Where is Sola Scriptura found in the Holy Bible?
>>18483014Sola scriptura is a claim about what isn't found in the Bible. It doesn't say there's going to be an infallible Pope or infallible Tradition. What it does say is infallible is scripture. Sola scriptura means only scripture speaks with that level of reliability and authority.
>>18483034Can you give me a verse?
>>18484317>from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.2 Timothy 3:15-17
>>18483014It isn't. 'Sola Scriptura' is just a noise protestants make when they want to say 'I'm too fucking dumb to engage with theology' but can't quite summon up the courage to be honest about it. They tend to suck at scriptural analysis too.
>>18483014From Genesis to Revelation
>>18484343Top kek.Is that really your defence of sola scriptura?That's like saying that if I told you that getting a good night's rest was necessary for winning a running race, that it's appropriate to conclude, from my statement, that a hearty breakfast is not *also* necessary.See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJhTnA0oAY4
>>18484863TRUTH NUKEIt's ironic that Protestants peg their *whole* theology to sola scriptura, when it is so obviously false.Like, Orthobros are wrong about the filioque, but at least there's an interesting discussion to be had.
>>18483034Everyone (Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox) agree that Sacred Scripture is infallible. No one disputes this.What is disputed is whether Sacred Scripture is the *only* infallible source of divine revelation.Therefore, what is required to demonstrate sola scriptura, pursuant to its own rules, is one (1) verse from Sacred Scripture affirming that it is the *only* infallible source of divine revelation. However, unfortunately, for Protestants, no such verse exists. However, this does not bother the average Protestant, as they have not even read Sacred Scripture in its entirety, and so really have no clue what it does or does not say. This explains much about Protestantism.
>>18484975So you think that if there is no verse in the bible which contains the words “Sacred Scripture is the *only* infallible source of divine revelation”, this proves that a guy in a funny hat in Italy is infallible and God speaks through him (or something) and you also believe this is asserted by sola scriptura itself. That’s an amazing revelation, have you informed the atheists of this incredible proof of papal infallibility?
>>184849961. Nowhere in my post do I say that Sacred Scripture has to say, verbatim, “Sacred Scripture is the *only* infallible source of divine revelation”. I would accept verses demonstrating sola scripture *either* explicitly or implicitly. However, none exist. You are attempting to twist my words so as to straw-man my argument. Better luck next time though.2. Whether or not sola scriptura is true is independent of whether Holy Tradition may also be rightly considered an infallible source of divine revelation, or whether, under any circumstances the Bishop of Rome is blessed with a special charism of infallibility. In this case, I think you may actually be too dim-witted to see the difference between these separate issues, so in this case, I can only take pity upon you.
>>18485001>I would accept verses demonstrating sola scripture *either* explicitly or implicitlyThe demand for a verse in and of itself is erroneous and anachronistic. Verse distinctions are not part of the text of the bible. They were added to it in the mid 1500s, decades after the beginning of the Reformation. Sola scriptura is a teaching and artifact of the entire body of scripture. Because scripture is the very word of God, and nothing after the death of the last apostle is, it is possessed of a unique and absolute authority which is normative to the entire Christian worldview, and regulative of theology. Sola scriptura is the controversial idea that God has more authority than men.>Whether or not sola scriptura is true is independent of whether Holy Tradition may also be rightly considered an infallible source of divine revelation, or whether, under any circumstances the Bishop of Rome is blessed with a special charism of infallibilityI would like you to explain how this makes any sense in your mind because you just said to me that a scenario in which sacred scripture is infallible divine revelation and nothing else is is not a scenario in which sacred scripture is the only infallible divine revelation.>I think you may actually be too dim-witted to see the difference between these separate issues, so in this case, I can only take pity upon you.It would seem to backfire to call me dim-witted while saying one of the most dim-witted things I have ever heard.
>>184850101. Wow! So smart!!! I kneel before your wisdom. By the way, oh wise one, would you be so kind as to tell me where in Scripture, using it's whole body, you find text supporting sola scriptura.2. The ideas of Holy Tradition, papal infallibility, and sola scriptura are independent of one another because it is possible for sola scriptura to not be true, but the infallibility of Holy Tradition, and papal infallibility also not be true. However, it occurs to me that you will never understand this fact, because it has never occurred to you to question sola scriptura. Instead, you have *assumed* it because, taken as an axiom, it keeps you from having to think too hard about your faith. I wish you all the best.
>>18484343>thoroughly equipped for every good workWork you say?
>>18485023OH NO PROTESISTERS, WE GOT TOO COCKY!!!
>>18485020>By the way, oh wise one, would you be so kind as to tell me where in Scripture, using it's whole body, you find text supporting sola scriptura.Yes, it is in every passage speaking of the authority of God and His word, and encouraging us to rely on the same. E.g. Psalm 119:105>The ideas of Holy Tradition, papal infallibility, and sola scriptura are independent of one another because it is possible for sola scriptura to not be true, but the infallibility of Holy Tradition, and papal infallibility also not be true.The problem is that you are actually too dim-witted to understand that the truth of papal infallibility or “tradition infallibility” is equal to the negation of sola scriptura. In other words, it is a condition of sola scriptura that papal infallibility be false. Now, let’s grant that sacred scripture is infallible divine revelation, as you have granted, and let’s deny that anything else is, or more specifically let’s fail to positively allege anything else to be infallible divine revelation, as you have failed to. The logical conclusion of those two things is what? Second, you are correct that it is possible both for sola scriptura and papal infallibility to both be wrong. Let’s go a step further and say every other pretended infallible divine revelation is also false. The only way it is possible for both sola scriptura and every other pretended infallible divine revelation to be false is if there is *no* infallible divine revelation, including scripture, something which you have already granted and cannot deny to be infallible divine revelation.
>>18485030>i-it's in all of them bro!!! i swear!!!1!Proceeds to cite a verse which does not support the enormous claim he is making regarding the sole infallibility of Sacred Scripture. Also, by the way, why are you providing me with verses? Don't you know they're an anachronism? LOL.> you are dim-witted. to prove it, let me argue that it's acceptable to conclude that Sacred Scripture is the *only* infallible source of divine revelation on the grounds that I do not believe that there are any *other* infallible sources of divine revelation.Let me make this clear for you: even if papal infallibility were untrue, and Holy Tradition an invalid or fallible source of divine revelation, that *would not prove* sola scriptura. For that, you would, logically speaking text from Sacred Scripture affirming that it, and *only it* is the sole infallible source of divine revelation, as opposed to text from Sacred Scripture affirming that is *an* infallible source of divine revelation (which we both agree exists). To argue that (a) Scripture says that it is infallible; and (b) Scripture does not say that any other source is infallible, is *not sufficient* to prove sola scriptura, because that is the *argument from silence*, which is a *logical fallacy*.Real talk: do you dress yourself independently in the morning, or do you get help? I'm genuinely curious.
>>18485042>For that, you would, logically speaking text from Sacred Scripture affirming that it, and *only it* is the sole infallible source of divine revelationThat’s another problem, is that this is a simple non sequitur, since what the argument actually assumes is that scripture must contain every true proposition, which nobody believes. True propositions, such as “sacred scripture is the only infallible divine revelation”, are allowed to exist outside of scripture, only they do not arise to the level of infallible divine revelation. It is a pretty incredible argument when you think about it, are you actually claiming as a condition of sola scriptura it is necessary for scripture to say “the pope is not infallible, and Joseph Smith is not infallible, and Muhammad is not infallible” etc etc?Now, here is something which actually does logically follow: If scripture is infallible divine revelation, and nothing else is, then sola scriptura is true.> Proceeds to cite a verse which does not support the enormous claim he is making regarding the sole infallibility of Sacred Scripture. Also, by the way, why are you providing me with verses? Don't you know they're an anachronism? LOL.>Real talk: do you dress yourself independently in the morning, or do you get help? I'm genuinely curious.This is you >>18484973
>>18485030>>18485042There are a couple of problems...1) "scripture" was at one point spoken/written by a man, so there is no logical reason why divinely inspired speech couldn't manifest again. 2) It is very obvious that those entrusted with leading God's children have become agents of God's enemies.
>>18485050>"scripture" was at one point spoken/written by a man, so there is no logical reason why divinely inspired speech couldn't manifest again.Yes there is, scripture expressly teaches revelation was completed with the revelation of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:1-2 “God, having spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days spoke to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds”
>>18485054You seem to be suggesting that divinely inspired speech would necessarily contradict the Son and the Prophets, but that is incorrect. I agree that there is no new revelation to be had, the work was completed.
>>18485061It would contradict this text because in the past God spoke to us by prophets, but in the last days He has spoken to us in His Son. You are describing revelation by prophets posterior to the Son.
>>18485062Well if you won't listen to someone explaining why you're doing it wrong, then you're basically left only with what is written. There is nothing new to be revealed, but it is blatantly obvious that what was revealed is no longer understood.
>>18485047>that's another problemYou are misunderstanding. However, this does not surprise me. It is *not* a non-sequitur, because I am *not* asking that Sacred Scripture contain every truth under the sun. What I am asking is that, to support *your claim* that the only doctrines which Christians *must* hold are found implicitly or explicitly in Sacred Scripture, and that Sola scriptura is a doctrine which Christians *must hold* be found in Scripture.We agree that the sky is blue, and the Earth is round, but we do not need to turn to Scripture to definitively arrive at these truths because they are *not* truths that Christians *must* hold to.>now here is something which actually does logically follow: If scripture is infallible divine revelation, and nothing else is, then sola scriptura is true.Yes, I agree. That does follow. However, you need to *demonstrate* that nothing else is infallible divine revelation, and to do that, you need to do more than just say that Scripture does not set out or allude to any other potential infallible source of divine revelation.>i win because i have depicted you as the onions broccoli hair zoomerI accept your concession.
>>18485068>What I am asking is that, to support *your claim* that the only doctrines which Christians *must* hold are found implicitly or explicitly in Sacred Scripture, and that Sola scriptura is a doctrine which Christians *must hold* be found in Scripture.We believe with faith only that which is revealed in scripture. We do not believe with faith that the Roman magisterium is not infallible, but we also do not believe with faith that it is, since this is not found in scripture, and therefore its claims must be rejected, since scripture regulates theology.>However, you need to *demonstrate* that nothing else is infallible divine revelation, and to do that, you need to do more than just say that Scripture does not set out or allude to any other potential infallible source of divine revelation.1. The burden of proof is on me to disprove the claims of the pope, Joseph Smith, and Muhammad, why exactly? 2. It is not necessary for scripture to say these false prophets are not infallible, it is necessary for them to not be infallible. 3. The false burden of proof you are putting on me is satisfied by Matthew 7:15-20 and Acts 20:28-32
>>18485072
>>18485083>We believe with faith only that which is revealed in scripture.Then why do you 'believe with faith' that Sacred Scripture is the *only* infallible source of divine revelation? This is not an assertion which is found in Sacred Scripture. Look dude, this isn't complex.>The burden of proof is on meSince you were the one who made the claim that there is no other infallible source of divine revelation other than Sacred Scripture, yes. That is how the burden of proof works, big guy. It is not my fault you've chosen to stake out a dumb position. However, you can extricate yourself by just citing a section, or sections, of Sacred Scripture which affirm that Sacred Scripture is the *only* infallible source of divine revelation, as that would be sufficient to rebut Mormon, Islamic, and Catholic claims to extra-scriptural deposits of faith at a stroke. However, you cannot do this, because such sections of Sacred Scripture do not exist. Let's get into that.>Matthew 7:15-20 & Acts 20:28-32These sections of Sacred Scripture not pertain to your argument in any substantive way. I could just easily cite these sections with reference to Protestantism, but that wouldn't prove anything. Ironic. There are way better sections of the Book of Acts to draw from in support of sola scriptura. You haven't *actually* read the Book of Acts, have you anon? It's okay, you can be honest.
>>18485104>Then why do you 'believe with faith' that Sacred Scripture is the *only* infallible source of divine revelation?Asked and answered.>Since you were the one who made the claim that there is no other infallible source of divine revelation other than Sacred Scripture, yes.No actually, sola scriptura is a negative position which was pointed out by a brother in the first post. You are the one with the positive position here, which you have failed to make an argument for (which I think is wise since it is indefensible).>However, you can extricate yourself by just citing a section, or sections, of Sacred Scripture which affirm that Sacred Scripture is the *only* infallible source of divine revelationAgain, it is the entire body of scripture. As scripture constantly enjoins us to cling to it as the fountain of divine truth, and never once directs us to the Roman magisterium, the biblical order therefore is to draw only from the fountain of scripture and to reject the pretenses of the Roman church and every other thing raised up against the authority of God.(cont.)
>>18485104>These sections of Sacred Scripture not pertain to your argument in any substantive way. I could just easily cite these sections with reference to Protestantism, but that wouldn't prove anythingYou are right that you wouldn’t prove anything but wrong that I didn’t prove anything, since Joseph Smith, Muhammad and yes, the pope of Rome are each actual false prophets which proclaim doctrines of demons in opposition to the scripture and exalt their own authority to justify this departure from the faith once delivered to the saints, they each are appropriately particularly applied the general warning against false prophets. If this cannot be so applied, then your argument is that general condemnations of false prophets are insufficient, and these specific false prophets must be named. Which is absurd, since 1. It directly misrepresents the doctrine of sola scriptura, and 2. Should logically require scripture also to condemn hypothetical false prophets, and place upon it a burden of denying the particular infallibility of myself and anything else which could have been raised up against its unique divine authority, since none of the aforementioned false prophets existed when the scripture was written (and therefore were only potential false prophets at the time and not actual ones).
Nowhere. Jesus explicitly said to do what the Pharisees teach, for they are the authentic keepers of the Word (Matthew 23:1-3). So grab a Talmud and join a yeshiva.
>>18485148Obey the Law until the Law is fulfilled, it was fulfilled, which you deny and so you are damned.
>>18485154Where does the bible say the talmud is not an infallible divine revelation?
>>18485166Interesting strawman but I fail to see the relevance of what you're tilting about.
>>18485166Not even the Talmud says that, anon. The Talmud is very open about it being the exegetical commentary/tradition/oral law/debates/etc of the Rabbis, not divine revelation. There is a funny story in it about how Exegesis of the Torah (and iirc also the Tanakh) is the only legitimate source of Jewish law where God is attempting to convince the Sanhedrin a new type of oven is ok to use by expressing his agreement with the Rabbi in favour in increasingly insane ways as the opposing rabbis retort "The Halakha cannot be derived from XYZ" until he starts laughing and says "my Children have beaten me!".>>18485154The bible doesn't say any of that thoughie, that's all later interpretation from fallible human churchmen.
>>18485181>Inb4 bible verse that only says what you think it says if one chooses to interpret it that specific way in a context designed to specifically support that idea.
>>18485181>The bible doesn't say any of that thoughieI wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true.
>>18485185Hmm weird, in no place of this passage does it say the levitical laws do not apply anymore because they are 'fulfilled'. Nor does it say any man's death or any god's suffering will be its fulfillment.You could just easily read this passage as Jesus saying that he has come to make the law be followed uprightly once more: 'I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil'.In the next verse one could just as easily read about man affirming that the law will be eternal until 'Heaven and Earth Pass... till all be fulfilled'; the end of times and the messianic prophecies. But you don't, why is that?
>>18485197You deny he came to fulfil them, deny the resurrection, but that is expected of damned Christ killers.
>>18485024Prottie uses a verse that explains scripture equips man for good work to justify the argument for the infallibility of scripture.
>>18485154Matthew 5:18. It's okay, anon. You're still part of God's plan in the sense that he needs wood for the fire.
>>18485495The idea that heaven and earth are distinct and separate did pass away, the veil tore, the kingdom came.
>>18485499If the veil really tore it means christians are closer to God than Israelites ever were yet among the christians not a single prophet like Elijah has ever risen.
>>18485510The work was completed, there is no need for further revelation. However, there is serious misunderstanding circulating regarding what has been revealed.
>>18485210He said anyone who teaches others to ignore even the least of the laws will be called least in heaven, ironically Paul calls himself the least of the apostles.
>>18483014All Christianity is Sola Scripture with extra steps because the Bible is the ultimate authority on Christianity necause no Christian teaching can contradict it.
>>18485513Until heave and earth disappear there is work to be done.
>>18485518I see you enjoy circulating misunderstandings.
>>18485510>If the veil really tore it means christians are closer to God than Israelites ever wereYet there's not a single church of Christ that has a Most Holy Place like the temple used to have where the presence of God was so strong it would kill anyone who enters it other than a high priest.
>>18485525The most holy place today is found in heaven at God’s side, of which the temple was only a shadow, and in which the Lord entered to prepare a place for us. Thus are the words of David fulfilled, “I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”
>>18486060>>18485525romans tore it down and saw no sign of any magic devil insidethe holy place is the body of Christ, formed of its members, which also is heavenyour devil worship and insistence on belief in after death fantasy lands is heresy
You should ask God before he flicks you, screaming, into Hell. Tick tock.
>>18486074Enjoy Hell, heretic
>>18486091>Enjoy HellNo thanks, and I resent your kind trying to turn the whole world into hell.
>>18486074Isn't it weird how we never saw Jesus command any angels but all demons were under his authority?
>>18486100> I resent your kind trying to turn the whole world into hell>posted by tranny
>>18486106Matthew 26:53
>>18486060Yet for some reason God gave detailed instructions to Ezekiel on how to build the third temple.
>>18486109Yeah, sure.
>>18486106You're a silly jew.>>18485431
>>18486110That was a prophecy of Christ.
>>18486113Dumbest excuse, Jesus must have been talking to a bunch of dunces for that explanation to work. As if demons wouldn't play along to make their king seem like the son of God.
>>18486114God lays out the plans for the temple in great detail spanning 8 chapters of the book of Ezekiel.
>>18486120Your suggestion that God is the king of demons is interesting, because he wouldn't be God if he had no authority over them, seeing as how all things are under God's authority. Or are you, a jew presumably, suggesting that there is a higher authority than God? Possibly the devil you worship?
>>18486124Yes.
>>18486135God also cannot be killed. Nobody has ever spat on God's holy face.
>>18486141I see, so you want to discuss the fact that you deny the resurrection instead of continuing your original train of thought... That is fine, but you are a fool to do so. If you understood that God has given his name for the salvation of his people, for them to rule the heavenly kingdom in his name, then you would no cling so retardedly to the precepts of your enslavement in exile.
>>18486147God gave his Holy Name to Moses and told him that was going to be his name for all generations. It wasn't Jesus.
>>18486141Tick tock.
>>18486151And why did you come to the conclusion that the noadic bloodlines are not exactly to whom the name was given for their salvation?or have you fallen into perverse heresies regarding the nature of his sons? or more likely, you are a purveyor of perverse heresies regarding the nature of his sons...
>>18486154Nowhere has it ever been prophecied that the Messiah was going to be God himself in disguise. That's actually so stupid when you think about it.
>>18486159None but God could redeem the fall, it was a sacrifice nobody deserved. Did we deserve to be made one with God in Christ? No, but God so loved the world that he gave us the Son so that we might live forever in Him and do all things in His name.
>>18486165The devil and his children are never redeemed. Israel was already the Firstborn of God.
>>18486159It was not a disguise, He is true man as He is true God. And see Isaiah 40:1-11
>>18486177an angel is not a devil and jews are not israellearn what words mean and you will be less retarded
>>18486179God is not a son of man.
>>18486186This speaks of the divine nature and not the incarnate Christ.>>18486177Your pride is your condemnation, the Lord had always foretold that the gentiles would be brought in, the dividing wall would be torn down, and all nations would be brought near to the covenant of promise. Joel 2:28-29 “And it will be afterwardsThat I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy;Your old men will dream dreams;Your young men will see visions. Even on the male slaves and female slavesI will in those days pour out My Spirit”
>>18486186fun fact, his dad wasn't a man, so he isn't... neato, right?
>>18486180>The devil is literally an angel.Someone who calls others retard is not close to God or has God in his heart. You don't obey the teachings of God because you claim Jesus is your God yet you don't obey the teachings of Jesus either who told you to be like him.>When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
>>18486190>This speaks of the divine nature and not the incarnate ChristSo in what way is God fully a man but actually not a man at all?Yes, gentiles who turn to his covenant.
>>18486194>So in what way is God fully a man but actually not a man at all?He is fully a man according to the human nature, and not a man at all according to the divine nature, which both fully subsist in the person of the Son.>Yes, gentiles who turn to his covenant.Amen, turning to His covenant in the gospel of Christ and baptism into the Triune Name.
>>18486193>The devil is literally an angel.that's a fun strawman but I fail to see how it is relevant to the discussion
>>18484343>given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,literally none of that implies infallibility.
>>18486332The first part literally directly implies it
