It is hard to discuss with someone so illogical.
Just what I was thinking LOL
The statement "all truth is contained in scripture" (the false belief of reformationists) is logically not the eqivalence of "all scripture is truth" ( which is what we all believe).
If your church believed that all the Scripture was truth your views would be very different. You would not add on the 'added extras' like Mary, the saints, images, reserved sacrament, etc. They are a contradiction to Scripture. No one says 'all truth is contained in Scripture'. What we say is that all truth necessary for salvation and for our spiritual growth is contained in Scripture. The early church knew that which was why they rejected from the canon all non-Apostolic works.
I asked you "where in scripture does it say, it has to be in scripture to be true?",
What has? If the Scripture said that it would be wrong. My mathematical knowledge is not found in Scripture, and it is true. But as Isaiah said, 'to the word and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word there is no truth in them'.
As Paul said to Timothy, 'from a child you have known the sacred writings which
are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (Nothing else needed). For all Scripture is God-breathed and is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be
completely furnished unto every good work.
If the Scriptures can make us
wise unto salvation and can
COMPLETELY furnish us, what need have we of anything more?
and I can save you a lot of effort by stating without fear of contradiction, it simply is not there!
I have just demonstrated that it is,
Scripture DOES say the "pillar of truth is the church" not scripture.
But which church? The original church which were the Orthodox churches (and which one of those?) The Roman Catholic Church which enforced itself on independent churches in the seventh and eight centuries by using political power and tried to do the same with the Orthodox churches and failed? The Jerusalem Catholic Church? The Greek Catholic Church? The Old Catholic Church? The Baptist church which was around at the beginning as a group of independent churches which baptised adults? And I could name many more, different reformed churches, different Catholic churches, different orthodox churches and so on. There is no one church (although there is one pretentious one0 . Paul was talking about the independent churches which were in submission to the Apostles. So clearly the true church is the one that submits to the Apostolic teaching as found in the Scriptures, MY CHURCH Lol
Indeed sola scriptura is logically unsupportable. For the statement "all truth is in scripture" to be true, scripture would have to say that to be logically consistent, and nowhere does it say that so sola scriptura is LOGICALLY AND BIBLICALLY FALSE!
I have never heard such unadulterated rubbish. Whether something is true is not determined by the source itself. It is determined by those competent to judge, such as God, Jesus Christ, and the Apostles. The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD. As such it supersedes all else and is superior to all else, and is the only RELIABLE source of spiritual truth..
And speaking at the time he did, scripture was the old testament. Jesus did not give us a new testament book , he gave a new covenant (a word that later changed to refer to a book), Jesus gave us apostles to hand down the truth essentially by word of mouth (the meaning of tradition, a handing down)
AND especially by writing down the truth in the New Testament Scripture. Peter called Paul's letters SCRIPTURE. God inspired the NT Scriptures because he knew how quickly oral tradition can become ORAL LIES. The early church knew it also and judged everything by the Scriptures. They sought to prove their position by the Scriptures. They excluded from them anything that did not have an Apostolic source.
You really do not like Mary do you? You will twist anything to defend a bad case.
I respect and admire the real Mary, who was both godly and weak and sinful, but came through in the end. I do not admire the goddess that you try to turn Mary into. As Jesus said, those who heeded God's words were more blessed than she.
You clearly do not trust the power of God to do what he says in the Lords prayer, that with grace he can "keep free from temptation to sin", which is why us common folk beg for the grace to be able to do that, which she already has in full, the bible says so!.
You speak and believe such rubbish that it is almost unbelievable. The Lord's prayer in Scripture does not say 'keep free from temptation to sin.' It says, 'do not lead us into testing'. God does not lead into temptation. But He does lead us into testing.
Mary was not full of grace. Scripture nowhere says that she was. She was highly favoured because she had been chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. God's 'grace' was in her belly. It indicated that she was bearing the Messiah. It said nothing about her spiritual life in which like all of us she failed. She rebuked Jesus for doing what was God's will. She disobeyed Him at Cana. She tried to hinder His Messianic ministry. We do not hear of her supporting Him until she finally realised the truth at the resurrection. YOUR Mary is a mythical goddess unknown to Scripture.
So considering Mary was full of grace, lord was with her , all generations call her blessed (the bible puts no timebound on any of those, as you do) - he cleary could keep her free from temptation to sin, important if you want a good guide for the early life of God's son!.
Scripture nowhere says that she was full of grace. She was engraced as all true Christians are engraced (Eph 1.6). I am totally dependent on His grace which is at work within me and I have Jesus Christ within me as have all TRUE Christians . The LORD is also with me and with all those who are His. Mary was no different from other godly people.
You should of course note that Elizabeth's words were not inspired. We simply have inspired Scripture telling us what she said in her enthusiasm. It carries no theological authority. And a Jesus said those who are truly blessed, in contrast to Mary, are those who hear the word of God and keep it.
So why do you not think God can do what he says? You worship an inferior God, mine I trust to do what he says!
God does do what He says. What He does not do is what the Roman Catholic church says. My God is in fact superior to yours. He does not have to lean on the Roman Catholic church.
Your example of sin is ridiculous, all mothers should challenge an infant who bunks off.. she would have been failing in her (heaven appointed) duty to protect him if she did not! That scripture was not just a historic incident but a "type" heralding the passion to come.
Lol you RCs do twist Scripture so. She failed in her Heavenly appointed duty by not ensuring that Jesus was with them when they left Jerusalem. How was she protecting Him then? She failed AGAIN when she did not realise that He would have good reason for what He had done. Having borne the Messiah she constantly failed to recognise that He was so. it was not a type heralding the Passion. It was indicating Who He was.