Clarity would be necessary for Scripture alone to be acceptable.
Is Perspecuity Necessary for Sola Scriptura?
- Thread starter glassjester
- Start date
iouae
Well-known member
What would you like clarified?
Nothing needs to be clarified. Scripture is clear, inerrant and infallible. Sola Scriptura is a solid doctrine of the church.
2 Timothy 3:16 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
False Prophet
New member
He who says I know him, but does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.
6 Some people have missed these things and turned to useless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand either what they are talking about or what they are sure about. 1 tim
They come up with controversial questions: that's sinless perfection! Christians can't have demons! You can't lose your salvation! The law is not for people that walk after the Spirit. The law is for sinners. If you are breaking the law, are you walking after the Spirit?
We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, who are unholy and ungodly, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, 10 who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God.
1 Tim 1
6 Some people have missed these things and turned to useless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand either what they are talking about or what they are sure about. 1 tim
They come up with controversial questions: that's sinless perfection! Christians can't have demons! You can't lose your salvation! The law is not for people that walk after the Spirit. The law is for sinners. If you are breaking the law, are you walking after the Spirit?
We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, who are unholy and ungodly, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, 10 who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God.
1 Tim 1
Cruciform
New member
Actually, sola scriptura was entirely unknown in the Church until it was invented by Luther and company during the 16th-century so-called "Reformation." Nor does 2 Tim. 3:16 in any way teach it---or even imply it---but simply observes that the Old Testament ("scripture") is "profitable" (not "sufficient") to various ends. For more info, see this and this.
So much for your above claim.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
brewmama
New member
Yet that's not what the words say. The words say the church is the pillar of truth.
Well, for one thing we do. For another thing, Peter was married before he ever met Christ, so that hardly applies. And Jesus himself was not married. For another thing, St. Paul extols the virtue of celibacy. Another scripture you "sola scripturists" ignore?
This is the biggest fallacy of all the claims of sola scripturists, that the ancient church doesn't follow Christ. It's so unfounded that it makes you look extremely ignorant.
The ancient Church that Christ spoke of was indeed the Catholic Church, which included the Orthodox Church. You have absolutely no proof otherwise, and history shows you completely wrong.
brewmama
New member
Well, sola scriptura for one.
brewmama
New member
"You keep repeating that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..."
I've demonstrated to you many times, (not to mention that it is obvious) the fact that that verse does NOT say Bible only, that it refers to the OT, so if you REALLY base your theology on it you should only use the OT, that it in no way negates Church teachings, and that no one disputes that Scripture is profitable. Yet you just keep on quoting it...
"You keep repeating that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..."
I've demonstrated to you many times, (not to mention that it is obvious) the fact that that verse does NOT say Bible only, that it refers to the OT, so if you REALLY base your theology on it you should only use the OT, that it in no way negates Church teachings, and that no one disputes that Scripture is profitable. Yet you just keep on quoting it...
Do you believe that scripture contains error?
Cruciform
New member
Nope. Every single early Church Father quoted in your article believed and taught that apostolic oral Tradition is Divine Revelation ("the word of God"), and that it continued after the apostles with their ordained successors, the bishops. Try again.
brewmama
New member
I see you have a fixation on the Council of Trent, which is not a very good practice when you are trying to establish what the early Church did or taught.
"Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show."
Long list of early church fathers defending traditions:
http://www.wenorthodox.com/2012/12/the-early-church-fathers-on-church-tradition/
And what is it that you say tells you to cling to Apostolic tradition?
iouae
Well-known member
As a sola scriptura kind of believer I do not look to history as my authority but to sola scriptura or "the truth".
And I did a search of the NT and could not find any reference to the Catholic church. So you must be wrong.
Anyhoo I just have to look to the present errors in the church to know that it is apostate or in disagreement with many of Christ's clear commands.
And the Pope recently called the Muslims his brothers. That's about right.
Cruciform
New member
The authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church, which are drawn from Divine Revelation (God's Word), that is, Scripture and Tradition.
Yes, it is drawn from the Word of God period!
Cruciform
New member
That is, you look to your preferred interpretations of scripture, which you then label "the truth." Big difference there.
Ironic, since I can find no trace of sola scriptura in the Bible, so you must be wrong.
Regarding the Catholic Church, see this.
For example...?
In what specific sense does the Pope consider Muslims "brothers"? Do you even know?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
And where in the New Testament do you find the Catholic Church mentioned by name?
Cruciform
New member
Yes, "the Word of God," that is, Scripture and Tradition as believed and taught by Christ's one historic Church.
Cruciform
New member
Where in the New Testament do you find it stated that "Only terms which appear explicitly in the Bible may be used by Christians to describe their faith"? :think: