A good dialog on 'Sola Scriptura' between Michael Horton, of 'The White Horse Inn' and Bryan Cross of 'Called to Communion.'

I don't think it is as much solo scriptura as an argument about clear contradictions of some church tradition with the bible. The bible must be considered inerrant or you are simply engaging in a service organization rather than worshiping our sovereign God. This does not mean that Church leadership cannot address issues not provided for in scripture. But the Church must take care to stay within certain parameters, most importantly not contradict the Wiord. But there are many issues where various church’s do conflict. for Example Mary refers to Jesus as her "savior". Why would she need a savior if non biblical church tradition claiming her virgin birth and sinless nature were true? And I haven't even touched on the verses clearly indicating she had other children and sex with Joseph after Christ's birth. Of course the most potent proof is the clear lack of any mention of any of this. With ample opportunity in letters and gospels, if any of the questioned tradition regarding her were true, something would be mentioned, but it is not. And there are many more issue such as purgatory, babies dying prior to baptism, baptism for infants or bowing before graven images of anything.

The main importance is to say, scripture must interpret scripture. If you find a verse that could be interpreted to say you earn your faith or that you do not depending on your disposition, you must go to a more clear verse. You cannot just take what you want and move on. For example, Ephesians clearly states that your faith is a gift, you have nothing to boast about, it was all God and even every good work you do from Baptism to helping the old lady across the street was for ordained for you to walk in before time began. That is what’s important, and why we had to have a reformation. For centuries church leadership took advantage of the fact that only they could read the bible and instituted tradition to make money or satisfy the masses in some non biblical way. Once the bible was made public, it was only a matter of time before man read and realized the huge discrepancies between actual scripture and church tradition.

AgCPA, please provide us the "clear contradictions" by Catholics.

[This message has been edited by aggieangst (edited 2/2/2011 5:36p).]

A good discussion of sola scriptura from an Orthodox convert: link

@CPA: I can't answer for the Roman side of the house, but the Orthodox understanding of salvation (theosis) presents a very clear understanding of why Mary needs a savior, too, even if she was sinless (which we don't hold as dogma; we view the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as an unnecessary innovation).(see more here)

As for infant baptism, that, too is addressed when you conceive of salvation as a process of becoming partakers of the divine nature (II Pet. 1:4)(see more here)

Scripture attests to Mary's "ever-virgin" status both directly (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7) and indirectly (Ezekiel 44:2; John 19:26) as well as in the consistent witness of the Church from the earliest times. Of course, it is helpful to have the context of the Protoevangelium of James, which explains Mary’s extraordinary upbringing in the Temple as well as her betrothal to the aged widower Joseph (who had children from his first marriage) as a way to protect her chastity. (see more here).

I could spend some time digging into the other criticisms you’ve lobbed (such as purgatory, which does not have an Orthodox equivalent), but will refrain for now to allow digestion of the above. I will offer the following link regarding icons (in response to your “bowing before graven images of anything”).

I also offer the amusing tidbit that as a convert to Orthodoxy from a Baptist background, the three things that were the biggest obstacles for me were the status of Mary, confession, and icons...and I dearly love all of them now. = )

[This message has been edited by jkotinek (edited 2/3/2011 9:06a).]

quote:

---

...church tradition claiming her virgin birth...

---

Huh? I'm totally confused on what you think Catholics believe with this statement. Do you think Catholics believe that the conception of Mary came about other than through normal sexual relations? If so, nowhere is this taught.

The words "Sola Scriptura" are a great warning to me to not read a thread. Thank you for including them in the title!

"sola scriptura means the bible is the only authority"
"no it doesn't"
"yes it does"
"no, it means it's the top authority"
"well who decides that"
"the Bible does"
"so this is why there are so many denominations that can't agree?"
"better than Catholics doing/believing stuff that's not in the Bible b/c of man made traditions"
"they aren't man made traditions"
"yes they are"
"no, they were around before protestant churches when spoken word was how things were passed down."
"so it's old, it's still man made"
"can't prove it"
"neither can you"
"you're wrong"
"you're more wrong"
/thread

You are all welcome and may return to your normal day .