Glomung
Account Closed
A swing... and a miss. Again, nothing you have copied there supports sola scriptura.
Immaculate Conception
- Thread starter MMurphy
- Start date
- Status
A swing... and a miss. Again, nothing you have copied there supports sola scriptura.
If any "man" adds to, or takes away from the Word of God, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Rev 22:19
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
Not Sola Scriptura. "Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" does not necessarily refer just to scripture.
Again, this doesn't refer to scripture being the only thing.
I believe everything should hang on the scriptures. Surely if Mary was without sin, the bible would say so. I'm sorry but she was a sinner like all of us were.
Good Bible verse. But where in it does it teach Sola Scriptura? Opposing Sola Scriptura doesn't mean condoning the altering of Scripture.
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
The problem is you cannot make an argument from the Bible's silence. There is no logic in doing so.
Glomung
Account Closed
Even where the sciptures say nothing at all? Not a particularly rational way to go about things.
The scriptures state
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
What "full of grace" or "Lord is with thee" actually means or implies is not stated.
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
2Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
2Ti 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Altering the Word is the same as adding to, or taking away. I would not want to be one of those who put their life at stake believing anything other than what has come out of the mouth of God alone.
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
I think maybe the problem here is that some people don't know what Sola Scriptura means. It means that you accept ONLY the words of scripture as authoritative - EXCLUDING things like church teachings. So in order to prove Sola Scriptura you need to provide a text which indicates that church teachings should not be followed and ONLY the Bible should.
The problem is you can't. No such scripture exists.
The problem is you can't. No such scripture exists.
I think this is the third time you posted this passage. It didn't support Sola Scriptura then and it still doesn't the third time.
When I say altering, I mean adding, removing, twisting, changing, inverting, putting upside down, sideways, etc. etc.
This passage is 100% right that all scripture is influenced by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. But where does it support Sola Scriptura? Where does it all that ONLY Scripture is for this or that all Scripture is sufficient? I only read All Scripture is profitable...
Right, but to use that scripture would contradict Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
So, am I to ignore this? How can I believe she was born without sin when I read this scripture?
I believe Mary was one of those who was righteous in God's eyes. However, that doesn't mean she was born without sin.
"What "full of grace" or "Lord is with thee" actually means or implies is not stated." - Doesn't mean she was born without sin.
MMurphy
Inactive
First, keep in mind that not all of the Gospels speak of the virgin birth either, but that is an important aspect of our theology.
And also, by that logic, slavery is condoned.
The key point of traditions is whether or not the tradition speaks the same truths we see in scripture. Does it run parallel? From our traditional understanding we know that the kind of slavery we saw during the 18th and 19th centuries were wholly repugnant. And the literal reading of the Torah would probably cause both of us to have been stoned to death. Instead we view scripture through the lens of tradition, in that case, we don't stone people to death (even though that is the correct punishment) because people always have the opportunity to repent and wipe those sins clear.
Now, you are getting are it wrong, All scripture is God breathed. It is not God told me to tell you. It came directly by God. This is why it is called the Word of God. If you only think man had a hand in what is says, you are in very deep trouble.
Again, Man will ONLY live by every word that comes out of the mouth of God.
Do you know any other God that I am unaware of?
As a Christian, if something doesn't line up with the word of God, it's to raise a red flag, in my humble opinion
MMurphy
Inactive
Magestrium holds that sacred traditions also come directly from God.
Is that in the Bible?
But one can conclude that every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God refers back to His own word, thus back to scripture.
The Apostle tells us the only good traditions is what he wrote in his epistles to the Churches, or what he spoke directly to Timothy.
What are you talking about? Can you clarify everything you said? I'm trying to get on the same page as you.
So far, I agree with everything you just said. But what do you mean "any other God?" And yes, the Bible is the written Word of God. Though is the Bible the only source of God's word? And if so, where do you find this?
- Status