Where is the teaching of "sola scriptura" written in the bible? I have been trying to find biblical proof for "sola scriptura", where in fact the bible admonishes the opposite as always been taught by the catholic church.

paul's letter to the thessalonians tells "so then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or letter." And also come to think of it, Jesus never wrote anything down, almost half of his disciples never did don't we all think that if Jesus and the apostles wanted us to belief only in a particular document they would have written one.

Isn't ironic that the protestants always claim to us that the bible is our sole guide rejecting traditions and yet that very notion of sola scriptura is not scriptural. I have come to the conclusion that the bible supports the catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, "the word of God", rather than sola scriptura, 'scripture alone'. For nowhere does scripture reduce God's word to scripture alone.

Getting some good education would help you better in life than this trash

So how do you 'hear' the 'word' of God?
If the gospel account about Jesus was not written down, how would we have known what we know about his teachings and ministry?

Your explanation is just an excuse to bring in all sorts of tradition of men into Christianity and water down God's command. It's not the first time it's been done and the catholic church is not doing something new by bringing in traditions of men in place of the word of God. The Pharisees did similarly things during Jesus' time and you can read what he told them for yourself in Mark 7:6-9.

Sola Scriptura is a novel doctrine started by Martin Luther in the 16th while splitting from the CC. As much as he had good intentions in trying to reform the church, he ended up breaking away. We now see what Sola Scriptura has caused with every Pastor Taiwo, Evangelist Ola and prophet Theophilus thinking they have the right doctrines all based on this same sola scriptura ( basically, conflicting doctrines among thousands of competing denominations)

vfactor:
So how do you 'hear' the 'word' of God?
If the gospel account about Jesus was not written down, how would we have known what we know about his teachings and ministry?

Your explanation is just an excuse to bring in all sorts of tradition of men into Christianity and water down God's command. It's not the first time it's been done and the catholic church is not doing something new by bringing in traditions of men in place of the word of God. The Pharisees did similarly things during Jesus' time and you can read what he told them for yourself in Mark 7:6-9.

You might want to find out how the church existed without the NT in the early decades. i'm sure you're aware that the earliest books were not even written for more than 15 years after the event. Also, there was no consensus on the make up of the bible until late 4th century.
This means the christians were guided by the church, that was guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus. This continues to happen.
The books were written to the established church.
Food for Thought - it is well known that Apostle Thomas helped set up christianity in South India but we do not have Thomas' scriptures in the bible. How do you think christianity spread there?

vfactor:
So how do you 'hear' the 'word' of God?
If the gospel account about Jesus was not written down, how would we have known what we know about his teachings and ministry?

Your explanation is just an excuse to bring in all sorts of tradition of men into Christianity and water down God's command. It's not the first time it's been done and the catholic church is not doing something new by bringing in traditions of men in place of the word of God. The Pharisees did similarly things during Jesus' time and you can read what he told them for yourself in Mark 7:6-9.

Can you please point out to me where it is written in the bible that christians should believe only what is in the bible. If u can't point it out, why then do u uphold sola scriptura? I thought according to protestant what ever is not written in the bible in false?

ifeness:
Getting some good education would help you better in life than this trash

apply your advise to yourself, if you have nothing to say on the topic keep quite and move on. This condescending "advise" only highlights your own lack of educations and communication skills.

nigizjay:


Can you please point out to me where it is written in the bible that christians should believe only what is in the bible. If u can't point it out, why then do u uphold sola scriptura? I thought according to protestant what ever is not written in the bible in false?

I'll show you, since you don't knw. Read 1 Corinthians 4:6 and see what was said abt things not written the scriptures.

nigizjay:


Can you please point out to me where it is written in the bible that christians should believe only what is in the bible. If u can't point it out, why then do u uphold sola scriptura? I thought according to protestant what ever is not written in the bible in false?

I'll show you, since you don't know. Read, please 1 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 6 and see what the bible says going beyond what is written in it for doctrine.

btoks:


You might want to find out how the church existed without the NT in the early decades. i'm sure you're aware that the earliest books were not even written for more than 15 years after the event. Also, there was no consensus on the make up of the bible until late 4th century.
This means the christians were guided by the church, that was guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus. This continues to happen.
The books were written to the established church.
Food for Thought - it is well known that Apostle Thomas helped set up christianity in South India but we do not have Thomas' scriptures in the bible. How do you think christianity spread there?

I don't need to find out. I already know. The early Christians during the first century after Christ's death relied heavily on the scriptures available to them at that time. For example read for yourself how they resolved the issue of circumcision that arose at that time, by using the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) (Act chapter 15). They didn't depend on any traditions or personal opinions from fellow apostles (not even Peter himself, who Catholics assume to be d first pope).

It was after the death of the last Apostle John, that human traditions and pagan philosophies began to creep into Christianity. The Nicaea Council was renowned for disregarding the known word of God (OT and writings of the apostles) and infusing the pagan philosophies of Plato and Socrates in Christianity which has lead to many spurious and false teachings we have today (Catholics and protestants alike)

oya "bible beleiving" christians make una come ansa

vfactor:


I don't need to find out. I already know. The early Christians during the first century after Christ's death relied heavily on the scriptures available to them at that time. For example read for yourself how they resolved the issue of circumcision that arose at that time, by using the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) (Act chapter 15). They didn't depend on any traditions or personal opinions from fellow apostles (not even Peter himself, who Catholics assume to be d first pope).

It was after the death of the last Apostle John, that human traditions and pagan philosophies began to creep into Christianity. The Nicaea Council was renowned for disregarding the known word of God (OT and writings of the apostles) and infusing the pagan philosophies of Plato and Socrates in Christianity which has lead to many spurious and false teachings we have today (Catholics and protestants alike)

If you already know, then I'm surprised you believe sola scriptura was practiced by the early church. Yes the church had the OT but how did the OT scriptures suddenly become the whole bible? The mere fact that that Paul and Barnabas had to defer to the church to discuss the issue of circumcision in Acts 15 disproves your sola scriptura (afterall it should have been clear from the scriptures what the teaching on circumcision was).
Questions -
how did the book of Acts become scripture?
If you don't believe in the Nicea Council, why do you believe in the council of Jerusalem?
It'll be good to know how you got the knowledge that so called human traditions crept into christianity after the death of John and not before.
Are you aware that Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church - which meant he protected the church in its teachings?

vfactor:


I'll show you, since you don't know. Read, please 1 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 6 and see what the bible says going beyond what is written in it for doctrine.

This does not teach sola scriptura, you need to quote verses within its context. He was trying to address the Corinthians behaviour (not to be boastful,arrongant) Please read the preceeding Chapters (especially Chapter 1 and end of 3) to get the full context - he quotes the OT where he says it is written.
If we were to go with your logic, would you be going beyond what is written by quoting Paul?

btoks:

This does not teach sola scriptura, you need to quote verses within its context. He was trying to address the Corinthians behaviour (not to be boastful,arrongant) Please read the preceeding Chapters (especially Chapter 1 and end of 3) to get the full context - he quotes the OT where he says it is written.
If we were to go with your logic, would you be going beyond what is written by quoting Paul?

so what message do you think Paul was trying to pass to the Corinthians, by telling them not to beyond what is written, when (to you) the problem is about being arrogant.

It's clear what Paul was driving at. When people start going beyond what the bible says, they develop pride and arrogance. Maybe they feel that they are educated in worldly wisdom and can add to what the scriptures say. So Paul reminded them of a RULE (which was already know) not to go beyond what is written.

btoks:


If you already know, then I'm surprised you believe sola scriptura was practiced by the early church. Yes the church had the OT but how did the OT scriptures suddenly become the whole bible? The mere fact that that Paul and Barnabas had to defer to the church to discuss the issue of circumcision in Acts 15 disproves your sola scriptura (afterall it should have been clear from the scriptures what the teaching on circumcision was).
Questions -
how did the book of Acts become scripture?
If you don't believe in the Nicea Council, why do you believe in the council of Jerusalem?
It'll be good to know how you got the knowledge that so called human traditions crept into christianity after the death of John and not before.
Are you aware that Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church - which meant he protected the church in its teachings?

There is a Big DIFFERENCE between the Jerusalem Council and the Nicaea Council - The SCRIPTURES. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem, used the Scriptures and the dealings of God with the Apostles (Peter to Conelius, Paul & Barnabas to the Gentiles) to draw conclusions on the issue of circumcision. The Nicaea Council, didn't dare to even reason the scriptures. That's the difference.

I heard the Pope has dismissed the Genesis account of creation as an allegory, instead embracing evolution (which scientist themselves do not accept and there's little evidence to back up). Such is what happens wen you choose to disregard what God's word says and stick with human wisdom.

very soon, the portions of the bible that condemns homosexual acts will be removed and replaced.

vfactor:



so what message do you think Paul was trying to pass to the Corinthians, by telling them not to beyond what is written, when (to you) the problem is about being arrogant.

It's clear what Paul was driving at. When people start going beyond what the bible says, they develop pride and arrogance. Maybe they feel that they are educated in worldly wisdom and can add to what the scriptures say. So Paul reminded them of a RULE (which was already know) not to go beyond what is written.

Yes Paul was certainly pointing them to scriptures to address a particular issue, it doesn't mean he was teaching sola scriptura.
One needs to look at the scriptures as a whole and not point to verses here and there without context, otherwise you miss verses like 2Thess2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

So you're only reading sola scriptura into 1 Corinthians 4:6 not what it actually says.

btoks:


Yes Paul was certainly pointing them to scriptures to address a particular issue, it doesn't mean he was teaching sola scriptura.
One needs to look at the scriptures as a whole and not point to verses here and there without context, otherwise you miss verses like 2Thess2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

So you're only reading sola scriptura into 1 Corinthians 4:6 not what it actually says.

Why do u think Paul wasnt teaching sola scriptura, wen he reminded the christians in Corinth of a rule they already knew, in solving an issue? You should give me a better reason, than say one has look at the entire scripture.

By applying your own reasoning, did you not quote 2 Thess 2:15 out of context? And you re not reading your own meaning into it? From the whole bible u've read, where the did Paul or any other apostle give instructions for christians to start a tradition or doctrine that was contrary to the OT and the Teachings of Jesus? Most of what the apostles wrote were explanations on the OT prophecies/psalms, revelations and expansion on the teachings of Christ (just as Jesus promised that the holy spirit would teach them). These teachings had scriptural backing. But today the catholic church has brought in teachings, like celibacy of priest, purgatory, praying to saints instead of God, etc, that cannot be backed with any scripture. I'll like you to show me one tradition that the apostles started that didnt have any backing frm either the OT or Jesus' teachings, then i'll believe you.

vfactor:




There is a Big DIFFERENCE between the Jerusalem Council and the Nicaea Council - The SCRIPTURES. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem, used the Scriptures and the dealings of God with the Apostles (Peter to Conelius, Paul & Barnabas to the Gentiles) to draw conclusions on the issue of circumcision. The Nicaea Council, didn't dare to even reason the scriptures. That's the difference.

I heard the Pope has dismissed the Genesis account of creation as an allegory, instead embracing evolution (which scientist themselves do not accept and there's little evidence to back up). Such is what happens wen you choose to disregard what God's word says and stick with human wisdom.

very soon, the portions of the bible that condemns homosexual acts will be removed and replaced.

I can see you've got a big issue with Nicea?Do you worship at one of the organisations that rejects the Nicean Council?
You're wrong for thinking the Council of Nicea referenced no scriptures. - Please actually research what happened at this Council. Wikipedia is a good starting point - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Just so you know, councils are called to deal with specific issues. During this time it was the Arian Heresis, which in effect taught that Jesus was not God with proves from the same scriptures.

Also, you need to research what the pope actually said and the CC teaching with regard to creation and evolution. Please read paragraphs 159, 283 and 284 of the catholic cathecism (free on the internet). The CC leaves open the actual events that occured during creation and the pope statement was along those lines.
The CC will never remove and replace any portion of the bible. in fact it defined what books make up the bible and declared these God's word. You may be surprised that it was the protestants(starting with Martin Luther) that removed portions of the bible - 7 whole books!!

vfactor:


Why do u think Paul wasnt teaching sola scriptura, wen he reminded the christians in Corinth of a rule they already knew, in solving an issue? You should give me a better reason, than say one has look at the entire scripture.

By applying your own reasoning, did you not quote 2 Thess 2:15 out of context? And you re not reading your own meaning into it? From the whole bible u've read, where the did Paul or any other apostle give instructions for christians to start a tradition or doctrine that was contrary to the OT and the Teachings of Jesus? Most of what the apostles wrote were explanations on the OT prophecies/psalms, revelations and expansion on the teachings of Christ (just as Jesus promised that the holy spirit would teach them). These teachings had scriptural backing. But today the catholic church has brought in teachings, like celibacy of priest, purgatory, praying to saints instead of God, etc, that cannot be backed with any scripture. I'll like you to show me one tradition that the apostles started that didnt have any backing frm either the OT or Jesus' teachings, then i'll believe you.

Paul couldn't have been teaching sola scriptura because without guidance you end up with a situation where everyone comes up with their own doctrine.
2 Thess 2:15 was not quoted out of context as the previous verses refers to Paul talking with the Thessalonians previously. Please read v2, v5 and v14.
Also read the 2 Tim2:2 – and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

And 1 Cor 11:2 - I commend you because you remember me in everything and [b]maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you
It is not tradition vs scriptures but tradition & scriptures. The scriptures are best understood and interpreted within the set sacred tradition.
The tradition (not changeable disciplines like priestly celibacy) we speak about is how you determine what are the valid Christian doctrines especially in view of Heresies.( People teaching a different doctrine from the established tradition). For instance, If I ask what is believed about the Holy Eucharist(John 6), the majority of protestants will say this is just a symbol whereas the established tradition has this has the body and blood of Jesus Christ – both views coming from the same scriptures.
Also teachings on purgatory etc.

Please see this quote from an early church father, Irenaeus
As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

Regarding use of Tradition in the NT – Jesus mentions the Pharisees seating on Moses Chair in Matt 23 but you don’t see Moses’ chair in the OT.
Paul remembered Jesus words in Matt 23 – It is more blessed to give than to receive. You don’t see this recorded in the Gospels.

btoks:


Paul couldn't have been teaching sola scriptura because without guidance you end up with a situation where everyone comes up with their own doctrine.
2 Thess 2:15 was not quoted out of context as the previous verses refers to Paul talking with the Thessalonians previously. Please read v2, v5 and v14.
Also read the 2 Tim2:2 – and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

And 1 Cor 11:2 - I commend you because you remember me in everything and [b]maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you
It is not tradition vs scriptures but tradition & scriptures. The scriptures are best understood and interpreted within the set sacred tradition.
The tradition (not changeable disciplines like priestly celibacy) we speak about is how you determine what are the valid Christian doctrines especially in view of Heresies.( People teaching a different doctrine from the established tradition). For instance, If I ask what is believed about the Holy Eucharist(John 6), the majority of protestants will say this is just a symbol whereas the established tradition has this has the body and blood of Jesus Christ – both views coming from the same scriptures.
Also teachings on purgatory etc.

Please see this quote from an early church father, Irenaeus
As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

Regarding use of Tradition in the NT – Jesus mentions the Pharisees seating on Moses Chair in Matt 23 but you don’t see Moses’ chair in the OT.
Paul remembered Jesus words in Matt 23 – It is more blessed to give than to receive. You don’t see this recorded in the Gospels.

You still have not answered my questions. I requested that you show me:

1. What particular traditions did the early Christian apostles stat, that didnt have any backing (implicit or explicit) from either the OT or Christ Teachings? (the lord's supper was started by christ).

All the pharisees cannot literally sit on one seat of Moses, so Jesus meant position of authority as custodians of the law of Moses, just like Moses himself. (and this is not a doctrinal tradition for christians, neither was it started by Christians).

2.What is the scriptural Bases (either implicit or explicit) for teachings such as purgatory, celibacy and praying to saints?

Like i said before, most of what d apostles wrote were explanations on the OT prophecies/psalms, expansion of the teachings of Jesus, and further relations giving to them by Jesus through the holy spirit. At least Paul quoted Jesus as saying there is more happiness in given...(which is not contrary to Jesus teachings on giving as found in the gospel), but whom do you (Catholics) quote on backing ur traditions? (church fathers?)

vfactor:


You still have not answered my questions. I requested that you show me:

1. What particular traditions did the early Christian apostles stat, that didnt have any backing (implicit or explicit) from either the OT or Christ Teachings? (the lord's supper was started by christ).

All the pharisees cannot literally sit on one seat of Moses, so Jesus meant position of authority as custodians of the law of Moses, just like Moses himself. (and this is not a doctrinal tradition for christians, neither was it started by Christians).

2.What is the scriptural Bases (either implicit or explicit) for teachings such as purgatory, celibacy and praying to saints?

Like i said before, most of what d apostles wrote were explanations on the OT prophecies/psalms, expansion of the teachings of Jesus, and further relations giving to them by Jesus through the holy spirit. At least Paul quoted Jesus as saying there is more happiness in given...(which is not contrary to Jesus teachings on giving as found in the gospel), but whom do you (Catholics) quote on backing ur traditions? (church fathers?)

No teaching of the Church, whether in the time of Pope Peter or Pope Francis is without implicit or explicit backing in Sacred Scripture.

Do you really want scripture backing for purgatory, praying to saints and celibacy?

Can you cope with the sheer number of them?

Meanwhile St. Paul clearly urges Christians to hold fast to oral traditions.

Do you accept that?

italo:


No teaching of the Church, whether in the time of Pope Peter or Pope Francis is without implicit or explicit backing in Sacred Scripture.

Do you really want scripture backing for purgatory, praying to saints and celibacy?

Can you cope with the sheer number of them?

Question! Are u going to answer me, or u re jst rigmarolling?

It shouldnt be hard for u to explain. Two key scriptures, or at most, three, should suffice.

vfactor:


You still have not answered my questions. I requested that you show me:

1. What particular traditions did the early Christian apostles stat, that didnt have any backing (implicit or explicit) from either the OT or Christ Teachings? (the lord's supper was started by christ).

Hehehe, I don't know what you take to be tradition, but taking a look at the action of the apostles, we can discovered they went against existing traditions and instituted something new and maybe even strange or alien to the old testament

Let's use circumcision as example, In Gen 17:10 God clearly commanded Abraham thus, "You and your descendants MUST all agree to circumcise every male among you". If you continue to vs 11-12 you discover even slaves born into the househood of their master are included in this covenant, but the apostles preached and practised the opposite which invariably is introducing or starting a new tradition, Act 15, Gal 2:3-4, Gal 6:15. a tradition which undermines circumcission. So yes the apostles did start a new tradition which we couldn't find anywhere the were commanded to do so either by Christ's teaching or revelation, atleast we didn't read that in the scriptures. So unlike the commandment God gave to Abraham which made circumcission compulsory, the apostles started a tradition which doesn't make circumcision compulsory, to which Paul himself never bothered to have Titus circumcised . Gal 2:3.

All the pharisees cannot literally sit on one seat of Moses, so Jesus meant position of authority as custodians of the law of Moses, just like Moses himself. (and this is not a doctrinal tradition for christians, neither was it started by Christians).

Don't know what this is all about.

2.What is the scriptural Bases (either implicit or explicit) for teachings such as purgatory, celibacy and praying to saints?

The implicit or explicit basis of those are there in the scriptures
Purgatory 1 Cor 3:15, celibacy Matt 19:12. Praying to saints or asking saints to pray for us, We ask them just like you ask your pastors and others to pray for you.

Like i said before, most of what d apostles wrote were explanations on the OT prophecies/psalms, expansion of the teachings of Jesus, and further relations giving to them by Jesus through the holy spirit. At least Paul quoted Jesus as saying there is more happiness in given...(which is not contrary to Jesus teachings on giving as found in the gospel), but whom do you (Catholics) quote on backing ur traditions? (church fathers?)

Catholics quote the Scripture as well as the church fathers who practised and upheld the Scriptures and traditions.

SalC:
Hehehe, I don't know what you take to be tradition, but taking a look at the action of the apostles, we can discovered they went against existing traditions and instituted something new and maybe even strange or alien to the old testament

Let's use circumcision as example, In Gen 17:10 God clearly commanded Abraham thus, "You and your descendants MUST all agree to circumcise every male among you". If you continue to vs 11-12 you discover even slaves born into the househood of their master are included in this covenant, but the apostles preached and practised the opposite which invariably is introducing or starting a new tradition, Act 15, Gal 2:3-4, Gal 6:15. a tradition which undermines circumcission. So yes the apostles did start a new tradition which we couldn't find anywhere the were commanded to do so either by Christ's teaching or revelation, at least we didn't read that in the scriptures. So unlike the commandment God gave to Abraham which made circumcission compulsory, the apostles started a tradition which doesn't make circumcision compulsory, to which Paul himself never bothered to have Titus circumcised . Gal 2:3.

The law of Circumcision was specifically given to the descendants of Abraham, which the gentiles were not. The apostles, from the dealings of God with Gentiles and their understanding of the scriptures, understood that it was not necessary for one to be circumcised to be a Christian. They never urged Jews not to be circumcised. Titus was a Greek and not a descendant of Abraham.
Acts 15:14-17 states: ''14 Sym′e·on+ has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.+ 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent* of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah,* together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah,* who is doing these things,''.
So the apostles didn't start something entirely new. They discerned the fulfillment of a prophecy

SalC:
The implicit or explicit basis of those are there in the scriptures
Purgatory 1 Cor 3:15, celibacy Matt 19:12. Praying to saints or asking saints to pray for us, We ask them just like you ask your pastors and others to pray for you.

This is what 1 Cor 3:15 states: ''15 if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved; yet, if so, it will be as through fire.'' Please explain to me how this scripture supports purgatory. (also bear in mind the words in vs 10-14).

On Celibacy:
Mathew 19:12 :''For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs on account of the Kingdom of the heavens. Let the one who can make room for it make room for it.”+ Note that those who made themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom, did so voluntarily, not as a compulsory requirement.

interestingly even the 'first pope'(Peter) had a wife. 1 Cor 9:5 states: ''We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife,*+ as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers+ and Ce′phas, (Peter) + do we not?''

The bible makes it clear the origin of such teachings; ''However, the inspired word* clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements*+ and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies,+ whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage+ and command people to abstain from foods+ that God created to be partaken of+ with thanksgiving by those who have faith+ and accurately know the truth.'' (1 Timothy 4: 1-3)

vfactor:


Question! Are u going to answer me, or u re jst rigmarolling?

It shouldnt be hard for u to explain. Two key scriptures, or at most, three, should suffice.

Purgatory.

2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.


1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

Celibacy.

Paul endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Praying to Saints.

Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)

Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.

You haven't said whether you agree with St. Paul that we should hold fast to oral tradition or not!

vfactor:


The law of Circumcision was specifically given to the descendants of Abraham, which the gentiles were not. The apostles, from the dealings of God with Gentiles and their understanding of the scriptures, understood that it was not necessary for one to be circumcised to be a Christian. They never urged Jews not to be circumcised. Titus was a Greek and not a descendant of Abraham.
Acts 15:14-17 states: ''14 Sym′e·on+ has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.+ 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent* of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah,* together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah,* who is doing these things,''.
So the apostles didn't start something entirely new. They discerned the fulfillment of a prophecy

So you agree that Church leaders can discern what is not written in scripture?

vfactor:
This is what 1 Cor 3:15 states: ''15 if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved; yet, if so, it will be as through fire.'' Please explain to me how this scripture supports purgatory. (also bear in mind the words in vs 10-14).

Purgatory is the state where heaven bound souls suffer loss, as in the verse above.

vfactor:
On Celibacy:
Mathew 19:12 :''For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs on account of the Kingdom of the heavens. Let the one who can make room for it make room for it.”+ Note that those who made themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom, did so voluntarily, not as a compulsory requirement.

interestingly even the 'first pope'(Peter) had a wife. 1 Cor 9:5 states: ''We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife,*+ as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers+ and Ce′phas, (Peter) + do we not?''

The bible makes it clear the origin of such teachings; ''However, the inspired word* clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements*+ and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies,+ whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage+ and command people to abstain from foods+ that God created to be partaken of+ with thanksgiving by those who have faith+ and accurately know the truth.'' (1 Timothy 4: 1-3)

So celibacy is now scriptural. Yes or no?

italo:


Purgatory.

2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.


1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

Please Re-read 1Cor 3:10-15 again. That scripture (nor the context) never referred to judgement after dead. Take note that it speaks of Christ as the foundation and building materials such gold, silver, copper, wood and hay. then fire, that tests the resilience of each building materials. This fire comes in forms of test and persecutions that refines our faith. Compare Zachariah 13: 9 and 1 Peter 1:7.

italo:
Celibacy.

Paul endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Mathew 19:12 :''For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs on account of the Kingdom of the heavens. Let the one who can make room for it make room for it.”+
Note that those who made themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom, did so voluntarily, not as a compulsory requirement for service.

interestingly even the 'first pope'(Peter) had a wife. 1 Cor 9:5 states: ''We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife,*+ as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers+ and Ce′phas, (Peter) + do we not?''

The point is, if one choose to get married, it doesn't disqualify him from a privilege of service for the kingdom.

The bible makes it clear the origin of such teachings; ''However, the inspired word* clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements*+ and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies,+ whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage+ and command people to abstain from foods+ that God created to be partaken of+ with thanksgiving by those who have faith+ and accurately know the truth.'' (1 Timothy 4: 1-3)

italo:
Praying to Saints.

Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)

Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.

You haven't said whether you agree with St. Paul that we should hold fast to oral tradition or not!

Rev 6:9,10: ''When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar+ the souls*+ of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given.+ 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord, holy and true,+ are you refraining from judging and avenging OUR blood on those who dwell on the earth?”+

Take note that the holy ones (saints) were praying for the vengeance of THEIR blood, and not those of other worshipers.

Interestingly this is what one holy one (saint) had to say on this matter: ''5 For there is one God,+ and one mediator+ between God and men,+ a man, Christ Jesus,+ 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all*+—this is what is to be witnessed to in its own due time''. Paul to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:5,6)

italo:
So you agree that Church leaders can discern what is not written in scripture?

Read my comment again. You will have to do it again, if you still then read it well

italo:
Purgatory is the state where heaven bound souls suffer loss, as in the verse above.

That scriptures doesn't give a any hint of purgatory. It is now a state abi? it's no longer a place.

italo:
So celibacy is now scriptural. Yes or no?

Funny reasoning. very typical. Divorce and Polygamy is also in the scriptures. so it should be encouraged abi? What we do is called reasoning on the scriptures. The Celibacy in the scripture is not forced or a requirement for service....but VOLUNTARY, which is contrary to what the Catholic doctrine teach.

vfactor:
Read my comment again. You will have to do it again, if you still then read it well

Church leaders can discern what is not written in scriptures, yes or no?

Stop dodging my own questions.

vfactor:
That scriptures doesn't give a any hint of purgatory. It is now a state abi? it's no longer a place.

It is both, just like heaven.

Purgatory is the state where heaven-bound people suffer loss, as in that verse.

vfactor:

Funny reasoning. very typical. Divorce and Polygamy is also in the scriptures. so it should be encouraged abi? What we do is called reasoning on the scriptures. The Celibacy in the scripture is not forced or a requirement for service....but VOLUNTARY, which is contrary to what the Catholic doctrine teach.

Your brain seems to be flip flopping so fast that you forget what the discussion is about.

You came trying to tell me how celibacy is one tradition not found in anyway in the Bible. Now that I have shown you that celibacy is deeply rooted in scripture, you are ashamed to admit it like a typical protestant. You rather jump to the issue of it being voluntary or not.

Jeremiah’s celibacy was mandatory, not voluntary. Paul’s remark to Timothy about "civilian pursuits" is only a general admonition, not a specific command; and even in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul qualifies his strong endorsement of celibacy by adding: "I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35).

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

There is scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists.

All your points have tumbled. What again will you jump to?

Celibacy (mandatory and voluntary) is scriptural!

?

vfactor:


Please Re-read 1Cor 3:10-15 again. That scripture (nor the context) never referred to judgement after dead. Take note that it speaks of Christ as the foundation and building materials such gold, silver, copper, wood and hay. then fire, that tests the resilience of each building materials. This fire comes in forms of test and persecutions that refines our faith. Compare Zachariah 13: 9 and 1 Peter 1:7.

Why are the people in verse 14 going straight to their reward...and those in verse 15 being saved as through fire?

vfactor:

Rev 6:9,10: ''When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar+ the souls*+ of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given.+ 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord, holy and true,+ are you refraining from judging and avenging OUR blood on those who dwell on the earth?”+

Take note that the holy ones (saints) were praying for the vengeance of THEIR blood, and not those of other worshipers.

Interestingly this is what one holy one (saint) had to say on this matter: ''5 For there is one God,+ and one mediator+ between God and men,+ a man, Christ Jesus,+ 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all*+—this is what is to be witnessed to in its own due time''. Paul to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:5,6)

You completely ignored Rev 5:8.

You are saying that Saints can pray but they can't pray for others?

You think the Saints are as selfish as you pentecostals who believe prayer is only about collecting from God for only yourselves?

Since there is one mediator, why are you asking your pastors to mediate for you?