Is sola scriptura true?

[Yakuda]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't see much value in trying to talk to you.  You falsely accuse constantly.  Your religion is a false one which teaches salvation by faith plus works plus sacraments, plus confessing to a priest, belong to the RC church, etc. What about purgatory?  Do you believe in that too?

 No I accurately tell you that what you believe is wrong. I'm not the usual Catholic you run into. I'm not mesmerized by your parroting skills and i don't put up with your rude and disrespectful bullshit. I treat you the way you deserve to be treated. I will do so until your behavior changes or you run away. I won't. I will be right here. The truth always is. 

Edited February 23 by Yakuda

[blackbird]

Just now, Yakuda said:

 No I accurately tell you that what you believe is wrong. I'm not the usual Catholic you run into. I'm not mesmerized by your parroting skills and i don't put up with your rude abd disrespectful bullshit. I treat you the way you deserve to be treated. 

 I tried many times to talk reasonable and quoted many verses but you reject it all and throw dirt back.  No more time for that.

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

i don't put up with your rude abd disrespectful bullshit.

Pure lie!

[Yakuda]

Just now, blackbird said:

 I tried many times to talk reasonable and quoted many verses but you reject it all and throw dirt back.  No more time for that.

You don't listen. "Many verses" doesn't discount even one verse. Jesus himself said, "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will ever the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who DOES the will of my heavenly Father." Matt7:21. You can parrot 1000 verses you have been told say otherwise but it doesn't change what Jesus said. 

[Gaétan]

On 2/7/2024 at 9:50 AM, Yakuda said:

Protestants will often refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 as proof that sola scriptura is true. But what does the passage actually say? Here: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful (some translations use, profitable) for teaching, 

 

This not true, you cannot believe everything Paul says. For example the law of Moses says to follow the tooth for tooth law and Jesus said to not follow it.

Edited March 4 by Gaétan

[blackbird]

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

[Yakuda]

12 hours ago, Gaétan said:

This not true, you cannot believe everything Paul says. For example the law of Moses says to follow the tooth for tooth law and Jesus said to not follow it.

So scripture is not true? 

[Yakuda]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

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

So you appeal to "Got questions. o r g " to prove sola scriptura is true LMBO. I would try to explain the irony to you but you're a protestant you've been trained to believe anything you say, no matter how bizarre or contradictory it is, is true. 

[Gaétan]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

So scripture is not true? 

Depends of what it says, what is not rightous is not true.

[Yakuda]

13 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

Depends of what it says, what is not rightous is not true.

So some of scripture is true and some isnt? Who decides what's "righteous"? I bet everything you agree with is "rightsous", am I right? Let's not waste time, of course I'm right. 

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Yakuda said:

So you appeal to "Got questions. o r g " to prove sola scriptura is true LMBO. I would try to explain the irony to you but you're a protestant you've been trained to believe anything you say, no matter how bizarre or contradictory it is, is true. 

"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.

Edited March 4 by blackbird

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Here are a couple examples of some that are contrary to Scripture and therefore are false beliefs or practices.

1.  Worship of Mary.

2.  Mary being the "Mother of God".

3.  Worship or veneration of saints.

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.  (The Bible says there is only one mediator between God and men)

hear, hear !

no tickets to Heaven sold by the Harlot upon the poor

since 31 October 1517

Reformation Day

[Yakuda]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"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.  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.

2.  Mary being the "Mother of God".

3.  Worship or veneration of saints.

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.  (The Bible says there is only one mediator between God and men)

I would conclude that tradition has given the RCC many false doctrines and practices and must be rejected as false.

Nothing there says Scripture only. Why do you always resort to attacking? We aren't addressing those other things yet. You people use these tactics all the time. It's sad to watch you actually because not only are you wrong you just stutter and stammer with rote responses.  

Edited March 4 by Yakuda

[Yakuda]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

hear, hear !

no tickets to Heaven sold by the Harlot upon the poor

since 31 October 1517

Reformation Day

Reformation day???? LMAO the day the devil tried to destroy the church. He couldn't do that but he sure fragmented it. 

""Reformed" to what? Protestant heresy? 

Edited March 4 by Yakuda

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

Nothing there says Scripture only.

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.

[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.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Reformation day???? LMAO the day the devil tried to destroy the church. He couldn't do that but he sure fragmented it. 

""Reformed" to what? Protestant heresy? 

molon labe

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

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.

But scripture alone is not biblical so you're logic is circular. In other words its nonsensical.

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

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.

No one worships Mary or the saints. That a lie you believe. 

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

molon labe

Oh I remember you now the one with nothing to add. Son of the biggest heretic of all. 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Oh I remember you now the one with nothing to add. Son of the biggest heretic of all. 

Tiberius Caesar will burn in the Hell of his own making

same as it ever was

the Marxist Leninist Pope in Rome burns the Vatican to the ground therein

[Dougie93]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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.

the false idolatry of Harlots is the downfall of Western civilization itself in progress

the only instrument of revival is the Patriarchy

teach the young men to lead from the front

unto the light over Damascus

no fears on earth

[Yakuda]

37 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Tiberius Caesar will burn in the Hell of his own making

same as it ever was

the Marxist Leninist Pope in Rome burns the Vatican to the ground therein

Son of the greatest heretic of all Dougie 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Son of the greatest heretic of all Dougie 

my Savior calls me to bear the barbs of mine enemies as a badge of honour

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

my Savior calls me to bear the barbs of mine enemies as a badge of honour

Your savior? Luther? Must be because the garbage you believe started with him. I see you're entertained by videos. You don't read much do you? 

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Your savior? Luther? Must be because the garbage you believe started with him. I see you're entertained by videos. You don't read much do you? 

in articlulo mortis

Caelitus mihi vires

sic itur ad astra

Excelsior

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

in articlulo mortis

Caelitus mihi vires

sic itur ad astra

Excelsior

Cite for us someone who came before Luther who believes the things you believe. 

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Cite for us someone who came before Luther who believes the things you believe. 

Marcion of Sinope