Unironically what is wrong with Sola Scriptura?
I'm not entirely certain why we need an infrastructure of pedophile priests making fatwas that override or "add to" God's Word.
The Bible is already perfect and we have God's words in our hands. If anything, Catholics and Orthodox people are engaging in heresy by claiming they are at the level of God's thought.
Other urls found in this thread:
web.stanford.edu
twitter.com
Sola Scriptura is not in scripture.
Furthermore, calling reason "a whore" won't help your case.
Who compiled the Canon, tigger? Use your brain, dude. You think there weren't things Christ said and did and thought the apostles that didn't make it into the Bible, as John had explicitly stated? This is sacred tradition.
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.
Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement 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.
Yes, and the Bible says that you have to follow Jesus-Christ and thus follow the Church he established.
The Bible is not the Koran, you can't see it as a Sola Scripture manual manifesto.
This would be a stronger argument against Sola Scriptura if this tard actually knew Scripture. Virgin birth is very explicitly written in the Bible. Mary says that she's confused as to how she can conceive a child because she hasn't been with her husband yet. It's also prophesied in Isaiah.
Not that I'm a prod, but this triggered my autism.
...
Virgin birth as in
"Hear, oh Isreal, the word thy god is one."
"no trinity" is because he CTRL+F'd for "trinity" and didn't find it. There's no white Jesus because that's dumb (and the Semitics are Caucasoid anyway).
I'm going to try really hard to not weigh in on OP's actual question because it's not going to ho anywhere on this eastern european pope-hating forum.
Jews always forget about the debt Jubilees, just saying :^)
The point is that she thinks many of those things are not in Scripture, but they are. Scripture does not interpret itself.
The Church declared what is scripturally canonical to begin with. You can't have one without the other. Chicken and egg, etc..
So what requires the utmost attention? The declaration or the thing that does the declaring in the first place? And how can you pay attention to the declaration, but deem the views of the other to be not worth your time? That not even it's interpretations and helpfulness is good enough for you? And if it's interpretations are so bad, then why even believe their reasons for making the canon in the first place? Because that in itself required interpretation too.
In other words, scripture itself is a reflection of everything the church believes.. yet people somehow think what the church believes is wrong and say they'll only believe in scripture. This makes zero sense.
it's self-refuting
you have to look at stuff like matthew 16:18 and just pretend the Church was a series of independent fundamental baptist churches
You have only shown that the Bible is true, authoritative and certain revelation, but this doesn't yet mean that only the Bible is true, authoritative and certain revelation. What would you say about doctrines that were always - since the very times of the Apostles - taught in God's Church as true and revealed, but aren't contained in the Bible?
The Catholic Church agrees with you - the question is about doctrines ("Tradition", as used in this context, doesn't refer to traditional customs, holidays, etc. - that name refers here to a very narrow and precise concept, namely "those parts of revealed doctrine that aren't in the Bible") that don't contradict the Bible, but aren't contained in it, and were always universally believed and taught as revealed.
It leads to personal interpretation, which leads to hundreds of millions of Protestants being unable to understand even basic scripture (especially KJV idolaters) and, in the end, having to follow some Evangelical celebrity pushing his or her own agenda.
If it weren't for the separation of Church and State (thanks Prots), we wouldn't have to tolerate homosexual predators covering up for one another in the clergy, and those same predators might be normal, well-adjusted individuals if Protestant society didn't embrace fornication, pornography, sodomy, divorce, and every other evil that corrupts men. As for "adding to God's Word", a friendly reminder that a fallible man (Martin Luther) is the one who butchered the Word; Catholics have used the same 73 divinely-inspired books well before Luther was born.
I've never heard Catholics or the Orthodox claim that. I have, however, dealt with many nutty Protestant Evangelicals who have claimed to speak for God, know God's will, know who is saved and unsaved, know when the world is going to end, etc..
Kek, I take it you don't spend much time around Protestants. I've met very few of them who allow themselves to be reformed by the teachings of Jesus Christ, with most of them instead cherrypicking scripture that supports their own opinions and disregarding the rest (the OT is like the black sheep of the Bible to Prots).
sola scriptura never existed until some retards invented it a few hundred years ago
You’re either a liar, or you’ve never met a Baptist
God already foreknew what his word would say in eternity past. It's here because he chose it to be. This historically has nothing to do with some revisionists who added apocrypha and changed some stuff. They are really irrelevant. After all, they got it wrong. So I'm not really sure where you're getting this. They came in and changed it, certainly that comes after, because we still have the original and it's different.
Because Catholic priests never made it a priority to at least have a Bible in every church, let alone educating the populace so they could read lmao
There is a reason Protestant countries are way more developed than lazy Catholic countries, or shithole Orthodox ones who unironically believed in Mysticism garbage
web.stanford.edu
Protestant countries are materialistic atheist countries. Economic growth isn't the most important thing, it just creates a global gay disco
christianity has existed for thousands of years alongside the "catholic church", eastern orthodox, copts, assyrians, african churches, etc and none of them pushed the sola scriptura meme because it's winnie the poohen retarded and doesn't even pass it's own test of being derivable from scripture alone. It's a meta-belief super imposed on scripture.
I'm a former Baptist, so yes, I've met plenty of them. I know there's some Baptist e-celebs like Anderson who have a decent understanding of the OT, however all of the Protestant churches I've personally attended have a very awkward relationship with the OT. As an example, I had an associate pastor from my old church sit down with me a few months ago and try to scare me away from Catholicism. He said that Christians should follow only the teachings of the NT and not the Old, going as far as to say the 10 Commandments should no longer be followed, stressing that we Christians are all saved through faith alone… I've seen plenty of Baptists disregard NT scripture even, especially verses where St. Paul asks anything of women (e.g. submission) or speaks against circumcision, or where Christ states that unrepentant sinners will not inherit the Kingdom of God. "Sola Scriptura" doesn't count for much if you downplay or ignore certain scriptures that do not align with your modernist views.
Being a Priest is a full time job, they aren't necessarily teachers. This isn't even taking into account the lack of a printing press before the Reformation.
We all know Christ loves the rich though :)
(checked)
Fun fact
Heresy stems from the greek haireomai which means to choose as in " I get to choose which scripture I agree with and which scripture I don't agree with". Sola scriptura is the epitome of this concept.
Bible idolaters claim that the Bible is easy to interpret, yet thousands upon thousands of heretical sex were born because of this concept. They get to pick and choose what they believe, like a scriptural buffet line. Instead of submitting to the truth that has been given to them for the past 1500 years, they pick and choose what is truth and what is false.
I never understood this prot cliche. Not only is it false (compare Bavaria and Prussia, Belgium and the Netherlands or th Protestant Caribbean and Catholic Latin America) but making money is the not the point of a religion. You guys sound like jews with "muh shekels".
Colossians 2:7
Because it says that it is? Multiple times.
1 Tessalonians 2:13
Can you show me where? Any time it looks like it contradicts, it's actually showing two equally true statements
Numbers 23:19
Isaiah 40:8
Is this Catholic doctrine?
The part where he says that there's nothing wrong with traditions contradicting the Bible? No, it's not (unless I'm misunderstanding him and he means something else than what it seems he is saying), it's illogical and false.