The early church for the first five hundred years believed in sola scriptura. that was why they refused to allow into their canon any book not written by or authorised by an Apostle. It was why all their arguments appealed to Scripture. You simply close your eyes to what does not suit you.
As for your relying on good works. that condemns you immediately. The Scripture is quite clear that good works play no part in salvation. They RESULT from salvation. (Romans 3.24-9; Ephesians 2.5-10; Titus 3.4-7, among others)
OK, will do - see the below references to traditions, written and oral Word, and good worksYou have not demonstrated where "Sola Scriptura" is an erroneous interpretation of the Scripture presented.
2 Thessaolonians 2:
[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and
hold the traditions which you have learned,
whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,
your interpretation of these verses is simply hilarious. they
have nothing to do with the teachings of a church founded 700 years after Christ.
now what is this referring to?
It refers to Paul's teaching being passed on accurately in his own time while he was still alive and able to vet them, and especially to what he wrote in his letters. It has NOTHING to say about words that were passed on which were not based on his teaching. The early fathers whose genuine writings we have were incapable of passing on Paul's words because thy did not understand them. You only have to read Clement of Rome's letter to see that.
You Roman Catholics. . .assume that any mention of what is passed on applies to you. But your traditions were not passed on by Paul. They are a mishmash of later heresies.
Couldn't have said it better myself (nor as well for that matter).2 Thessalonians 3:
[6] And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not
according to the tradition which they have received of us.
you see here it is again. It is not any tradition but
'the tradition which you have received FROM US'. And how do
we know that tradition.
ONLY FROM PAUL's LETTERS. It is miles away from the spurious traditions claimed by the Roman Catholic church which are all fantasies.
Elin said:Then we must first examine the foundational principle or logic of your argument.mattp0625 said:i await for the locations requested. Not interpretations- the actual words out of the bible
Your position is hypocritical if you believe in
the "Trinity," which is also not "the actual words out of the Bible."
That is not what Sola Scriptura means.Ok - it says epistle or word. It doesn't say written alone or Sola Scriptura
Where does it say Scripture alone saves, sir? It doesn't.
That is not what Sola Scriptura means.
Which brings us back to the hypocritical foundation of your argument.Dear Elin,You made my point very well.mattp0625 said:Ok- not a problem. Show me the age of accountability in the bible. Is it 12? 18? 21? Chapter and verse please.You left out "Trinity" and "sovereignty of God".
List of Man-Made Terms and Concepts Utilized by Protestants:
1) Age of Accountability-->a Catholic concept (age of reason)
2) Total Depravity of Man-->see Ro 8:7-8
3) Double Predestination-->can't have one without the other
4) Personal Lord and Saviour-->see 2Pe 1:11, 2:20, 3:18
5) Ask Jesus into your Heart-->See Rev 3:20, if not your heart, where do he and faith enter? (Ac 16:14; Ro 10:9-10; Eph 1:18, 5:19
6) The Rapture-->see the Latin Vulgate, 1Th 4:17 (raptus)
7) Invisible Church-->only the born again are the body of Christ, the church, do you know who they are with certainty so that the church is visible to you?
8) Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head-->from Catholic practice
9) “Personal Relationship with Christ"-->see "sonship"
10) Enthroning the Bible in your Heart-->see Ps 19;7-11, 119:169, 171-172, 11, 24, 97-100, 102-103, 147-148
(11) “Covered with the righteousness of Christ"-->see Is 61:10 with Ro 5:17, 19b
(12) Imputed righteousness-->see Ro 5:17, 19b
(13) Altar Call-->"sitting in a pew" is also not in the Bible
(14) Dedication; Rededication-->"repentance," see 2Co 2:6-10
(15) “Giving your Life to the Lord"-->see Mk 10:21
(16) Inerrancy-->see 2Tim 3:16
(17) Eternal Security-->see Php 1:6; Heb 10:14; Ro 8:38; 1Th 5:24; Heb 6:16-20; 1Pe 1:3-5; 2Pe 1:10
(18) “Once saved, always saved"--see "eternal security"
(19) Faith alone-->saved by grace alone, not by works, through faith (Eph 2:8-9)
(20) Sola Scriptura-->see 2Tim 3:16 "perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work"
(21) Devotions-->from Catholic practice
(22) Wedding rings-->a Catholic practice
You are uninformed.
Pony up. . .or your assertion that these interpretation are non-Biblical is without merit.
That concept is from the Catholic Church's "age of reason," not from the Bible.
It is the Catholic Church which uses concepts found nowhere in Scripture.
Score: 1-0 (#1).
You have not demonstrated where "Sola Scriptura" is an erroneous interpretation of the Scripture presented.
OK - the Protestant indicates he/she has the pure bible-based faith, Incorrupt by man and therefore pleasing to God. Additionally, the Protestant maintains the RCC is condemned without the Protestant "pure" bible-based views.
It is clear, kind friend, that the Protestant view is based on interpretations by fallible man. Man is not infallible (perfect, free form error). These are opinions, not scripture. These opinions are then used to issue condemnation to the RCC as though one had such authority to condemn.
I have submitted several examples of man-made phrases and concepts utilized by Protestants not found in the bible. Age of accountability and scripture alone are not phrases found in the bible. They are bible interpretations.
Which has no bearing on our discussion of "phrases not in the Bible."Elin, the main point, to summarize, is that issuing condemnation against the RCC based on man-made opinions of Protestants cannot hold water.
You sweep with a broad broom. . .I was paraphrasing, Elin. I know you believe your faith is based on "pure" scripture from the bible alone.
We have noted many items, such as Trinity, alter calls, age of accountability that shows the Protestant does not rely on the bible alone but on interpretation which are fallible opinions
We have further seen that
the Protestant condemns others for not having this "pure" scripture as a basis. Another way of saying condemned is not saved. I took it to the next step of being saved as has been presented here many times.
Which brings us back to the hypocritical foundation of your argument.
Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?
Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?
Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.
The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.
If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.
You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).
"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.
Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).
You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.
Pony-up, cowboy.
OK. . .but you claimed the phrases you listed were non-Biblical.Elin said:Which brings us back to the hypocritical foundation of your argument.
Do you believe in the Trinity, which is likewise not a phrase found in the Bible?
Then why do you hold it against others for phrases not found in the Bible?
Yes, both Catholics and Protestants use phrases not found in the Bible, which is not the issue between Catholics and Protestants.
The issue is the Biblical or non-Biblical meaning of the phrases.
The phrase "the Trinity" is non-Biblical, but its meaning is Biblical.
If your assertion that "phrases not found in the Bible" is to be more than meaningless rhetoric
of a meritless assertion, you must present a sound Biblical argument demonstrating that
the meaning attached to these non-Biblical phrases is also a non-Biblical meaning,
or the point of your assertion is both meritless and moot.
You have not done that for any Scripture I presented, the only errors you have shown come from the Catholic Church itself (#1, 8, 21, 22).
"Sola Scriptura" is a "lose" for you, because you have failed to demonstrate "Scripture alone" is not the meaning of the Scripture I presented there.
Score: 2-0 (#1, 20).
You get a re-try anytime you wish, and the score can be adjusted.
Pony-up, cowboy.
I never claimed Sola Scriptura for the RCC. Read again, friend
You really don't know what Sola Scriptura means, do you?Ok, where did this authority come from? Martin Luther? John Calvin? Or, friend, are you going to say your interpretations cameElin said:OK. . .but you claimed the phrases you listed were non-Biblical.
And that is the point of our discussion.
Address our discussion.
Nor do you know what Sola Scriptura is about.
It has nothing to do with non-Biblical phrases.
It states the authority for God's truth.
directly from God?
You're confounding "authority for source of truth" with the "truth of interpretation."Circular argument. Scripture alone - Then using personal interpretations and calling it scripture!! Can't have it both ways, friend.
Sir, if you would be so kind, please show me your wedding liturgy in the bible. Then, if you will, please show me the formation of your church in the bible.
It is what I say to people who believe the foolish doctrine of your church, and I do it on the authority of Christ. To those who twisted His word with man made traditions, He said, 'You fools and blind.' You do the same. Thus I follow in His steps.