like eminence etc. But all call him pope when referring to him.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Without meaning to be disrespectful (though disrespectful rhetoric does appear to be the preferred currency around here!), this is difficult to respond to because it is confused.

Let's start with the big picture: it appears that your original claim ("sola Scriptura" is taught in the Bible) is incorrect. You immediately conceded that the "phrase" does not appear in the Bible, but rather the proposition could be gleaned from various "passages and words." I asked for those passages and words, so we could speak concretely and specifically about particular passages, to test the original claim (that "sola Scriptura" is taught in the Bible). You have provided none. And you did not respond to a passage in the Bible that puts non-written teaching on equal authoritative footing with written instruction, which is not a proof-text dispelling sola Scripture entirely, to be sure, but it is one set (among a number) of "passages and words" from which it can be gleaned that "sola Scriptura" is *not* biblical. In sum, as Sherlock Holmes observed, the dog that didn't bark (in this case, your non-responsive answer) seems to prove the case against your claim, in rather short order here.

In any event, one of the key points of my few questions thus far was to drive at a core problem: sola Scriptura is a logical impossibility, because you cannot identify the "Scriptura" that you claim is the "sola" (i.e., the sole authority) without resorting to some sort of authority outside of Scripture itself. In other words, very fundamentally, a contradiction lies at the heart of "sola Scriptura."

You seem to implicitly recognize that contradiction by trying to get out of it with a bald appeal to "God decided which books" (thus having to avoid having any kind of human authority be responsible for deciding the scope of "Scriptura" that you claim is "sola"). But this is just a sort of special pleading. "God agrees with my conclusions" is the haven for every crank and heretic throughout history; it's not a very compelling reason to accept any particular assertion.

So why should we accept your invocation of it here? Especially given that what you say in support of "God decided" is just historically incorrect. The Council of Nicaea--the Second Ecumenical Council, called by Constantine (who, I surmise by some of your other comments and your penchant for using "Roman" as some kind of slur, you seem to think poisoned the church somehow)--rejected Arianism and pronounced dogmatically that Jesus is God (not bad for a corrupt "Roman" council!). First Council of Nicaea | Christianity, Arianism, Ecumenical, History, Significance, & Facts | Britannica. It did not address issues related to what texts qualified as "Scripture."

When the Church did get around to ascertaining more formally what was the scope of Scripture--which it did not do dogmatically until the Council of Trent, to be sure, precipitated by the Reformers arrogating to themselves the authority to excise books they didn't like for one reason or another; but this was not adding the "Catholic" books, as you imply, but simply defining dogmatically what had been true and essentially settled for centuries until the Reformers came along--through non-ecumenical Councils in the late fourth and early fifth century, the Bible it settled upon was the Catholic Bible. See, for example, Canon 24 from the Council of Carthage in 419, laying out what constituted "canonical scripture." (CHURCH FATHERS: Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)).

And something fascinating about the process of canonization is that the Christians of the first four centuries sorting all this out did not manifest the sort of blase "God decided" attitude that you manifest (another data point suggesting that "Sola Scriptura" is not Biblical - why didn't the early Christians manifest that mentality if it comes from Christ and the Apostles?). Rather, they decided on what qualified as "Scripture" based on a preexisting "canon" -- the "regula fidei," or "Rule of Faith," which was the orthodox, settled teaching of the Church, in large part verbal, passed down from Christ, to the Apostles, to the Bishops, and so on. (Regula Fidei). The Council of Nicaea is, in part, testimony to this--the Church was deciding dogmas before there was a settled New Testament canon, and it didn't think it had to wait until the latter to do the former. In other words, the orthodox Christians of the first few centuries settled on what books were full-fledged "Scripture" based on what we today would call the capital-T "Tradition" they had received (see, e.g., 1 Thessalonians 2:5!)--the exact opposite you'd expect if "Sola Scriptura" was "Biblical."

On all this, I would strongly commend to you The Biblical Canon by evangelical Baptist pastor Lee Martin McDonald (lest you think this is just "Roman" propaganda talking). Of course, the history is very nuanced, far more than a short blog post on a discussion thread can nearly do justice; but seriously, look for yourself and see.

All this is to say, your assertion that "God decided" the Protestant Bible is the "Scriptura" that is "Sola" doesn't withstand either Biblical or historical scrutiny.

Finally, you say "If the Roman church"--again, you seem to mean that as a slur, but we are to happy to wear the title; it's a grace and a privilege to belong to Christ's church He established through Peter that preserved the Faith for two millennia, often at the cost of many "Roman" martyrs' lives--"agreed all dogma must stem from Scripture, they would not have so many non-biblical dogmas as canon law." Again, somewhat confused (dogma and canon law occupy different places and serve different functions). Beyond that, who gets to decide what is "non-biblical"? Based on your conversations with others, and from our conversation here, your answer seems to be "me." Which, to be fair, is the default evangelical Protestant mode. But that, itself, is un-biblical. (See, e.g., Acts 15, where the Church came together to resolve a theological dispute and issued a decree based on what "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to [them]," to put that dispute to bed - doesn't leave much room for the notion that every individual believer has the ultimate discretion to decide for themselves at least the core matters of faith and practice). Further, there seems to be some serious inconsistency as to what you have decided is "Biblical" or "non-Biblical." Over the past several days on this thread, it appears you've rejected out-of-hand as inadequate "passages and words" from Scripture that support a number of the dogmas you take issue with (even though the "Catholic" interpretation of these passages is concurred in by Christians throughout history going back to the Patristics, which just as a historical matter suggests that the "Catholic" interpretation should at least be taken seriously and not blithely dismissed). But you want to be able to declare "Sola Scriptura" as "Biblical" based on evidently far thinner "passages and words" and, apparently, nothing else but your say-so. That's no way to run a railroad, never mind a faith that you'd (presumably) like people to subscribe to.

Well I gave you quoters from Jesus and Paul that show Scripture is THE authority when it comes to spiritual matters. If you do not accept them, as is obvious then there is nothing left tot alk about.

 

[Behold]

Almost nobody calls him “Pope”.
.

Most deceived MaryCult members refer to the Pope as "holy father" or "his holiness", or similar.
-
-

 

[GodsGrace]

Without meaning to be disrespectful (though disrespectful rhetoric does appear to be the preferred currency around here!), this is difficult to respond to because it is confused.

Let's start with the big picture: it appears that your original claim ("sola Scriptura" is taught in the Bible) is incorrect. You immediately conceded that the "phrase" does not appear in the Bible, but rather the proposition could be gleaned from various "passages and words." I asked for those passages and words, so we could speak concretely and specifically about particular passages, to test the original claim (that "sola Scriptura" is taught in the Bible). You have provided none. And you did not respond to a passage in the Bible that puts non-written teaching on equal authoritative footing with written instruction, which is not a proof-text dispelling sola Scripture entirely, to be sure, but it is one set (among a number) of "passages and words" from which it can be gleaned that "sola Scriptura" is *not* biblical. In sum, as Sherlock Holmes observed, the dog that didn't bark (in this case, your non-responsive answer) seems to prove the case against your claim, in rather short order here.

In any event, one of the key points of my few questions thus far was to drive at a core problem: sola Scriptura is a logical impossibility, because you cannot identify the "Scriptura" that you claim is the "sola" (i.e., the sole authority) without resorting to some sort of authority outside of Scripture itself. In other words, very fundamentally, a contradiction lies at the heart of "sola Scriptura."

You seem to implicitly recognize that contradiction by trying to get out of it with a bald appeal to "God decided which books" (thus having to avoid having any kind of human authority be responsible for deciding the scope of "Scriptura" that you claim is "sola"). But this is just a sort of special pleading. "God agrees with my conclusions" is the haven for every crank and heretic throughout history; it's not a very compelling reason to accept any particular assertion.

So why should we accept your invocation of it here? Especially given that what you say in support of "God decided" is just historically incorrect. The Council of Nicaea--the Second Ecumenical Council, called by Constantine (who, I surmise by some of your other comments and your penchant for using "Roman" as some kind of slur, you seem to think poisoned the church somehow)--rejected Arianism and pronounced dogmatically that Jesus is God (not bad for a corrupt "Roman" council!). First Council of Nicaea | Christianity, Arianism, Ecumenical, History, Significance, & Facts | Britannica. It did not address issues related to what texts qualified as "Scripture."

When the Church did get around to ascertaining more formally what was the scope of Scripture--which it did not do dogmatically until the Council of Trent, to be sure, precipitated by the Reformers arrogating to themselves the authority to excise books they didn't like for one reason or another; but this was not adding the "Catholic" books, as you imply, but simply defining dogmatically what had been true and essentially settled for centuries until the Reformers came along--through non-ecumenical Councils in the late fourth and early fifth century, the Bible it settled upon was the Catholic Bible. See, for example, Canon 24 from the Council of Carthage in 419, laying out what constituted "canonical scripture." (CHURCH FATHERS: Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)).

And something fascinating about the process of canonization is that the Christians of the first four centuries sorting all this out did not manifest the sort of blase "God decided" attitude that you manifest (another data point suggesting that "Sola Scriptura" is not Biblical - why didn't the early Christians manifest that mentality if it comes from Christ and the Apostles?). Rather, they decided on what qualified as "Scripture" based on a preexisting "canon" -- the "regula fidei," or "Rule of Faith," which was the orthodox, settled teaching of the Church, in large part verbal, passed down from Christ, to the Apostles, to the Bishops, and so on. (Regula Fidei). The Council of Nicaea is, in part, testimony to this--the Church was deciding dogmas before there was a settled New Testament canon, and it didn't think it had to wait until the latter to do the former. In other words, the orthodox Christians of the first few centuries settled on what books were full-fledged "Scripture" based on what we today would call the capital-T "Tradition" they had received (see, e.g., 1 Thessalonians 2:5!)--the exact opposite you'd expect if "Sola Scriptura" was "Biblical."

On all this, I would strongly commend to you The Biblical Canon by evangelical Baptist pastor Lee Martin McDonald (lest you think this is just "Roman" propaganda talking). Of course, the history is very nuanced, far more than a short blog post on a discussion thread can nearly do justice; but seriously, look for yourself and see.

All this is to say, your assertion that "God decided" the Protestant Bible is the "Scriptura" that is "Sola" doesn't withstand either Biblical or historical scrutiny.

Finally, you say "If the Roman church"--again, you seem to mean that as a slur, but we are to happy to wear the title; it's a grace and a privilege to belong to Christ's church He established through Peter that preserved the Faith for two millennia, often at the cost of many "Roman" martyrs' lives--"agreed all dogma must stem from Scripture, they would not have so many non-biblical dogmas as canon law." Again, somewhat confused (dogma and canon law occupy different places and serve different functions). Beyond that, who gets to decide what is "non-biblical"? Based on your conversations with others, and from our conversation here, your answer seems to be "me." Which, to be fair, is the default evangelical Protestant mode. But that, itself, is un-biblical. (See, e.g., Acts 15, where the Church came together to resolve a theological dispute and issued a decree based on what "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to [them]," to put that dispute to bed - doesn't leave much room for the notion that every individual believer has the ultimate discretion to decide for themselves at least the core matters of faith and practice). Further, there seems to be some serious inconsistency as to what you have decided is "Biblical" or "non-Biblical." Over the past several days on this thread, it appears you've rejected out-of-hand as inadequate "passages and words" from Scripture that support a number of the dogmas you take issue with (even though the "Catholic" interpretation of these passages is concurred in by Christians throughout history going back to the Patristics, which just as a historical matter suggests that the "Catholic" interpretation should at least be taken seriously and not blithely dismissed). But you want to be able to declare "Sola Scriptura" as "Biblical" based on evidently far thinner "passages and words" and, apparently, nothing else but your say-so. That's no way to run a railroad, never mind a faith that you'd (presumably) like people to subscribe to.

Welcome to the forum Romesweethome.
I think you stole that from Dr. Scott Hahn...not sure.
It seems we Protestants would need our own Pope...but no one seems to like this idea.
We like to read the bible for ourselves instead and come up with our own doctrine.
Really, it IS a big problem.
And I have no solution for it and I know Protestants will not be willing to offer themselves to an authority...
that would include me...and for this, in all honesty, I am sorry.

 

[Behold]

who decides what is "heresy,"

Paul's doctrine decides what is "heresy".

 

[LoveYeshua]

Paul's doctrine decides what is "heresy".

Really? I thought it was Christ who was given all authority on earth and heaven. Why do you point to Paul as the deciding authority?

 

[Behold]

it's a grace and a privilege to belong to Christ's church He established through Peter that preserved the Faith f

Catholic propagana teaches that Peter established "the church".
The historical and biblical reality is that Peter, and James, and John, went about the business of dealing with Jews, and Paul went to the Gentiles.

The fact is, the "church" which is mostly GENTILES.... is built on The Sacrifice of CHRIST, and Paul's Theology.
Everything that the NT teaches regarding how to understand Salvation, how to preach the Gospel, as well as the definition of the Gospel comes from Paul's doctrine.

God built His NT "chruch" on The Cross of Christ & Paul's doctrine.
This is why Paul wrote most of the NT Epistles.
THis is why Paul's Gospel is THE ONLY Gospel, we are to use...... Galatians 1:8
Even Peter in 2 Peter stated that Paul's Letters, are equal to the TORAH, as Peter stated that Paul's letters, are "SCRIPTURE".

The MaryCult is not built on Paul's doctrine, its built on the illusion that Peter is a pope and Mary is co-author of Salvation.
The MaryCult is crafted by deceived "church fathers" whose teachings, espeically those about Mary, are not found in any bible.
In other words, its a man-made cult, that created the "dark ages and has murdered more people, defined as Heretics, then Islam.

-
-

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul's doctrine decides what is "heresy".

Paul died one fine day.

You know who decided what was heresy in the early church?
First it was the Apostles.
Then it was those to whom the faith was passed on....
that would be the dreaded Early Church Fathers.

And to think that they weren't even inspired!
They even got to decide which letters went into the NT.
Paul wasn't around for that either.

So SOMEONE had to decide which of his letters to include!

And Peter WAS the first Bishop of Rome (later came to be known as THE POPE)
and the other 4 POPES went to him for advice when problems arose.

Yes. Originally there were five popes.
History is such a great thing to know!
I just wish I knew more.

The popes were in:
ROME
CONSTANTINOPLE
ANTIOCH
JERUSALEM
ALEXANDRIA


Check it out - you just might learn something.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Only to an indoctrinated mind is it not explicit. And using OT definitions from Hebrew to define Greek is disingenuous

In Greek it is proto tokos and means first born so you fail in your deception.

As I have already educated you – “Firstborn” in Jewish culture simply refers to “he who opens the womb.”

Exod. 13:1
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”

It’s a Hebrew term (בכור/bek-ore') – not Greek, so you LOSE this argument . . .

But to give you a FREE THIRD GRADE GRAMMAR LESSON.

iN MATTHEW IT IS A DUASLITY OF ACTIONS. FIRST WAS A NEGATIVE ACTION (KNEW HER NOT) THEN FOLLOWED BY THE POSAITIVE- AFTER JESUS WAS BORN. GO LEARN GRAMMAR BEFORE YOU TRY TO INSTRUCT OTHERS.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
First a negative (had no children) – THEN a supposed positive.

So, tell me – did she have children AFTER she died?? What’s that you said about grammar??
I’m embarrassed for you . . .

I don't have to!

Ir's beause you CAN'T . . .

Other than you offering mere opinion of Romanists of what they mean, you provide no ther evidence. Jesus in typology is shown throughout Scripture like the passover lamb, seed of the woman etc.

Also it was part of the word of God (just ten passages) in the ark, and what about the manna and Aarons rod that budded? Sorry butromanist opinion needs more than just see-!

The Ark of the Covenant carried symbols of God’s power – Aaron’s Rod, the Tablets containing God’s Word, a jar of Manna.

The Ark of the NEW Covenant (Mary) carried GOD Himself in the person of Jesus, who IS the Word.

Your failure to understand this is your folly . . .

When you give empirical evidence for Mary and not a passage and Romanist conclusions I will gladly do so. Priests carried that Ark wherever it travelled- what bout Mary? They built a temple to hold the ark- what about Mary?

ThThe bible shows Israel to be the woman in REv. 12. How much twisting do you have to do to make it Mary when it goes further on to say this about the woman: .

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

ALL you did was post some Scripture with NO argument to refute my position.

EPIC FAILURE . . .

Well Gomer Pyle; turn on the TV and listen to priests and bishops and Cardinals! They call him other trhings to his face like eminence etc. But all call him pope when referring to him.

Umm, isn’t that what I just said, Einstein??
I said that most people simply REFER to him as “Pope” – but don’t CALL him that.

Once again, Goober - it’s not a title – but a term of endearment.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Most deceived MaryCult members refer to the Pope as "holy father" or "his holiness", or similar.

WOW - you made the SAME blunder as @Ronald Nolette.
Anti-Catholic ignorance and cluelessness must be contagious . . .