blackbird

Worship of Mary and the saints is an obvious one. It is contrary to the ten commandments for example where it says to worship God only. Worshiping anyone or anything other than God is idolatry. That is the definition of idolatry.

I just quoted Isaiah 8:20 which says if they speak not according to the word, it is because there is no light in them. What does that tell you? It says to me that any belief or practice that is contrary to Scripture is false and must be rejected. That is simple logic. Any tradition that is against Scripture is false. I just listed some of them.

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16 "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. " Isaiah 8:20 These verses demonstrate that the Bible came from God and is infallible. This is not true for tradition unless the tradition is in accordance with the Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible to prove that the beliefs and practices of tradition are infallible. Some might be and those that are in accordance with Scripture would of course be acceptable. But much of Roman Catholic beliefs and practices are contrary to Scripture and therefore must be rejected. Can you prove that all RC traditions are in accordance with the Bible? Of course not. When the Scripture speaks about traditions it is speaking about traditions which are in accordance with Scripture, not traditions that oppose Scripture. Where does the Bible give men the power to invent new traditions, that are contrary to Scripture? It doesn't. Here are a few examples of some that are contrary to Scripture and therefore are false beliefs or practices. 1. Worship of Mary. (idolatry) 2. Mary being the "Mother of God". (God has no mother) 3. Worship or veneration of saints. (idolatry) 4. Worship of the wafer. 5. Purgatory. 6. Mass. (Jesus offered himself once and for all according to Hebrews, never to be repeated) 7. Confessing sins to priests and receiving forgiveness from a priest. Only God can forgive sin and priests cannot be mediators between God and men. "6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. " John 14:6 I would conclude that tradition has given the RCC many false doctrines and practices and must be rejected as false.

Of course sola scriptura is true. God gave us his word in the form of the Bible. If sola scriptura is not true, then how do we know what is truth concerning faith and practices? If the Bible is not the infallible and complete source of truth, then what is? There has to be an absolute source of truth and there is. It is the Bible. This interesting article explains why sola scriptura is a fact and why it is important. "The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!” The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, this is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11, which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine—taught by an apostle, no less—to the written Word. Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6–9. Whether sola scriptura is overtly mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition. The Word of God is the ultimate and only infallible authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one’s spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice. On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues? The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2). Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable." What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org

I do believe in sola scriptura. sola scriptura deflnition : Sola scriptura (Latin for ' by scripture alone ') is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. - wikipedia The definitions says what I believe. Scripture is the sole infallible source. That does not mean a person cannot read what various theologians and others believe about a topic, doctrine, or parts of the Bible. The term "sola scriptura" does not imply or mean one cannot read commentaries or articles on Biblical subjects. You seem to think sola scriptura means a person can read nothing else or quote nothing else. The only thing sola scriptura means is that the Bible is the infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. That means other things can be read and considered but they are not to be considered as infallible. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to read or quote what others say about the Bible. There are some verses that are not always easy to understand and it sometimes helps to read what others have to say who may have spent a great deal of time studying a topic in the Bible.

Awesome!

Yes, the world is a fallen, corrupt place. No you don't need to try to drive Muslims out. They are no worse than any other group you mentioned. We cannot change the world anyway. It is so far gone though.

There have always been false religions that believed that man was in control and could work his way to heaven somehow. That is why you have a different interpretation on some verses in the Bible. But there are countless questions I don't think you can answer. I looked at an online Catholic catechism and was surprised to see the vastness of it. I recall when the cathechism was a small booklet that one could flip through in a few minutes. But the one that I saw online is vast. On the subject of baptism, it seems to say baptism makes one Christian. There is another unbiblical claim.

You need to look into that. I don't think so.

I am not convinced of that. From what I've read, they believe Jesus was just another prophet, not the Son of God and not God. Saying Jesus is God would definitely go against their religion of Islam. They have only their one God they call Allah.

I don't believe they should ever have been allowed into Canada to begin with. They do not fit in with western Judeo-Christian civilization and never will. The west has been at odds with them for over a thousand years. They had to be pushed out of France and Spain as they were going to take over centuries ago. Now they are invited in. Will the west, particularly liberals, ever learn anything?

What is Isa?

More information here about the Winnipeg virology lab scandal. How the investigation and firing of two high-security virus scientists over leaks to China unfolded (msn.com)

Popery can not save anyone. If is a false religion. Tryin to work your way to heaven is a losing proposition. "3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3 You think your own works can save you. That is a futile effort. You still have not answered the question. How many works or what kind will save you? How does one know he is saved and going to heaven? What about the fictitious place called Purgatory? Do you believe in that too? If one believes he must atone for his own sins or pay for them somehow, he is obviously not believing the gospel that Jesus Christ paid for all sin. Why have priests if Christ paid for it all once for all? That means the Mass is a scam. Nobody can offer anything to atone for sins. Have you read Hebrews? Doesn't look like it if you are still believing in the false religious system. "12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. " Hebrews 9:12 KJV "25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. " Hebrews 9:25 KJV This means the priesthood is meaningless. It has no purpose and is deceiving you.

quote "We have KNOWN and believed the love which God hath to us" (1John 4:16); . or with Paul, "I am PERSUADED that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:38,39) But this no man can ever say, who "goes about to establish his own righteousness" (Romans 10:3), who seeks, in any shape, to be justified by works. Such assurance, such comfort, can come only from a simple and believing reliance on the free, unmerited grace of God, given in and along with Christ, the unspeakable gift of the Father's love. It was this that made Luther's spirit to be, as he himself declared, "as free as a flower of the field," when, single and alone, he went up to the Diet of Worms, to confront all the prelates and potentates there convened to condemn the doctrine which he held. It was this that in every age made the martyrs go with such sublime heroism not only to prison but to death. It is this that emancipates the soul, restores the true dignity of humanity, and cuts up by the roots all the imposing pretensions of priestcraft. It is this only that can produce a life of loving, filial, hearty obedience to the law and commandments of God; and that, when nature fails, and when the king of terrors is at hand, can enable poor, guilty sons of men, with the deepest sense of unworthiness, yet to say, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord" (1Corinthians 15:55,57). unquote Can God's love and salvation be EARNED? (thejournal.org) If you think you can earn the love and acceptance of God by works, you are only fooling yourself. This false idea may have come from the ancient Babylonian religion as this book delves into. One can easily see it being a common belief among false religions of the world. "3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3 KJV " The worshippers of Nimrod and his queen were looked upon as regenerated and purged from sin by baptism, which baptism received its virtue from the sufferings of these two great Babylonian divinities. But yet in regard to justification (earning God's acceptance and love through human effort), the Chaldean doctrine was that it was by works and merits of men themselves that they must be justified and accepted of God. The following remarks of Christie in his observations appended to Ouvaroff's Eleusinian Mysteries, show that such was the case: "Mr. Ouvaroff has suggested that one of the great objects of the Mysteries was the presenting to fallen man the means of his return to God. These means were the cathartic virtues--(i.e., the virtues by which sin is removed), by the exercise of which a corporeal life was to be vanquished. Accordingly the Mysteries were termed Teletae, 'perfections,' because they were supposed to induce a perfectness of life. Those who were purified by them were styled Teloumenoi and Tetelesmenoi, that is, 'brought...to perfection,' which depended on the exertions of the individual." Can God's love and salvation be EARNED? (thejournal.org)

What we also need to know is what exactly were the two Chinese scientists doing in the Winnipeg virology lab, what information did they transfer to China, and why were they fired. In fact, the bigger question is why were they even allowed to work there? Seems to me that some deadly viruses were also transferred from the Winnipeg lab to the virology lab in China around that time. This was four years ago in 2019 and apparently some report was finally released but obviously it is not going to explain very much. Everything is kept hidden ostensibly for "national security" reasons. But Canadians have a right to know what is going on. Why was Canada involved in some dealings with China in the first place? This still has not been explained by the government. Wasn't this also at the time China was holding the two Michaels in prison? It is also believed that Covid 19 began in Wuhan, China. Is it a coincidence that Covid started where the virology lab is located or was it deliberately started in that lab? " TORONTO -- Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Health Canada will ensure that all masks and medical equipment arriving from China will be properly evaluated, after reports that the Dutch government recalled over 600,000 faulty masks imported from the country. Speaking to reporters outside of his home in Ottawa Sunday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada will be receiving additional medical supplies from China “in the coming days,” noting that Health Canada will evaluate the equipment. “I can assure people that Health Canada has very strong procedures for evaluating that what we get is up to the necessary standards and that there will be no corners cut on this,” Trudeau said. His remarks come after reports that Dutch officials recalled more than half a million face masks imported from China after discovering they were faulty." Trudeau vows 'no corners cut' in accepting masks, other supplies from China | CTV News Seems to me the Liberal government was extremely naive in its dealings with China and did not see any kind of threat.

James is talking about works being necessary once a person becomes a Christian to demonstrate to the world he is a Christian. But works cannot be a part of becoming a Christian which can happen at the moment one believes in Jesus Christ. If works are necessary to become a Christian, please tell me how much works and what kind is necessary and tell me at what point one becomes a Christian. All the people Jesus talked to who believed in him became Christian the moment they believed. So how did works have anything to do with becoming a Christian?

You are obviously not taking in what Romans 4 says. The passage is not talking at all about the need for works. It is clearly condemning the idea that works are required for justification. It is you who are saying Abraham did something at home. That is not mentioned and contrary to what it says. It clearly says works would not justify Abraham or anyone. Nothing more to say about it now.

No, I don't see any contradiction. James is not talking about justification or salvation. Romans 4 says clearly justification is by faith alone. It condemns the idea of justification by works or faith plus works. Nobody can be justified by works is what is saying. So James and Matthew must be understood in agreement with that. It is you who are claiming James and Matthew is saying salvation is by faith PLUS works. Romans 4 makes it clear once and for all that justification is strictly by faith, not works. That means salvation is by faith alone. Works comes after and is done because one is a child of God, not working to become one.

So you reject what the Apostle Paul says in Romans ch4. You can't interpret other verses such as James and Matt. 7:21 in a way that contradicts what Paul said in Romans 4. They must be in agreement. Paul says clearly in Romans ch4 you cannot be justified by works. Justification is strictly by faith.

" 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:16 KJV definition justification :- theology the action of declaring or making righteous in the sight of God.

It says clearly " 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Romans 4:2, 3 Then it repeats this idea when it says "5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. " Romans 4:5 Clearly it is not talking about any works that Abraham might have done. It is a clear statement that nobody can be justified by his works. In fact, it is a condemnation of the idea that works has anything to do with justification or imputed righteousness. " 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. " Romans 4:6-8 The whole section is clearly a condemnation of the idea that one can be justified by works or faith plus works. It is a clear statement that justification is strictly by faith. This is in agreement with Galatians and Ephesians 2:8, 9

You need to read it again carefully. Does it say clearly that someone who worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness? (verse 5) Clearly Romans 4:1-8 condemns the idea that one is justified or receives imputed righteousness by his works. It is saying nobody can be justified by faith plus works. That should be clear. Would you agree? Justification means iniquities are forgiven and righteousness is imputed to the person.

No, I never said anything about what Abraham did. I am asking you what Romans 4:1-8 means to you?

Did you read Romans ch4:1-8? It uses the word works several times there and says Abraham was justified without works? How can that be? "1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. " Romans 4: 1-8 How could God impute righteousness to a man without works as in verse 6?