1 Timothy 3:15

[Alabaster]

As Jesus always referred to Scripture as the source of truth and we read many times, "Have you not read in scripture...?" Jesus questioned people's understanding of the Word also, as they were in error! No, Scripture is the source of truth for us and as the Scriptures are alive and powerful and reveal all truth, it is imperative for us to rely on them.

It is God's plan for us. Always was. If Jesus found them authoritative, to say it is absurd to consider them otherwise is a heretical statement.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

As Jesus always referred to Scripture as the source of truth and we read many times, "Have you not read in scripture...?" Jesus questioned people's understanding of the Word also, as they were in error! No, Scripture is the source of truth for us and as the Scriptures are alive and powerful and reveal all truth, it is imperative for us to rely on them.

It is God's plan for us. Always was. If Jesus found them authoritative, to say it is absurd to consider them otherwise is a heretical statement.

In Jesus' time, Scpriture would have referred only to the OT< as the NT didn't exist. It is also of note that Jesus taught on His Own authority. He didn't just quote SCripture all day.

 

[Alabaster]

As Jesus always referred to Scripture as the source of truth and we read many times, "Have you not read in scripture...?" Jesus questioned people's understanding of the Word also, as they were in error! No, Scripture is the source of truth for us and as the Scriptures are alive and powerful and reveal all truth, it is imperative for us to rely on them.

It is God's plan for us. Always was. If Jesus found them authoritative, to say it is absurd to consider them otherwise is a heretical statement.

In Jesus' time, Scpriture would have referred only to the OT< as the NT didn't exist. It is also of note that Jesus taught on His Own authority. He didn't just quote SCripture all day.

Jesus taught what His Father taught. He relied on the Scriptures constantly for their authority. why wouldn't He? They were God-breathed truth, just as the New Testament is.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

As Jesus always referred to Scripture as the source of truth and we read many times, "Have you not read in scripture...?" Jesus questioned people's understanding of the Word also, as they were in error! No, Scripture is the source of truth for us and as the Scriptures are alive and powerful and reveal all truth, it is imperative for us to rely on them.

It is God's plan for us. Always was. If Jesus found them authoritative, to say it is absurd to consider them otherwise is a heretical statement.

In Jesus' time, Scpriture would have referred only to the OT< as the NT didn't exist. It is also of note that Jesus taught on His Own authority. He didn't just quote SCripture all day.

Jesus taught what His Father taught. He relied on the Scriptures constantly for their authority. why wouldn't He? They were God-breathed truth, just as the New Testament is.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any verse which can be used to justify calling the books of the NT Scriptures.

But speaking of God-Breathed... 8-)

John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "recieve the Holy Spirit. "

The authority of the Apostles is God-breathed as well

 

[Alabaster]

It is to your own peril that you deny the new Testament as the Word of God. We therefore have nothing in common, for our faith is based on the truth of the entire word of God including them.

Only partial understanding of what the Holy Spirit imparts is an extreme weakness.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

It is to your own peril that you deny the new Testament as the Word of God. We therefore have nothing in common, for our faith is based on the truth of the entire word of God including them.

Only partial understanding of what the Holy Spirit imparts is an extreme weakness.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Sola Scriptura (we can only believe what the Bible tells us, anything else will send you to Hell) is without scriptural foundation :wink:

The New Testament is the Word of God, undoubtedly. But using the Bible alone denies a very basic truth about Chruch history. The New Testament wasn't even put together into a recognizable whole until the 4th or 5th century. The original New Testament was a collection of APostolic teachings. Apostolic teachings are the Word of God.

 

[Alabaster]

It is to your own peril that you deny the new Testament as the Word of God. We therefore have nothing in common, for our faith is based on the truth of the entire word of God including them.

Only partial understanding of what the Holy Spirit imparts is an extreme weakness.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Sola Scriptura (we can only believe what the Bible tells us, anything else will send you to Hell) is without scriptural foundation :wink:

The New Testament is the Word of God, undoubtedly. But using the Bible alone denies a very basic truth about Chruch history. The New Testament wasn't even put together into a recognizable whole until the 4th or 5th century. The original New Testament was a collection of APostolic teachings. Apostolic teachings are the Word of God.

Putting one's trust in something that is not God-breathed and proven, is putting one's faith in something that can be erroneous. Not holy. Not infallible. MAN. Wrong to do.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

It is to your own peril that you deny the new Testament as the Word of God. We therefore have nothing in common, for our faith is based on the truth of the entire word of God including them.

Only partial understanding of what the Holy Spirit imparts is an extreme weakness.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Sola Scriptura (we can only believe what the Bible tells us, anything else will send you to Hell) is without scriptural foundation :wink:

The New Testament is the Word of God, undoubtedly. But using the Bible alone denies a very basic truth about Chruch history. The New Testament wasn't even put together into a recognizable whole until the 4th or 5th century. The original New Testament was a collection of APostolic teachings. Apostolic teachings are the Word of God.

Putting one's trust in something that is not God-breathed and proven, is putting one's faith in something that can be erroneous. Not holy. Not infallible. MAN. Wrong to do.

But I thought I proved that the authority of the Apostles WAS God-breathed :wink:

 

[Alabaster]

But I thought I proved that the authority of the Apostles WAS God-breathed

You did? Sorry, I never noticed.

The authority that I have in Christ is also God-breathed. How do I know that? The Holy spirit teaches it in His very written Word.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

But I thought I proved that the authority of the Apostles WAS God-breathed

You did? Sorry, I never noticed.

The authority that I have in Christ is also God-breathed. How do I know that? The Holy spirit teaches it in His very written Word.

Look at the bottom of the last page of posts :-D

 

[BobRyan]

If we are the pillar then what is the foundation on which it rests? God and His word I assure you (and man shall not live on bread alone but on every word of God). It also would be quite useless to quote Scripture in order to prove that Scripture is not the foundational truth, which would self-defeat the premise.

The Church is founded on the Rock that is Peter- Matthew 16:18.

Just kidding. Kidding! For the purposes of this debate, anyway. :wink:

It is quite evident in the New Testament that there are teachings not recorded on paper. The Word of God is not limited to the Bible.

In Matthew 16 Peter is the "pebble" the Petros that soon is addressed with the words "Get thee behind me Satan" in Matt 16 ITSELF.

In Matt 16 JESUS is the "PETRA" -- the bedrock -- the foundation stone that we see in 1Cor 10 "They all drank from the SAME spiritual PETRA and that PETRA was CHRIST".

in 1Cor 3 we find that the Church HAS ONE FOUNDATION -- and "NO OTHER FOUNDATION" can anyone lay than that which was laid -- Jesus Christ.

I think we should go with scripture on this one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Sola Scriptura (we can only believe what the Bible tells us, anything else will send you to Hell) is without scriptural foundation :wink:

The New Testament is the Word of God, undoubtedly. But using the Bible alone denies a very basic truth about Chruch history. The New Testament wasn't even put together into a recognizable whole until the 4th or 5th century. The original New Testament was a collection of APostolic teachings. Apostolic teachings are the Word of God.

The "Sola Scriptura" doctrine we see IN SCRIPTURE is this one -

Acts 17:11 "They studied the SCRIPTURES DAILY to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul -- WERE SO"

And in Isaiah 8:20 "If they speak not according to this word -- they have no light"

And in Gal 1:6-11 if anyone brings to you a Gospel OTHER than the one you have from the NT authors -- let them be accursed.

The Bible is "adamantly" -- "Sola Scriptura"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Laudate Dominum]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Sola Scriptura (we can only believe what the Bible tells us, anything else will send you to Hell) is without scriptural foundation :wink:

The New Testament is the Word of God, undoubtedly. But using the Bible alone denies a very basic truth about Chruch history. The New Testament wasn't even put together into a recognizable whole until the 4th or 5th century. The original New Testament was a collection of APostolic teachings. Apostolic teachings are the Word of God.

The "Sola Scriptura" doctrine we see IN SCRIPTURE is this one -

Acts 17:11 "They studied the SCRIPTURES DAILY to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul -- WERE SO"

And in Isaiah 8:20 "If they speak not according to this word -- they have no light"

And in Gal 1:6-11 if anyone brings to you a Gospel OTHER than the one you have from the NT authors -- let them be accursed.

The Bible is "adamantly" -- "Sola Scriptura"

in Christ,

Bob

Did someone just break his own first rule? Rev 22:18-19 are often used in defense of Sola Scriptura, and if they are indeed to be interpreted in favor of Sola Scriptura, then shame on you! :o

Rev 22:18-19
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

_____________
Besides, when the NT refers to scriptures, like in the Acts reference, it refers to the OT only, and it means that the people there essentially checked to see whether what was being said about the Messiah fit in with the Apostles' teachings. They obviously weren't studying the NT- it hadn't been written yet!

 

[BobRyan]

Hint: To make the point against the Acts 17:11 example of "Sola Scriptura" you have to show your point "in the text".

Remember these threads are read by many "objective unbiased readers" open to the truth of scripture - people who do not all "post" many in fact who are not even signed up on the board.

You can not frame your responses in the form of "I don't care what you say I have a gimmick for not listening". Remember the goal in this is NOT to turn you away from being a devoted Roman Catholic -- it is to present the objective evidence on both sides of the argument clearly so that the UNBIASED reader will see the compelling contrast and go with the view that is best supported from scripture.

Appealing to gimmicks is simply a defensive posture. Go "with the text" and respond to it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Hint: To make the point against the Acts 17:11 example of "Sola Scriptura" you have to show your point "in the text".

Remember these threads are read by many "objective unbiased readers" open to the truth of scripture - people who do not all "post" many in fact who are not even signed up on the board.

You can not frame your responses in the form of "I don't care what you say I have a gimmick for not listening". Remember the goal in this is NOT to turn you away from being a devoted Roman Catholic -- it is to present the objective evidence on both sides of the argument clearly so that the UNBIASED reader will see the compelling contrast and go with the view that is best supported from scripture.

Appealing to gimmicks is simply a defensive posture. Go "with the text" and respond to it.

in Christ,

Bob

Fine. In Acts 17:11, the Jews in Thessalonica studied OT prophecies about the Messiah to compare it with what they were being told by Paul. It makes no sense to use that in support of Sola Scriptura, sine they were not studying the whole of Scripture. The NT hadn't been written yet, anyway.

As for the rest of it, I would thank you to keep in mind that when I post an argument, I expect that it will be responded to. Do you or do you not interpret Revelations 22:18-19 in favor of Sola Scriptura?

 

[Alabaster]

1 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.


As it doesn't say anything other than Scripture (as in "Magisterium"), then this is the basis of what Christians ought to be believing.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

1 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.


As it doesn't say anything other than Scripture (as in "Magisterium"), then this is the basis of what Christians ought to be believing.

Just "useful"? Not "necessary"? :-? Again, this can't possilby refer to the NT.

Actually, the Bible does tell us what else we are supposed to be believing...
2 Thess 2:15 (KJV)
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The sum total of Apostolic teaching isn't contained in the Bible. Thye often used OT books (which would have been readily available in the synogogues) to help prove that Jesus was the Messiah. But their teachings about Christian ethics and of what Jesus actually did, as well as teh general theology of Christianity, would have been communicated personally. It is evident that at least one of the apostles preferred face-to face conversation.

2 John 1:13 (KJV)
12Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

There is a similar statement in 3 John 1:13-14.

 

[Alabaster]

Just "useful"? Not "necessary"? :-? Again, this can't possilby refer to the NT.

Querying the scripture as if I wrote it and it lacks something?

Actually, the Bible does tell us what else we are supposed to be believing...
2 Thess 2:15 (KJV)
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The words have been written--all we need. The spoken words were to the apostles and the early church members. They were privileged to have them, but we do not, nor does God feel we need it, obviously!

The sum total of Apostolic teaching isn't contained in the Bible. Thye often used OT books (which would have been readily available in the synogogues) to help prove that Jesus was the Messiah. But their teachings about Christian ethics and of what Jesus actually did, as well as teh general theology of Christianity, would have been communicated personally. It is evident that at least one of the apostles preferred face-to face conversation.

Everything we need to know has been recorded, in the same fashion as the inspired OT. Nothing is missing or lacking!

2 John 1:13 (KJV)
12Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

There is a similar statement in 3 John 1:13-14.

Have you forgotten that you are reading a letter there? Thanks.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Just "useful"? Not "necessary"? :-? Again, this can't possilby refer to the NT.

Querying the scripture as if I wrote it and it lacks something?

Actually, the Bible does tell us what else we are supposed to be believing...
2 Thess 2:15 (KJV)
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The words have been written--all we need. The spoken words were to the apostles and the early church members. They were privileged to have them, but we do not, nor does God feel we need it, obviously!

How so?

The sum total of Apostolic teaching isn't contained in the Bible. Thye often used OT books (which would have been readily available in the synogogues) to help prove that Jesus was the Messiah. But their teachings about Christian ethics and of what Jesus actually did, as well as teh general theology of Christianity, would have been communicated personally. It is evident that at least one of the apostles preferred face-to face conversation.

Everything we need to know has been recorded, in the same fashion as the inspired OT. Nothing is missing or lacking![/quote]

Can you prove it?

2 John 1:13 (KJV)
12Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

There is a similar statement in 3 John 1:13-14.

Have you forgotten that you are reading a letter there? Thanks.[/quote]

Exactly- it's a letter, not a theology textbook!

 

[BobRyan]

1 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.


As it doesn't say anything other than Scripture (as in "Magisterium"), then this is the basis of what Christians ought to be believing.

Amen! Preach it!!

in fact as Acts 17:11 shows "They studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by Paul) were SO".

A more devastating case against the "no don't rely on scripture to test doctrine, instead why not just accept man-made tradition and forget about testing it against the Bible" model of the RCC could hardly be imagined!!

in Christ,

Bob