ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[Jerry Shugart]

Not at all. Jesus is certainly the only Mediator and Savior in a Redemptive sense---only Christ died and rose again for our sins.

In regard to "redemption," here is what Rome teaches concerning Mary's role in redemption:

"As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race" (The Church Teaches, Documents of the Church in English Translation, by the Jesuit fathers of St. Mary's College, copyright 1973 Tan Books and Publishers Inc., bearing the IMPRIMI POTEST, NIHIL OBSTAT, AND IMPRIMATUR of the Catholic Church, pages 210-211).​

You are so indoctrinated into the Marian cult that you cannot even see that this teaching is pure blasphemy!

That does not mean, however, that Mary (as well as the prophets, apostles, bishops, and other Saints) cannot play a certain derivative and dependent role in God's plan of salvation.

That is not what Peter said. He said that "neither is there salvation in any other." But I have shown that Rome teaches that salvation comes through Mary:

"And likewise in our own day, Mary, with the ever merciful affection so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her efficacious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties, and the punishments of God's anger which afflict the world because of the sins of men. Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary" (UBI PRIMUM, Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, February 2, 1849).​

That is not speaking of a a certain derivative and dependent role in God's plan of salvation, as you imagine!

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

It's very simple, as are all basic truths men tear down. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. This doesn't include the mouth of the Pope. Sorry. No cigar.

 

[Cruciform]

It's very simple, as are all basic truths men tear down. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. This doesn't include the mouth of the Pope. Sorry. No cigar.

So, then, also not by the mouths of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc., right? :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[User Name]

That is not speaking of a a certain derivative and dependent role in God's plan of salvation, as you imagine!

Paul wrote to Philemon that "you owe me your very self" (Philemon 1:19).

 

[Cruciform]

That you have been..

So, then, not one of your proof-texts actually teaches what you claim. That's what I thought.

...severely inculcated into the CC is very evident but of your own choice.

No more than you have been "severely inculcated into your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect of your own choice." Don't bother trying to charge others with things that just as readily apply to yourself.

Your inability to see TRUTH is a result of this inculcation so it's of no use whatsoever to shows scripture to you that you won't accept. I've given you many scriptures that you have refused to acknowledge or address directly.

Right back at you.

That you don't support Sola Scriptura is very evident, but completely wrong.

Not according to Scripture itself.

John 20:31 shows why we have scripture, as does 2 Tim 3:16 and 2:15, and all the equivocation, prevarication and obfuscation will never change this fact. Rom 10:17 tells us why we need the Word of God.

Not one of these proof-texts actually teaches anything even close to sola scriptura (see answer just above). Try again.

Paul does say in 1 Cor 4:6 to NOT go beyond what is written.

Addressed here.

Luke 1:1-4 tells us how we need the written word to be certain of God.

...but not that we need ONLY the written word. Therefore, this text simply does not teach sola scriptura. Try again.

Jesus himself in Matt 4:1-11 teaches power is in the written word ONLY.

This text actually says no such thing. Try again.

Luke 10:26 is just one example of the importance of the written word.

Yes, the written word is important. However, that's a far cry from your claim that ONLY the written word is important or necessary. In fact, the Bible itself teaches otherwise.

Acts 17:11-12 shows how people believe when they read scripture.

Unfortunately for your assumptions, the Bereans did not believe in sola scriptura. Try again.

Those who have been inculcated as you, sadly IMO will never change, but there is always hope, which is why I address fallacious posts like yours.

Again, right back at you.

Rom 3:4; Let GOD be true and EVERY man be a liar.

Being a man, then, you yourself must be a liar, correct?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

So, then, also not by the mouths of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc., right? :think:

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Precisely so. All scripture is God-breathed, revealed by the Spirit of Christ. All scripture is from the mouth of God. Christianity 101. Any other questions you can't get answers from your "church" on, Einstein?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I've already provided some Patristic quotations in Post #320 above.

Your answer is based on the assumption that the bishops of the church at Rome are actually the bishops of the true church:

I would also point out that apostolic Tradition applies not only to the teachings of the apostles themselves, but also to those of their ordained successors, the bishops of the Church (Ac. 15:2, 6; 16:4; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15).

You assert that they are but you give no proof.

Nonetheless, who was the first bishop of the church at Rome who taught the assumption of Mary and what year did that happen?

 

[StanJ]

So, then, not one of your proof-texts actually teaches what you claim.

Like I said, inculcated.

No more than you have been "severely inculcated into your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect of your own choice." Don't bother trying to charge others with things that just as readily apply to yourself.

Like I said NO original thought capable by you. You're a parrot.

Right back at you.

Parrot

Not according to Scripture itself.

That's not scripture. It's RCC dogma eisegeting scripture.

Not one of these proof-texts actually teaches anything even close to sola scriptura (see answer just above). Try again.

Denial by you as a RC proves absolutely nothing.

...but not that we need ONLY the written word. Therefore, this text simply does not teach sola scriptura. Try again.

Along with everything else you have been shown it does, but I guess you don't believe in the triune nature of God because the scriptures do not use the word Trinity? I can just imagine the level of your cognitive dissonance.

This text actually says no such thing. Try again.

He quoted the written word, He didn't say according to the Levitical priesthood, or the traditions of Moses now did He?

Yes, the written word is important. However, that's a far cry from your claim that ONLY the written word is important or necessary. In fact, the Bible itself teaches otherwise.

As you can't actually show what it does say but only posts a link again I'm sure you know my response to that.

Unfortunately for your assumptions, the Bereans did not believe in sola scriptura. Try again.

Fact not assumption, contrary to the RCC link you post.

Again, right back at you.

Parrot

Being a man, then, you yourself must be a liar, correct?

I'm not touting man's ideas as you are. God's written word is NOT a lie except to those of your ilk you refuse to accept the truth of it.

 

[Cruciform]

In regard to "redemption," here is what Rome teaches concerning Mary's role in redemption:

Already decisively answered (Post #338).

You are so indoctrinated into the Marian cult that you cannot even see that this teaching is pure blasphemy!

OR... You are so indoctrinated into your preferred recently-invented, man-made anti-Catholic sect that you cannot even see that this teaching is divine truth.

That is not what Peter said. He said that "neither is there salvation in any other." But I have shown that Rome teaches that salvation comes through Mary:

Already decisively answered (Post #338).

That is not speaking of a a certain derivative and dependent role in God's plan of salvation, as you imagine!

Already decisively answered (see cited sources in Post #338).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Precisely so. All scripture is God-breathed, revealed by the Spirit of Christ. All scripture is from the mouth of God. Christianity 101.

Of course, denying the human element in the composition of Scripture is merely a man-made tradition fed to you by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. It is hardly "Christianity 101." In any case, I learned my view of biblical inspiration at an Evangelical Protestant university and seminary, not from the Catholic Church---although Evangelicalism basically agrees with Catholicism on this particular point of doctrine.

Any other questions you can't get answers from your "church" on, Einstein?

Lose the insults, friend, if you want to continue our discussion. Just a heads-up.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Angel4Truth]

yes, He did. It is shown clearly here:

Luke 11:50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.' 52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering."

He called the scriptures all of them (from the blood of abel in genesis to the death of Zechariah between the stones in the temple - 2 chronicles) the key of knowledge. This was the entire breadth of the scriptures at the time, and showing He referenced the hebrew scriptures -being that the hebrew division ran from Genesis to 2 Chronicles - same books as the protestant division (no septuigent) just arranged differently.



Anyway in that one passage from luke, its clear Christ called the scriptures the keys of knowledge and made it clear which division He is speaking of (the hebrew) and its entire breadth.

The scriptures given from God.

Nothing in the passage you cited in any way teaches the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura, nor could it, as has already been demonstrated here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Not interested in a long drawn out RCC apologetic paper, this is a discussion board, please actually discuss, and try to answer the post yourself, thanks.

 

[Cruciform]

Your answer is based on the assumption that the bishops of the Church at Rome are actually the bishops of the true Church:

Not an "assumption," but rather a conclusion based upon biblical and historical evidence.

You assert that they are but you give no proof.

Proven above.

Nonetheless, who was the first bishop of the church at Rome who taught the assumption of Mary and what year did that happen?

To my knowledge, the first bishop to write about Mary's Assumption---at least, the first whose writings we still have---was Epiphanius of Salamis, a Catholic bishop writing in 377 A.D.

"As far as we know, no Christian author before Epiphanius had ever raised the question of the end of the Blessed Virgin's earthly existence. He was the first who tried to bring together the data from a tradition that, along the course of the centuries, had absorbed many different ideas" (L. Gambero, Mary & the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought [Ignatius Press, 1999], p.125).​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

That's not scripture. It's RCC dogma eisegeting scripture.

Then so is every single biblical proof-text that you quote on this forum. It's all just your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect eisegeting Scripture.

He quoted the written word, He didn't say according to the Levitical priesthood, or the traditions of Moses now did He?

Already answered here.

As you can't actually show what it does say but only posts a link again I'm sure you know my response to that.

Sure I do: Bare denial, which is really all you've offered to this point.

Fact not assumption, contrary to the RCC link you post.

The source I cited categorically refutes your sectarian assumptions, and you have been utterly unable to offer any substantive answer whatsoever to its content.

Parrot

You're the one posting arguments that apply equally to your own position, thus in effect refuting yourself. Brilliant. :hammer:

If you don't like being called on it, I'd suggest not engaging in such a glaring blunder in the first place.

I'm not touting man's ideas as you are.

Of course you are. Every interpretation and doctrinal claim you make on this forum was taught to you by some man or men. Everything you post here is an example of you "touting man's ideas." Try again.

God's written word is NOT a lie...

Yet, you quoted the text that says "...every man is a liar." Your interpretations of the Bible are merely the opinions of a man (you). Therefore, since you are a man, your preferred interpretations must be lies. Why don't you believe the very verse that you yourself quoted?

...except to those of your ilk you refuse to accept the truth of it.

I receive the truth of Scripture---just not of your preferred interpretations of Scripture. You have a bad habit of confusing the two.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Not interested in a long drawn out RCC apologetic paper...

It isn't long at all. You need to do your own homework on these issues. And if you're genuinely interested in accurately understanding the Catholic faith, and if you possess the necessary intellectual integrity, you will do exactly that.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Lose the insults, friend, if you want to continue our discussion. Just a heads-up.

Wooo! Now you've got me walking on eggshells. Don't know what I'd do, were it not for these "discussions" with a cult unregenerate, who doesn't know the first thing about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1:16

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John 1:10-11

 

[Jerry Shugart]

To my knowledge, the first bishop to write about Mary's Assumption---at least, the first whose writings we still have---was Epiphanius of Salamis, a Catholic bishop writing in 377 A.D.

"As far as we know, no Christian author before Epiphanius had ever raised the question of the end of the Blessed Virgin's earthly existence. He was the first who tried to bring together the data from a tradition that, along the course of the centuries, had absorbed many different ideas" (L. Gambero, Mary & the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought [Ignatius Press, 1999], p.125).​

Epiphanius did not believe that the Assumption of Mary was a teaching which had been passed down from the Apostles. Here are his own words:

"But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ " (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).​

Can't you do better than this?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Already decisively answered (Post #338).

Let us look at Rome's answer to what they teach about Mary here:

"As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race."​

Here is what is said about Mary on this subject in one of the articles you provided at post#338:

"Through faith and Baptism, we become God’s children by adoption and participate in the divine life. As new creations in Christ, we cooperate in His redemptive work. While this is true of all Christians, it is most perfectly true of Mary, who was never wounded or enslaved by sin and therefore was perfectly free to give herself completely to Christ."​

You provided no evidence that we cooperated in the Lord's redemptive work or that Mary did. Redemption is only by blood so to say that Mary cooperated in the Lord's redemptive is not true.

Besides that, the human race was not redeemed but only believers. You people are totally confused.

 

[everready]

The Queen Of Heaven?

The Queen Of Heaven?

And who might this be?

She appears as a living, breathing, three-dimensional lady enveloped in exquisite light. Visionaries and seers describe a beautiful, young woman glowing in radiant splendor. Seers, while describing her as brilliant to behold and arrayed with every splendor, admit that the "Queen of Heaven" transcends human description.

My sign is emerging. God wills it thus. Only my children recognize it, as it reveals itself in secrecy, and they praise the Eternal One for it. Today I cannot reveal my power to the whole world. I must withdraw with my children. In secrecy I will perform miracles on the souls until the number of sacrifices has become full. ?Then I can reveal myself to the whole world?[2]

Soon, I will come, my children! Soon, I will be in your midst with a great light. I will enlighten the entire world. Many souls will cry because they did not listen to my call. ?I will pass above everyone in a cloud and everyone will see me. What will become of those who insulted me and made a laughing stock of me? ?I will come soon, my sons, to travel through the entire world. I will give a great sign in the sky for those who will still want to be saved. All those who have recourse to me, who have a look of repentance, this will be sufficient to save them.[3]

I wish to also tell you that before my apparitions end completely, I shall be seen by every denomination and religion throughout this world. I will be seen among all people, not for just a moment, but everyone will have a chance to see me. As I appeared in Zeitoun, I shall appear again so everyone may see me. Pray and help my plans to be realized, not just here, but throughout the world.[4]

http://biblebelievers.com/tetlow/queenofall01.html

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


everready

 

[StanJ]

Then so is every single biblical proof-text that you quote on this forum. It's all just your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect eisegeting Scripture.

No it's from the Bible, by thinking scholars and people like me, NOT by sycophants like yourself.

Already answered here.

No, that is a link to an RCC site that simply eisegetes scripture from the RCC POV. YOU did not answer a thing in this thread so far.

Sure I do: Bare denial, which is really all you've offered to this point.

Not at all, but as you are so inculcated into the RCC dogmas you wouldn't know a Biblical truth if it came up and bit you in the butt.

The source I cited categorically refutes your sectarian assumptions, and you have been utterly unable to offer any substantive answer whatsoever to its content.

No it makes fallacious assertions, while claiming that's what the scripture it cites says, when in actually it doesn't and I've refuted a couple but I can't be bothered dealing with every one of them, which I'm sure is the reason you post these links, to inundate people so they get sick of your style, which is all this is...style over substance.

You're the one posting arguments that apply equally to your own position, thus in effect refuting yourself. Brilliant.

I'm posting yes, NOT parroting...just as you do here again. You're like my kids were when they were 3 and 4 who would say..."I know you are but what am I"? Simply childish without the ability to reason or think for yourself.

If you don't like being called on it, I'd suggest not engaging in such a glaring blunder in the first place.

Being called on what exactly? You don't even KNOW what the individual points are because your so-called responses involve two or three links from dogmatic RCC sites. Nothing is of your own volition or knowledge, unlike those on this ECT forum who know their doctrine and their God intimately.

Of course you are. Every interpretation and doctrinal claim you make on this forum was taught to you by some man or men. Everything you post here is an example of you "touting man's ideas." Try again.

Every post I make in response to your fallacious assertions, is based on MY knowledge and God's truth, neither of which you have. Of course denial is a prerequisite for pushing the dogma of the RCC.

Yet, you quoted the text that says "...every man is a liar." Your interpretations of the Bible are merely the opinions of a man (you). Therefore, since you are a man, your preferred interpretations must be lies. Why don't you believe the very verse that you yourself quoted?

That's right, and as I actually quote scripture WITH exegesis and you simply link to an RCC site that shows the verse number and EISEGETES them all, from the RCC perspective without even showing a persons name, that is exactly what the verse refers to. Man's institutional laws as opposed to God's laws written on men's hearts, and His written words. The OLD covenant was an institution which Jesus came to abolish and made obsolete, and the RCC figures it would just perpetuate the same faulty teaching the Pharisees held onto, despite clear proof from the written Word of God that it was erroneous. Clearly, you have been deceived by an institutional belief that Jesus came to free ALL mankind from.

I receive the truth of Scripture---just not of your preferred interpretations of Scripture. You have a bad habit of confusing the two.

Well if you did you wouldn't be citing RCC sites with bad interpretations and pure eisegesis, you would be hearing and accepting the Spirit of Truth that is in front of you, by His written word. Clearly as ALL can see in this thread, you do NOT do that and IMO can't because you are deceived by the Babylon of Revelation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Seers, while describing her as brilliant to behold and arrayed with every splendor, admit that the "Queen of Heaven" transcends human description.

It is not Mary who is the Queen of Heaven. Instead, the true Queen of Heaven is spoken of here:

"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger" (Jer.7:18).​

The Lord is angered when some people bow down to image of one they call the Queen of Heaven.