Bible alone

[Jim B]

I have just quit a Catholic sub-forum on another site. The gist of my final post was that instead of concerning themselves with the main content of the Bible -- Jesus Christ, salvation, eternal life, freedom from sin, the Holy Spirit, etc. -- they concern themselves with such myths as "ever-virgin" Mary and the supposed primacy of Peter. They add on all kinds of teachings to the Bible that are clearly not Scriptural, disbelieving the concept of "sola scriptura" in favor of whatever their "priests", from the Pope on down, can dream up.

IMHO the worst offense of all is depicting Jesus as dead on the cross, visually denying His resurrection. I am concerned for their souls!

SOLA SCRIPTURA!

 

[atpollard]

Show me where the BIBLE instructs us to break away from Christ's Church because we "disagree" with the leadership.

Ummm … Luther BEGGED the church to reform its evil practices. The Pope and Cardinals invited him to a meeting to present his grievances (and promptly attempted to assassinate him).

I am a Baptist … you DROWNED those before me that attempted to point out what scripture said to you.

To accuse US of “breaking away” is a bit disingenuous.
Should I apologize for not dying instead?
Let’s talk about Huss and the Brethern and the RCC slaughter of any who opposed its corrupt POLITICAL POWER in Eastern Europe. The RCC forced the creation of Protestantism by offering those opposed to apostasy the choice between leaving the RCC or dying. It is too late to lament the consequences of YOUR actions.

Only after driving France, the Netherlands and Germany from the RCC were you forced to correct the worst of the abuses that those you murdered had complained about (or face the complete disintegration of the RCC). From the shell game of musical pedophile priests to protect the RCC at the expense of the people, you learned nothing from your earlier mistakes and are condemned to repeat them.

• 1000 AD the Orthodox Church attempted to challenge your apostasy … and Rome drove them out.
• 1500 AD the Reformers attempted to challenge your apostasy … and Rome drove them out.
  
• 2000 the RCC places protecting priests above protecting children as it elevates Mary to equality with Christ … who will ROME drive out this time?

By all means, continue to bend the Word of God to serve the Traditions of men … that plan has served you well so far.

 

[Taken]

Reading his comments, and the tone of them, I don't think his church is doing him much good

He is not here to promote Catholicism.
His self-appointed mission is attack anyone who is not Catholic.
Ranges from comical to disturbing.

 

[atpollard]

I used Jim Jones as an textbook example of the man-made perversion that is Sola Scriptura.

Did Jim Jones correctly divide the word of God?
If so, then he is an example of Sola Scriptura and if not, then he is not an example of Sola Scriptura.

Did Jim Jones place the traditions of man (himself) above what Jesus and the Apostles taught in scripture?
If so, then he is a perfect example of what the RCC and Pope do by placing their traditions first, and then bending the Word of God to fit the traditions of men.

 

[Berserk]

Time to repeat what I (an Evangelical) have often said here: I have successfully sued the Catholic church, but recognize that B of L has generally refuted his Fundamentalist critics here, who spew anti-Catholic ad hominems as an excuse to avoid getting into the Word in context!
Fundamentalists duck the decisive significance of Jesus' declaration, "You are Peter ("Petros" or "Cephas" in Aramaic) in Matthew 16:18-19. Jesus says this to establish His pun that identifies "Cephas" not Himself, as "the Rock" on which "I will build my church." Jesus needs to clarify this because "rock" is a multivalent image and because He elsewhere alludes to Himself as the "foundation," cornerstone," and "rock." All doubt about this interpretation is removed when Jesus then proceeds to give "the keys of the kingdom" to Cephas and only to Cephas. "Peter's unique authority as expressed here is recognized by non-Catholic academic book commentaries just on Matthew.

 

[Taken]

Did Jim Jones correctly divide the word of God?
If so, then he is an example of Sola Scriptura and if not, then he is not an example of Sola Scriptura.

Did Jim Jones place the traditions of man (himself) above what Jesus and the Apostles taught in scripture?
If so, then he is a perfect example of what the RCC and Pope do by placing their traditions first, and then bending the Word of God to fit the traditions of men.

Poor ole Jimmy Jones; his illusion pumped up by weak and gullible people, so badly he tried to impress the world, and his claim to fame is “don’t drink the kool-aid”. LOL

 

[BreadOfLife]

In your delusion and indifference you equate following a pope, worshipping Mary, and replacing the leadership of God with sinful men the same as following God. Your loss not mine.

And until you can address ANY of the points I made in my responses to your dishonest posts - you've LOST this debate.
You've made false claim after false claiim which I have torpedoed - and you have failed to offer an intelligent response to ANY of my responses.

When you can address my points - let me know.
Until then, however, I suggest you do some homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did Jim Jones correctly divide the word of God?
If so, then he is an example of Sola Scriptura and if not, then he is not an example of Sola Scriptura.

Did Jim Jones place the traditions of man (himself) above what Jesus and the Apostles taught in scripture?
If so, then he is a perfect example of what the RCC and Pope do by placing their traditions first, and then bending the Word of God to fit the traditions of men.

The answewr is "NO", he didn't.
And this is precisely the case with Protestantism.

You ALL rely in the peersonal interpretations of the founders of your particular sects - yet there are luterally tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines based on the opinions of thes human founders.

How can you POSSINLY try to convince me that you have ALL "rightly divided" Scripture when you have competing doctrines?
I listed a number of them back in post #124 . . .

 

[Marine0311]

And until you can address ANY of the points I made in my responses to your dishonest posts - you've LOST this debate.
You've made false claim after false claiim which I have torpedoed - and you have failed to offer an intelligent response to ANY of my responses.

When you can address my points - let me know.
Until then, however, I suggest you do some homework . . .

 

[Marine0311]

You did not torpedo anything but the truth. RC’s worship Mary then call their worship veneration. Intent is immaterial. If you kill someone without intent to kill do you think the dead person is any less dead, and or you will spend less time in jail ? Purgatory was nothing more than a get rich quick scheme by the schills in your cult. There is not one verse to support IC-PV scripture says Joseph and Mary had children together and even names their sons- Mary’s assumption. Mary said my soul does magnify God my savior, which if Mary was not a sinner she would not need a savior. The RCC has mastered re-writing history, ignoring and misusing scripture, and replacing God in their lives with Mary not to mention their blatant idolatry, which no Christian will participate in. Your loss not mine.

 

[Taken]

Time to repeat what I (an Evangelical) have often said here: I have successfully sued the Catholic church, but recognize that B of L has generally refuted his Fundamentalist critics here, who spew anti-Catholic ad hominems as an excuse to avoid getting into the Word in context!
Fundamentalists duck the decisive significance of Jesus' declaration, "You are Peter ("Petros" or "Cephas" in Aramaic) in Matthew 16:18-19. Jesus says this to establish His pun that identifies "Cephas" not Himself, as "the Rock" on which "I will build my church." Jesus needs to clarify this because "rock" is a multivalent image and because He elsewhere alludes to Himself as the "foundation," cornerstone," and "rock." All doubt about this interpretation is removed when Jesus then proceeds to give "the keys of the kingdom" to Cephas and only to Cephas. "Peter's unique authority as expressed here is recognized by non-Catholic academic book commentaries just on Matthew.

Jesus challenged his Disciples....who do men say I am, who do you say I am......none knew the answer.

Not a mystery Jesus was looking for a specific answer.
The Disciples dumbfounded has no answer.
God tells Simon Barjona.....oh, oh, Jesus, I know the answer...
Simon repeats what God told him.
The other disciples hear the answer..

Jesus gives Simon a pat on the head, and says....Yes, that’s the answer and THAT ANSWER IS the ROCK upon which I shall build “MY CHURCH”.

The ROCK foundation is the REPRESENTATION of an EVERLASTING “GOD”, which is built upon the ROCK...in this case Christ’s Church Build UPON Christ and God.

Funny how Peter is the rock of the Catholic Church. Catholics supposedly having been taught by the Disciples, WHOSE ROCK was “Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God”.

Remember that ^ is a conversation among JEWS, steeped in Jewish History and Religion.

Deut. 32
[4] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
[13] He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
[15] But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
[18] Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
[30] How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
[31] For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
[37] And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted,

1 Cor 10:
[4] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ummm … Luther BEGGED the church to reform its evil practices. The Pope and Cardinals invited him to a meeting to present his grievances (and promptly attempted to assassinate him).

I am a Baptist … you DROWNED those before me that attempted to point out what scripture said to you.

To accuse US of “breaking away” is a bit disingenuous.
Should I apologize for not dying instead?
Let’s talk about Huss and the Brethern and the RCC slaughter of any who opposed its corrupt POLITICAL POWER in Eastern Europe. The RCC forced the creation of Protestantism by offering those opposed to apostasy the choice between leaving the RCC or dying. It is too late to lament the consequences of YOUR actions.

Only after driving France, the Netherlands and Germany from the RCC were you forced to correct the worst of the abuses that those you murdered had complained about (or face the complete disintegration of the RCC). From the shell game of musical pedophile priests to protect the RCC at the expense of the people, you learned nothing from your earlier mistakes and are condemned to repeat them.

• 1000 AD the Orthodox Church attempted to challenge your apostasy … and Rome drove them out.
• 1500 AD the Reformers attempted to challenge your apostasy … and Rome drove them out.
  
• 2000 the RCC places protecting priests above protecting children as it elevates Mary to equality with Christ … who will ROME drive out this time?

By all means, continue to bend the Word of God to serve the Traditions of men … that plan has served you well so far.

And, as usual – you ignore the arrogant Luther of history for a fanciful, invented version from your Protestant traditions . . .

He admitted adding the word 'alone' to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition:
“If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so’: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”

“If I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German.”

“If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing’.”

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek”
(Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

As for your nonsense above in RED - you should be ashaned of your continua lying.
WHEN are you guys going to do your hoomework?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You did not torpedo anything but the truth. RC’s worship Mary then call their worship veneration. Intent is immaterial. If you kill someone without intent to kill do you think the dead person is any less dead, and or you will spend less time in jail ? Purgatory was nothing more than a get rich quick scheme by the schills in your cult. There is not one verse to support IC-PV scripture says Joseph and Mary had children together and even names their sons- Mary’s assumption. Mary said my soul does magnify God my savior, which if Mary was not a sinner she would not need a savior. The RCC has mastered re-writing history, ignoring and misusing scripture, and replacing God in their lives with Mary not to mention their blatant idolatry, which no Christian will participate in. Your loss not mine.

Soooo, I take it that you actuall GAVE UP on trying to present an intelligent response and opted instead for the unsubstantiated idiocy above.

Are you EVER going to present an iuntelligent argument using the Bible, the Catechiusm and histiry - or is it that you simply lack the abiblity to use anything other than old wives' tales?

Put on your thinking cap and research your next response.
Leave the idiocy at the door . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus challenged his Disciples....who do men say I am, who do you say I am......none knew the answer.

Not a mystery Jesus was looking for a specific answer.
The Disciples dumbfounded has no answer.
God tells Simon Barjona.....oh, oh, Jesus, I know the answer...
Simon repeats what God told him.
The other disciples hear the answer..

Jesus gives Simon a pat on the head, and says....Yes, that’s the answer and THAT ANSWER IS the ROCK upon which I shall build “MY CHURCH”.

The ROCK foundation is the REPRESENTATION of an EVERLASTING “GOD”, which is built upon the ROCK...in this case Christ’s Church Build UPON Christ and God.

Funny how Peter is the rock of the Catholic Church. Catholics supposedly having been taught by the Disciples, WHOSE ROCK was “Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God”.

Remember that ^ is a conversation among JEWS, steeped in Jewish History and Religion.

Deut. 32
[4] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
[13] He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
[15] But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
[18] Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
[30] How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
[31] For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
[37] And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted,

1 Cor 10:
[4] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

And, as I've schooled you MANY times on this - Jesus isn't the ONLY one called "Rock" in the Bible.

- Abraham is called the "Rock" (Isaiah 51:1-2)
- Simon bar Jonah is referred to as "Rock/Kepha (Matt. 16:18)

YOUR problem is that you NEVER learn after being taught.

And I have ALSO shown you several times - Protestant scholarship agrees that Peter is the "Rock" of Matt. 16:18.
Seems the ONLY ones who disagree are ignporant internet posters like yourself . . .
Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars
William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, ‘You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church”Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, ‘And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church”Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which -in accordance with the words of the text -applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
‘The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate’
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (‘you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock’. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock’ (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary -New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: ‘Thou art Rock, and upon this rock’, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, ‘Thou are kipho, and on this kipho’. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, ‘Thou are kepha, and on this kepha’.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: ‘Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre’; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, ‘Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.’
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, ‘You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church’. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
‘Matthew’
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

 

[BreadOfLife]

(continued)

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname ‘Peter’ (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, ‘You are Peter’, parallels Peter’s confession, ‘You are the Christ’, as if to say, ‘Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are”The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
‘The Gospel of Matthew’
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. ‘Simon’, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the ‘rock’ on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

 

[Berserk]

Taken: "Jesus challenged his Disciples....who do men say I am, who do you say I am......none knew the answer."

Duh, what you don't get is that Jesus asks "WHOM do you say that I am," not "What do you say that I am." The rock is a what, not a who.

Taken: "God tells Simon Barjona.....oh, oh, Jesus, I know the answer..."

Duh, and Peter's right answer is, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God," not "You are the Rock!" Only after Cephas's confession of Jesus as the Messiah does Jesus use the pun on Peter's name to set up His gift of "the keys of the kingdom" to Cephas and Cephas alone. So when Jesus begins, "You are Peter," Jesus is shifting the focus from Himself to Peter's unique authority.

 

[Marine0311]

Soooo, I take it that you actuall GAVE UP on trying to present an intelligent response and opted instead for the unsubstantiated idiocy above.

Are you EVER going to present an iuntelligent argument using the Bible, the Catechiusm and histiry - or is it that you simply lack the abiblity to use anything other than old wives' tales?

Put on your thinking cap and research your next response.
Leave the idiocy at the door . . .

 

[Marine0311]

Sorry don’t know what “iuntelligent” is.

 

[Dropship]

Bad men do NOT equal bad Church.
Are you forgetting that Jesus chose Judas, whom He called a "devil" (John 6:71)?
True faith requires us to look beyond those bad men whom Jesus warned would arise from within His followers (Matt. 7:15-20).

A local church let a peedo join them a few years ago even they knew he'd got past convictions for it, but they never warned the parents.
Guess what, he started abusing the daughters of other church members.
Was that a good church or bad church? You tell me..:)

-----------------------------------------------------

 

[atpollard]

You ALL rely in the peersonal interpretations of the founders of your particular sects - yet there are luterally tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines based on the opinions of thes human founders.

How can you POSSINLY try to convince me that you have ALL "rightly divided" Scripture when you have competing doctrines?
I listed a number of them back in post #124 . . .

You missed the point of this topic and Sola Scriptura.
The goal was NEVER to convince you that any MAN was the CORRECT ‘magisterium’ or any MAN had the correct ‘tradition’. The point of Sola Scriptura is that the WORD OF GOD is the only infallible source that we possess, therefore all ‘magisterium’ and all ‘tradition’ must be measured against and yield to the authority of Scripture.

I could address dozens of “competing doctrines”, but it would prove nothing … it would still be the teaching and tradition of a man (me) that would need to be weighed against the TRUTH of the Word of God (Sola Scriptura). That is the point that the Reformers wanted to make … only God’s opinion counts and He recorded His opinion in the Bible.