Featured Sola Scriptura in the Bible

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, 1 Peter 2:17 and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because alms delivers from death. Tobit 4:10, Tobit 12:9 Be all of you subject one to another 1 Peter 5:5 having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles, 1 Peter 2:12 that you may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! Isaiah 52:5 Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct."-- Epistle to Philippians chapter 10

Sorry your right its epistle to philippians. (actually edited this ......cause I still wrote Ephesians apparently its stuck in my head)

What in the world is a TOBIT?

Sounds like some protestant scripture. I can't seem to find it.

10 For almsgiving delivers from death and saves people from passing down to darkness.

 

Yea, amazing!

Why do you answer in this thread and not in that discussion?

Because the Magisterium of Christ's day a la BobRyan and SDA super Scriptura spirit of prophesy, is getting hammered "sola Scriptura" there.

 

A good Roman Catholic like you should know what a Tobit is.

It's a non-inspired and non-inspiring story in the Apocrypha.

 

How thoroughly have you studied Tobit?

 

I wrote my PhD thesis on it.

Actually, that's not exactly true. I read it once. Biggrin It's an everyday story of Jewish exiles in Nineveh. Tobit's son, Tobias, goes on a journey with his dog and finds a wife.

 

1 Timothy 3:16 doesn't explain sola scriptura. It does explain that that all scripture is inspired and useful, although it doesn't attempt to define scripture. Was he referring to the Torah? the Septuagint? Probably the latter since Timothy grew up in a Greek household. And which extant books of the New Testament was he designating as scripture? We don't know but we can be sure Paul was not referring to the 66 books we call the Bible.

As for scriptural support for tradition, see 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." See also 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

 

For my Catholic brothers and sisters. For us who are converts form sola scriptura backgrounds, I can tell you that the issue was never raised. We accepted it as a given fact--like the sky is blue or children are born of mothers. We never asked "Where did the Bible come from?" or "Why do we have a Bible?" It simply was the Bible and it was our final authority on all matters of faith and morals. It seems Luther did a good job of convincing a lot of people that we don't need the Church to interpret Scripture for us. In my particular Baptist church we believed that each of us was personally guided in interpretation (but we weren't allowed to disagree with our baptistic basic tenets if our "interpretation" disagreed with their).

We all but worshiped the Bible. If Jesus himself had come down and told us anything we thought wasn't in the Bible we would have argued with Him.

So, trying to get sola scriptura-ists to let go of this idea is like trying to peel a turtle. It can be done, but the turtle has to be willing or trying to do it could do more harm than good. Why? Because it may cause some to lose faith altogether--their identities are so tied to their personal beliefs that if they didn't have it, they'd crumble. I saw more than one person lose their faith when they didn't get answers to prayers after they'd "claimed it in Jesus' name"--a very sola scriptura thing to do. So, we have to be careful how we approach this issue or any other people hold dear. We have to be sure they are ready to hear it and that it will not harm them. This is why we have to relay the truth in charity, not hit others over the heads with it. Y'all are doing it in love here. Good job!

 

I, too, point out that 2 Timothy 3:!6 says "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired..." and not "SCRIPTURE IS ALL..." This is one of the most frequently and profoundly twisted verses in all of scripture.

As well, nowhere in scripture does scripture delineate the "Sacred Table of Contents" of the bible. Only the Catholic Church did that, and had the authority to do that.

Scripture teaches (Matthew 18:15-19, Acts 15) that all matters in dispute must be settled by the Church as the ultimate authority, not by indivbiduals or by twisting and distorting the scriptures.

The devil is the first one in all of scripture to twist the meaning of God's Word (Genesis 3). The devil is the first one to twist and distort the scriptures in his temptation of Christ, when he said, "It is written..." (Matthew 4:5-6, Luke 4:9-11).
__________________

 

Israel and Moses existed a long time before Luther. Why are you crediting Luther for such a time-honored and Biblical doctrine which you simply reject. You are rejecting God not Luther.

In ca. 700 B.C. Isaiah wrote:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--and that my friend teachs sola scriptura.

--That concept is heresy, as the Bible gives each and every one of us the responsibility of studying the Bible on our own, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit come to our own conclusion. That is why all evangelical Christians are agreed on the essentials of salvation, as opposed to all Catholics who are confused and don't even know what it is.
I challenge you. Ask ten Catholics to define salvation--the means by which one can be sure of having their sins forgiven and being sure of heaven, and see if you get a unified answer. The answer I get from Catholics is a unified answer. It is "I don't know."

You are confused and not willing to be perfectly honest.
First, you had a bad experience with your Baptist church. Not all Baptist churches are the same.
Second, when one joins a Baptist Church they agree to accept the statement of faith as written.
There can be no disagreement with either the statement of faith or the Constitution. If there is disagreement and things change, then the church would change over time, and would no longer be a Baptist church. It is a Baptist church because it adheres to Baptist principles and a Baptist statement of faith, both of which should not change. And no one should be allowed to change them. Did you expect that certain in that Baptist Church should be allowed to be Catholics like you converted to? Really???

Jesus spoke with authority. He "word" was "The Word." There would be nothing to argue against.

Jesus said:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--Charity is not listed among the prerequisites for going to heaven.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

The verse certainly says that all Scripture is inspired and profitable, but it says more than that. It 'is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.' There is no verse that says this about 'tradition' or the Church or anything else. If you don't know what Sola Scriptura is, that is a rather shocking admission of ignorance. Don't you think you ought to find out?

The Lord Jesus Christ was constantly pointing people away from 'tradition' to the Scriptures. Mark 7:6-9 is the locus classicus but there are plenty of others. Since the N.T. was not written during our Lord's time on earth, we may assume that He was speaking about the O.T. Scriptures. Since He never quotes from the Apocrypha, we can know that those books are not Scripture. Paul brackets Luke's Gospel with Deuteronomy in 1 Timothy 5:18 and calls them both Scripture, so the Gospels are Scripture. Paul also makes it clear that his own writings are the word of God (1 Corinthians 14:37), and Peter agrees with him in 2 Peter 3:15-16, and calls his letters Scripture.

For the rest, I refer you to my post #28. The Church of Rome did not compile the New Testament; the Holy Spirit did.

This question probably deserves a thread to itself. I will try to post something in the next day or two. Suffice it to say here that the Church of Rome has it entirely wrong.

 

That is nothing to boast about. It is wilful ignorance. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

RoflmaoRoflmao
No non-Catholic has ever considered the "Table of Contents" inspired.
Just because something is written between the two black leather covers of that physical book we call the Bible, do you think that makes it inspired?? Are all the notes that I have written in the margins of my Bible therefore inspired?
What Table of Contents? Many Bibles don't have one. It depends on the printer. And the Table of Contents is far from "sacred."

 

It's quite ironic that you use the OT to validate this Sola Scriptura business. God"s commands in the early days were mediated to the people directly through the Prophets and Patriarchs and when things were finally written down (around Moses's time), no Israelite was free to practice private interpretation of the Law either. What was to be believed came down through the proper authority, sort of like what happened when the New Testament came about - the proper authority, first with the Apostles and then their legitimate successors.

 

If Sola Scriptura would have been what God intended, Jesus would have just written the New Testament all by himself. There would have been no need of any Apostles and the new Christian Church, which of course would have eliminated the need for any Sunday gatherings of the faithful to learn and worship. Why have them if every person could decide for him or herself what God really meant?

 

Seriously? Surely you realize the Baptist Faith and Message, promulgated in 1925, was changed in 1963 and again in 2000. In addition it had an article added in 1998. On a local level, one church in our association recently scuttled that part of the church covenant that prohibits consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages. Statements of faith change.

 

Let the Southern Baptists speak for themselves. Herschel Hobbs, previous president of the SBC Convention, and author of "The Baptist Faith and Message," a book which expounds on that very statement of faith, states:

“The Baptist Faith and Message” of Southern Baptists is based upon the competency of the soul in religion. Those who drew up the original statement in 1924-25 were careful to safeguard the individual conscience. The committee which revised it in 1962-63 retained this safeguard. The preamble clearly states “that sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience…and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” Further, “such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority.”

It should be noted that through the years various Baptist bodies have drawn up their confessions of faith. Many of these were intended for local use only. Others were designed for a broader use among Baptists. Of special interest to Baptists in America are the Philadelphia Confession (1742) and the New Hampshire Confession (1833). The latter has been widely used by various Baptist bodies in the twentieth century. “In 1925 the Southern Baptist Convention worked over the [New Hampshire] Confession, adding ten new sections, and published it as an expression of faith generally held by Southern Baptists.”

In 1924 the evolution controversy was at white heat, especially concerning the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The Southern Baptist Convention appointed a committee chaired by E. Y. Mullins to draw up a recommended statement of Baptist faith and message. Thus in 1925 the Convention adopted what was called “The Baptist Faith and Message.” This statement served in large measure to anchor Southern Baptists to their traditional theological moorings for a generation.

In 1961 a controversy, centered in the interpretation of Genesis, arose among Southern Baptists. It was precipitated by The Message of Genesis by Ralph Elliott. Actually this volume was not so much the cause as the occasion for the controversy. For several years many had been saying that Southern Baptists were becoming more liberal in their theological views. Talk was even heard about a possible division in the Convention.
To enable a comparative study, the 1925 statement and the proposed 1963 statement were printed in parallel columns.

At the Convention itself the proposed new statement was read in its entirety. After a brief debate on one sentence regarding the church—“The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages”—the report was adopted without changing even a punctuation mark.

There was no change in doctrine. There was clarification because of the attack on creation with the advent of evolution and its consequent emphasis in the scientific community. The SBC took a stand against evolution and put it in their statement of faith--a very wise thing to do. How does that change their doctrine?

 

Except of course, it didn't, did it? '"For both prophet and priest are profane; yes, in My house I have found their wickedness," says the LORD. "Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery ways; in the darkness they shall be driven on and fall in them; for I will bring disaster on them. the year of their punishment," says the LORD.' (Jeremiah 23:11-12). There is page after page of stuff like that in the O.T. The religious authorities were the enemies of God most of the time. So the Lord raised up men outside of the religious establishment: "I was no prophet, nor was I the son of a prophet, but I was a sheepbreeder and a tender of sycamore fruit. then the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said to me, "Go, prophesy to My people Israel"' (Amos 7:14-15).

Who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles? Not your 'Popes,' that's for sure!
'Pope' Honorius (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681). He was also condemned as a heretic by 'Pope' Leo II and by every other 'Pope' until the 11th Century. So we have 'infallible' 'Popes' condemning another 'infallible' 'Pope' as a heretic.

Also, "John XXII did not want to hear about his own infallibility; he viewed it as an improper restriction on his rights as a sovereign, and in the bull Qui quorundam (1324) condemned the Franciscan doctrine of papal infallibility as the work of the devil" (Roman Catholic historian, August Bernard Hasler).