Scripture as the Definitive Guide

Just being sinless isn't enough? smh

Your standards are tougher than Gods! If you are sinless, you don't need a savior hence by definition you go straight to heaven. Not according to Lifein though. Even if you are sinless you still gotta do more! Its the catholic way. Its always more more more that YOU have to do. I can imagine heaven full of catholics...i did all this stuff that God didn't do and look where i am. The other person; well i did 10x more, how good am i? Mary; i was sinless and STILL had to work work work. That is the whole point behind Eph 2:8-9....NOT BOASTING. Your heaven sounds horrid. We will be casting our crowns at the feet of Jesus, not ourselves.
All boasting stops when Jesus walks into the room and shows His hands.
Just being sinless isn't enough? smh

Your standards are tougher than Gods! If you are sinless, you don't need a savior hence by definition you go straight to heaven.
God never said that sins were the only thing keeping them out of heaven.

Even if you are sinless you still gotta do more!
No, you don't "gotta" do more. They still had to wait for Christ to open the gates of heaven.

In my "Sola Scriptura" thread, you suggested discussing the issue with you in the Catholic section. I'm an EO, so I'm not allowed to debate against Protestants in the Catholic section. I'm guessing that there is another section of the forum where EOs, Protestants, and Catholics could each argue both for or against each other's positions on the topic. For that matter, I don't think that Sola Scriptura is the only Protestant position, since Anglicanism/Methodistm seems somewhere between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy on the topic, with Lutheranism teaching Sola Scriptura, and Anglicanism/Methodism teaching Prima Scriptura.

I think that it's an interesting issue, and collected as many of Luther's quotes directly on Sola Scriptura that I could find in order to understand his thinking on it. I posted them on my thread here:

In terms of criticisms of the Catholic position, I can note:

Luther was trained as an Augustinian monk, and in support of his position Luther quoted Augustine one or more times. As I recall, he quoted Augustine on these two points:

Infallibility of Scripture. Confusion about Scripture is due to manuscript errors or the reader's misunderstanding:
I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. (Augustine, Letter to Jerome (no. 82 ca. 405))

Augustine accepts extraBiblical writings' teachings only because they persuaded him using the Bible or rational arguments:
As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. (Letter to Jerome)
Dr. Kenneth Howell, St. Augustine and Sola Scriptura,

I think that this is not the same as Sola Scriptura, but has some similarity. Maybe Luther fleshed out evidence for Sola Scriptura from other quotes from Augustine. So in the case of Augustine's latter quote above, if some writing was outside the Bible, he could accept its teaching if it didn't rely on the Bible, but in that case only if it used rational arguments that persuaded him.

Another criticism can be that maybe the reasoning that an infallible book requires an infallible authority is not correct. Suppose that Moses came down from the Mount with the 10 Commandments engraved by God and someone such as yourself were among the Israelites gathered. The 10 Commandments being directly from God would seem to count as an infallible text. However, it does not seem necessary for you or your leaders to form an infallible group of interpreters for God to give you that text. The statement "Do not make graven images" could be an infallible statement by God, but you could have a good idea of what that statement means without having an infallible interpretive authority. Suppose that someone wanted to know if you could make a toy chariot for your kid or if it would count as a graven image. You might not need an infallible authority for that. Certainly an infallible interpreter would be extremely convenient. But supposing that you got the interpretation wrong and built a toy chariot or banned building toy chariots, it might not be a big deal.

The issue there seems like it relates to rigidity of interpretation and the consequences for getting interpretations right. If you have a bit of a lenient, flexible, open minded, forgiving attitude about interpretation, it's not as much of a big deal. But if you are going to go to war over potentially mistaken interpretations, then getting interpretations correct becomes a far more important issue.

This brings me to a third potential criticism. One aspect of the thrust of Luther's criticism on Biblical authority was the rigidity of the Catholic Church. If the Church hierarchy and its rules, dogmas, and enforcement are very strict and far reaching, then it worsens scenarios where the Church's common announced institutional position could be mistaken and the correct position could be repressed.

If both the Church's position on the issue is "Biblical", ie. the Bible teaches the stance in question, and the Bible is infallible, then this risk is not so much an issue. But if you are dealing with a scenario where the Bible doesn't teach a particular doctrine and you are just relying on potentially fallible Church fathers' teachings, then the likelihood increases that the common institutional position could be mistaken. And then if the Church imposes big penalties on dissenting positions, then it creates a big problem.

By comparison, it's a pretty common idea among EOs that the Bible and the 7 Ecumenical Councils are infallible authorities, but to be clear, as far as I can tell, EOs do not have a total consensus on this. Furthermore, EOs don't have an affirmative position that a dogma has to be in the Bible like "Sola Scriptura" would teach, as far as I know. Nor do they have the Catholic idea of the infallibility of the Magisterium, Papal Supremacy, or Papal ex cathedra Infallibility.

I also somewhat remember Luther complaining about the Catholic Church penalizing dissent on some issues that were not in the Bible or for that matter part of the Ecumenical Councils. However, I'm guessing that on some issues the Lutherans, EOs, or alot of Protestant institutions would penalize violations or dissent on their institutions' rules that were not specifically laid out in the Bible.
If the Roman Catholic Church considers Holy Scripture as its definitive guide, as it proclaims it does, then why has the Roman Catholic Church traditionally discouraged Roman Catholics from reading the Bible?
Mass error and confusion!

This site would be an excellent example

Christ founded a church to teach all men! Matt 28:19
One name: Martin Luther.
He read God's Word, the Holy Spirit used it, and the Roman Catholic Church's empire burst apart.
Just read the Bible in your own language and you will never be catholic

The Holy Spirit does not use heretics to attack Christ and His church or His revelation

Remember Christ and His church are one! Acts 9:4 eph 5:32 Lk 10:16
His mystical body

What say about the church you are in effect saying about Christ!

We must believe and obey both Christ and the church He founded on the apostles

This is the constant error of Roman Catholics and many of the cults. They speak the same way.

We...the church...are not called to obey Christ and obey ourselves...the church. That is ludicrous.

We...the church...are His Body and are called to follow Christ the Head.

The problem is Catholics and cultists always have to redefine the church to mean their lying sect leaders. No such luck!
Catholic: "All Catholic beliefs are found in the Bible! Why, you wouldn't even have the Bible if it wasn't for us!"

Christian: "OK. Where is ___ in the Bible?"

Catholic: "Not everything we believe has to be in the Bible! Jesus said He was leaving us a church, not a book!"

Catholicism is a foolish religion for foolish people.
What do you want to know?

Mother Of God? Lk 1:43

Immaculate conception of Mary?
Gen 3:15
Lk 1:28
Lk 1:30
Lk 1:49
Rev 12:1

Mary consented to our salvation
Lk 1:38

Perpetual virgin
Lk 1:34
The Church didn't.

What the Church DID do is forbid reading the Scriptures when there were bad translations out that heretics were using to advance heresy. Once the problems died down, the Church lifted the ban.

The Church also banned the reading of Scripture during the Protestant reformation becasue Protestantism was spreading like a cancer. The Church say the fruits of Sola Scriptura--which was division, division, division---and banned the reading of Scripture becasue the Church didn't want this to happen in Catholicism. Was that effective? That is debatable. The POINT is WHY the Church banned the reading of Scripture.

This fear was present right up until Vatican II. However, after Vatican II, the Church moved on from the Protestant Reformation, made her peace with Protestantism and encouraged Catholics to read the Bible.
Can only scratch my head!
Rolling my eyes!

The ((M)) word!
The RCC foolishly likes to claim that only at certain times and in certain places, after the Reformation broke out in 16th-century Europe - that Roman Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible. (Before that time, Gutenberg had not invented the printing press and Bibles were scarce, and many Roman Catholics didn't know how to read anyway they boldly claimed). Truth be known, that after the Reformation, many Roman Catholic bishops and pastors feared that if their uneducated people read the Bible privately, they would misinterpret it and twist it "to their own destruction." During this time also, many Roman Catholics, with help from the RCC, learned to develop a distrust of that "Protestant" book known as the HOLY BIBLE.
The Bible belongs to Christ and His church! Not heretics and infidels
Christ is the word and the visible apostolic authority established by Christ produced the New Testament canon! The scripture is part of the churches witness to Christ! Acts 1:8

covenant church to teach and sanctify (baptize) all men unto eternal salvation! (Matt 28:19)

Christ and His church are one!
((Inseparable unity))
Acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 eph 5:32 Isa 53:5 Jn 15:5 eph 5:24

Only Christ has authority to establish the church! Matt 16:18-19
One church! Jn 10:16 All others are sects “full of errors” “the tradition of men”! The new covenant Church is the eternal city of God! Household of faith! The pillar and ground of TRUTH! 1 Tim 3:15 Founded by Christ alone! Matt 16:18 on Peter and the apostles! Eph 2:20 Lk 22:29

It is impossible to reject the church or her teaching without rejecting Christ who founded the church and revealed her teaching! Lk 19:16 Jn 13:20

No offense to anyone reading this.
What do you want to know?

Mother Of God? Lk 1:43
"43And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" - Luke 1:43

Nothing about Mary being the mother of God here.
Immaculate conception of Mary?
Gen 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspringe and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.” - Genesis 3:15

Nothing about the immaculate conception here.
"And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”" - Luke 1:28

Nothing about an "immaculate conception" here.
"And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. " - Luke 1:30

No immaculate conception here.

49for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. - Luke 1:49

Nothing here about an immacuate conception.

"1And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." -Revelaton 1:12

Nothing here about the immaculate conception.
Mary consented to our salvation
Lk 1:38
38And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servantf of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her." - Luke 1:38

Nothing here about Mary consenting to our salvation.
Perpetual virgin
Lk 1:34
And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin? - Luke 1:34.

So, as we can see, you lied about this verse, too. Nothing at all here about Mary being a perpetual virgin.

Literally, none of these verses say what you claim.

All liars will have their place in the Lake of Fire. You need to repent.
The problem with RCs is their lack of scriptural knowledge. If they knew it, they wouldn't say inane things - like Mary is sinless and saved like the OT saints.
But even when they're shown what it says, they continue to lie about it.

Catholicism is the special ed classroom of religions.