Is sola scriptura true?

[blackbird]

Just now, Yakuda said:

That 5% may be very important. Who determined what you claim here? Who said they can't be trusted? On what authority of they speak? 

BTW your supposedly 95% accurate bible uses the word traditions in  Thessalonians.

I gave the figure 95% because I am just going by memory.  It could be higher.  But that represents a vast number of manuscripts or parts of manuscripts used down through the ages.  I have studied on book on this topic and read many articles over the past 40 years.  I believe the KJV is very accurate.

To say the word traditions is used in Thessalonians doesn't change anything.  What matters is what a verse is referring to.

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

The word ordinances can be understood to mean much the same as traditions.  I think it means teachings, instructions, or commands which were given to them already.  I don't see a significant difference between traditions and ordinances.

YOU think it means teachings? Yes they were given as the passage indicates but where does the passage indicate what those traditions are? 

[Yakuda]

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I gave the figure 95% because I am just going by memory.  It could be higher.  But that represents a vast number of manuscripts or parts of manuscripts used down through the ages.  I have studied on book on this topic and read many articles over the past 40 years.  I believe the KJV is very accurate.

To say the word traditions is used in Thessalonians doesn't change anything.  What matters is what a verse is referring to.

 YOU believe the KJV Is accurate based on books and articles you've read over 40 years. Fine. Prove those books and articles are authoritative over the bibles that pre-existed the KJV by centuries. 

I agree that what it's referring to matters but you want the passage to refer to what you want it to refer to and you do so without any authority except some books and articles you've read. 

Edited February 12 by Yakuda

[CrakHoBarbie]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

 YOU believe the KJV Is accurate based on books and articles you've read over 40 years. Fine. Prove those books and articles are authoritative over the bibles that pre-existed the KJV by centuries. 

I agree that what it's referring to matters but you want the passage to refer to what you want it to refer to and you do so without any authority except some books and articles you've read. 

It's disturbing watching you two delusional more ons have a pissing contest over which ones work of fiction is more relevant.

 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Yakuda said:

I agree that what it's referring to matters but you want the passage to refer to what you want it to refer to and you do so without any authority except some books and articles you've read. 

No.  I know it refers to things that were already taught by the apostles because that would agree with Scripture in Revelation 22 where it says nothing can be added or taken away from Scripture.  If you say anything can be added to the Bible by certain people after the 66 books were completed, then the Bible never was completed which is contrary to Scripture.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Yakuda said:

YOU believe the KJV Is accurate based on books and articles you've read over 40 years. Fine. Prove those books and articles are authoritative over the bibles that pre-existed the KJV by centuries. 

I am not saying any books are authoritative over the Bible.  After having seen many examples of corruption in modern versions by comparison with the KJV and read much information on the topic and examined the KJV myself, I find it to be absolutely God's inspired word.  Every one has to be convinced in his own mind.  I don't accept something just because a book or someone says so.  Truth as written in Scripture is taught by the Holy Spirit.

[Yakuda]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

No.  I know it refers to things that were already taught by the apostles because that would agree with Scripture in Revelation 22 where it says nothing can be added or taken away from Scripture.  If you say anything can be added to the Bible by certain people after the 66 books were completed, then the Bible never was completed which is contrary to Scripture.

Show where the earliest canon was just 66 books. 

[Yakuda]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

I am not saying any books are authoritative over the Bible.  After having seen many examples of corruption in modern versions by comparison with the KJV and read much information on the topic and examined the KJV myself, I find it to be absolutely God's inspired word.  Every one has to be convinced in his own mind.  I don't accept something just because a book or someone says so.  Truth as written in Scripture is taught by the Holy Spirit.

You absolutely believe the commentaries you people love to refer to yet I show you the words of Ignatius a disciple of the apostle John and you reject it. Sorry but I won't be listening to any of you protestants over the apostle john and his disciple Ignatius 

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Yakuda said:

You absolutely believe the commentaries you people love to refer to yet I show you the words of Ignatius a disciple of the apostle John and you reject it. Sorry but I won't be listening to any of you protestants over the apostle john and his disciple Ignatius 

I don't know anything about Ignatius.  He is not an apostle.  If I refer to many great theologians, will you accept them or just Ignatius?

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't know anything about Ignatius.  He is not an apostle.  If I refer to many great theologians, will you accept them or just Ignatius?

And it's to your own destruction that you don't know anything about him. I will gladly accept them if they have the bona fides of Ignatius, a personal discipleship with an apostle that actually knew Jesus. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

And it's to your own destruction that you don't know anything about him. I will gladly accept them if they have the bona fides of Ignatius, a personal discipleship with an apostle that actually knew Jesus. 

That is absurd.  In 43 years of hearing sermons and reading biblical matters, I never heard anybody refer to Ignatius as a source of truth.  The point is he was probably a famous early Christian with a lot of knowledge, but he was not an author or Holy Scripture.  We have the completed Bible and your claim that its my own destruction if I don't know about Ignatius is ludicrous and unheard of.  We have the complete Bible and many, many scholars who have much knowledge about it as well.  

I suspect you are clinging to him because his ideas matched what Rome has taught you.

[Yakuda]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That is absurd.  In 43 years of hearing sermons and reading biblical matters, I never heard anybody refer to Ignatius as a source of truth.  The point is he was probably a famous early Christian with a lot of knowledge, but he was not an author or Holy Scripture.  We have the completed Bible and your claim that its my own destruction if I don't know about Ignatius is ludicrous and unheard of.  We have the complete Bible and many, many scholars who have much knowledge about it as well.  

I suspect you are clinging to him because his ideas matched what Rome has taught you.

Oh course you didn't hear anyone refer to Ignatius. Why would you? He was a disciple of the apostle John who knew Jesus. It would definitely work against protestants for them to refer to him. But you somehow think your 43 years hearing sermons is more valuable than listening to a church father that learned from an apostle. Do I really have to tell you why I would never listen to a protestant? 

[blackbird]

43 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Oh course you didn't hear anyone refer to Ignatius. Why would you? He was a disciple of the apostle John who knew Jesus. It would definitely work against protestants for them to refer to him. But you somehow think your 43 years hearing sermons is more valuable than listening to a church father that learned from an apostle. Do I really have to tell you why I would never listen to a protestant? 

So tell us then if Catholic doctrines came from the Church fathers, why are so many Catholic dogmas unbiblical?  I listed them before..  How about explaining a few of the RC dogmas.  Worship of Mary, veneration of saints, re-enactment of Christ's crucifixion (Mass) when Hebrews says it was completed once and for all.  Purgatory which is not in the Bible.  Confessing to priests instead of going to God through Christ.  Absolution, penances.  Salvation by the sacraments instead of simply believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and the Bible teaches.

Edited February 13 by blackbird

[Yakuda]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So tell us then if Catholic doctrines came from the Church fathers, why are so many Catholic dogmas unbiblical?  I listed them before..  How about explaining a few of the RC dogmas.  Worship of Mary, veneration of saints, en-enactment of Christ's crucifixion when Hebrews says it was completed once and for all.  Purgatory which is not in the Bible.  Confessing to priests instead of going to God through Christ.  Absolution, penances.

Well you're assuming they aren't but that's not the point. I've shown that sola fide is non biblical. I've shown sola scriptura is non biblical. I've shown OSAS is non biblical and I've shown that Jesus is fully present body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist. You people are so wrong about so many things this is just one more. 

Edited February 13 by Yakuda

[blackbird]

Just now, Yakuda said:

Well you're assuming they aren't but that's not the point. I've shown that sola ride is non biblical. I've shown sola scriptura is non biblical. I've shown OSAS is non biblical and I've shown that Jesus is fully present body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist. You people are so wrong about so many things this is just one more. 

No, you haven't shown sola fide is non-biblical.  If you have I must have missed it.  Claiming the RC dogmas came from some other source than the Bible is very convenient.

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

No, you haven't shown sola fide is non-biblical.  If you have I must have missed it.  Claiming the RC dogmas came from some other source than the Bible is very convenient.

I have. I didn't say they came from another source. Ignatius reinforces what the Bible tells us. You tell us what you think the Bible says 1500 years after Jesus established his church on Peter and NOT the people you've been listening to for 43 years. 

[blackbird]

23 hours ago, Yakuda said:

I have. I didn't say they came from another source. Ignatius reinforces what the Bible tells us. You tell us what you think the Bible says 1500 years after Jesus established his church on Peter and NOT the people you've been listening to for 43 years. 

Martin Luther discovered what the Bible really says in Romans.  Salvation is by grace through faith.  Up to that time much of the western world was in the darkness of Rome.

"The gospel of salvation brings a way to discover peace and purpose in life. It proclaims that through Jesus Christ, humanity can be saved from sin and receive eternal life with God. It’s a free gift; not earned by works or merit, but received by grace through faith.

This message brings hope, forgiveness, and new life to those who embrace it. It’s rooted in the belief that all people are born into sin and separated from God, but through faith in Jesus, they can be reconciled.

The power of this transformative message is exemplified by the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther, a German theologian, challenged prevailing teachings and emphasized salvation by grace through faith alone. His commitment to spreading the gospel resulted in religious freedom and renewed spiritual fervor."

What is the gospel of salvation? › Jesus Salvation

The gospel message is simple.  Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not the convoluted requirement of a mother church with all of it's sacraments and requirements.

[Yakuda]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Martin Luther discovered what the Bible really says in Romans.  Salvation is by grace through faith.  Up to that time much of the western world was in the darkness of Rome.

"The gospel of salvation brings a way to discover peace and purpose in life. It proclaims that through Jesus Christ, humanity can be saved from sin and receive eternal life with God. It’s a free gift; not earned by works or merit, but received by grace through faith.

This message brings hope, forgiveness, and new life to those who embrace it. It’s rooted in the belief that all people are born into sin and separated from God, but through faith in Jesus, they can be reconciled.

The power of this transformative message is exemplified by the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther, a German theologian, challenged prevailing teachings and emphasized salvation by grace through faith alone. His commitment to spreading the gospel resulted in religious freedom and renewed spiritual fervor."

What is the gospel of salvation? › Jesus Salvation

The gospel message is simple.  Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not the convoluted requirement of a mother church with all of it's sacraments and requirements.

So luther "discovered" what others missed for 1500 years?  Is that REALLY the silliness you want to peddle now?  So I shouldn't believe what Jesus said or the apostle John or his disciple Ignatius or 1500 years of agreement but instead I should believe Luther? Are you off your nut? 

The gospel message IS simple "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." James 2:24. Why would I believe James when I could believe the looney little monk 1500 years after James wrote that? It's sad to watch you deny Jesus and the church. I feel bad for you. Your hate makes you blind. 

Edited February 14 by Yakuda

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, Yakuda said:

So luther "discovered" what others missed for 1500 years?  Is that REALLY the silliness you want to peddle now?  So I shouldn't believe what Jesus said or the apostle John or his disciple Ignatius or 1500 years of agreement but instead I should believe Luther? Are you off your nut? 

The gospel message IS simple "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." James 2:24. Why would I believe James when I could believe the looney little monk 1500 years after James wrote that? It's sad to watch you deny Jesus and the church. I feel bad for you. Your hate makes you blind. 

I gave you over a hundred verses showing salvation is grace through faith.  That means you have to interpret James 2:24 in the light of the rest of the Bible.  That means the following:

You don't just cherry pick one verse and interpret it in a way that is contrary to a vast number of other verses.  If one verse seems to contradict many others, you have to interpret it in a way that agrees with the others.

The key is to understand the doctrine of justification.   I don't think you do. It is not part of the Catholic catechism.  They don't understand it.  They don't pay attention to the epistles such as Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians.

 

Edited February 15 by blackbird

[Yakuda]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

I gave you over a hundred verses showing salvation is grace through faith.  That means you have to interpret James 2:24 in the light of the rest of the Bible.  That means the following:

"Christians are saved by God's grace through faith alone. Works, on the other hand, are the evidence of genuine salvation. They are the "proof in the pudding," so to speak. Good works demonstrate the truth of one's faith. They are the obvious, visible result of being justified by faith. Authentic "saving faith" reveals itself through works."

Faith and Works: Reconciling the Two Doctrines (learnreligions.com)

You don't just cherry pick one verse and interpret it in a way that is contrary to a vast number of other verses.  If one verse seems to contradict many others, you have to interpret it in a way that agrees with the others.

 

You are not saved by faith alone. It's there in black and white and you REFUSE to believe it. 

Matt 7:21 says if you just flap your jaw and and don't do the will the father you can't be saved. John 6 if you don't eat the flesh of Jesus you don't have life within you. 

Mark 16:16 whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved. You ignore it all. It's always the same with you people you think volume overrides accuracy. You have eyes but don't see and you heave ears but don't hear. You preach false doctrine and follow cashiers turned preachers. 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

You are not saved by faith alone. It's there in black and white and you REFUSE to believe it. 

Matt 7:21 says if you just flap your jaw and and don't do the will the father you can't be saved. John 6 if you don't eat the flesh of Jesus you don't have life within you. 

Mark 16:16 whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved. You ignore it all. It's always the same with you people you think volume overrides accuracy. You have eyes but don't see and you heave ears but don't hear. You preach false doctrine and follow cashiers turned preachers. 

 

Sadly you are ignoring many, many verses which were quoted to you.  You cling to one verse and ignore all the rest.  Not the way to understand Scripture.

You know nothing about preachers and their theological training obviously.

I will leave it for now in God's hands.  Only God can change a person's heart.

Luther, Calvin, and others were RC priests I understand.  God opened their eyes and delivered them from a false religious system.  So there is hope.  Watch this Martin Luther movie -  a return to grace

Bing Videos

 

Edited February 15 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

You are not saved by faith alone.

You are missing the nuance of the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.

You need to slow down and THINK a little.  Do you really understand what you are talking about?  I doubt very much you even understand the doctrine of justification by faith which you profess to oppose.

At least understand it so you can discuss it intelligently.

 

 

Edited February 15 by blackbird

[blackbird]

This article explains why many or most people believe that their salvation depends on works.  It is human nature and many false religions believe along that line of thinking.

quote

The simple answer is that salvation by works seems right in the eyes of man. One of man’s basic desires is to be in control of his own destiny, and that includes his eternal destiny. Salvation by works appeals to man’s pride and his desire to be in control. Being saved by works appeals to that desire far more than the idea of being saved by faith alone. Also, man has an inherent sense of justice. Even the most ardent atheist believes in some type of justice and has a sense of right and wrong, even if he has no moral basis for making such judgments. Our inherent sense of right and wrong demands that if we are to be saved, our “good works” must outweigh our “bad works.” Therefore, it is natural that when man creates a religion it would involve some type of salvation by works.

Because salvation by works appeals to man’s sinful nature, it forms the basis of almost every religion except for biblical Christianity. Proverbs 14:12 tells us that “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Salvation by works seems right to men, which is why it is the predominantly held viewpoint. That is exactly why biblical Christianity is so different from all other religions—it is the only religion that teaches salvation is a gift of God and not of works. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Another reason why salvation by works is the predominantly held viewpoint is that natural or unregenerate man does not fully understand the extent of his own sinfulness or of God’s holiness. Man’s heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9), and God is infinitely holy (Isaiah 6:3). The deceit of our hearts is the very thing that colors our perception of the extent of that deceit and is what prevents us from seeing our true state before a God whose holiness we are also unable to fully comprehend. But the truth remains that our sinfulness and God’s holiness combine to make our best efforts as “filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6; cf. 6:1–5).

The thought that man’s good works could ever balance out his bad works is a totally unbiblical concept. Not only that, but the Bible also teaches that God’s standard is nothing less than 100 percent perfection. If we stumble in keeping just one part of God’s righteous law, we are as guilty as if we had broken all of it (James 2:10). Therefore, there is no way we could ever be saved if salvation truly were dependent on works.   unquote

Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint? | GotQuestions.org

 

 

[blackbird]

Take a look at this link and video.

Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint? | GotQuestions.org

 

Edited February 15 by blackbird

[blackbird]

10 hours ago, Yakuda said:

So luther "discovered" what others missed for 1500 years? 

There quite likely were individuals or small groups of believers since the apostolic age who believe in salvation by grace through faith, but they could not come out in the open because Rome controlled the state.  It was the state religion for most of the western world for over a thousand years until the Reformation.