1 Timothy 3:15

[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.

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

"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by INSPIRATION from God AND is profitable for DOCTRINE" 2Tim 3:16 IS (like Acts 17 and 1Tim 3) primarily a reference to the CONTINUED NT authority of what WE TODAY call the OT (the NT writers never call it THE Old Testament).

Not sure how this helps the RCC's argument here since IF The OT was AUTHORITATIVE enough to test all doctrine then the OT PLUS the NT "scripture" provides even MORE of a FIRM and exhaustive FOUNDATION for TESTING any doctrine or tradition that pops up.

Seeing that God has chosen to ADD NT SCRIPTURE to that which was already accepted and endorsed by the NT writers leads us to even MORE CONFIDENT reliance upon "the Word of God" - SCRIPTURE -- not a LESS confident one -

Paul writes in Gal 1:6-11 that "IF ANYONE comes to you preaching a DIFFERENT GOSPEL" let him be accursed -- EVEN if it is "one of US OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" that is doing it.

How sad that these strong affirmations of scripture AND of the sufficient nature of the First Century text -- the NT testament is so often rejected in some Christian groups.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[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.

Amen! Preach it!!

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

A more devastating case against the "no just accept man-made tradition and forget about testing it against the Bible" model of the RCC could hardly be imagined!!

in Christ,

Bob

I could imagine it quite clearly...
"Everything you need to know I have now told you through my letters to you and to the other communities. Inquire among them for their letters from myself and , and for the accounts of Jesus' life written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then add to this collection the book of prophecies known as Revelation, and you shall have all truth."

Just find the book, chapter, and verse, and you're set!

I thought I had already explained Acts 17:11. :-?

 

[Alabaster]

It cannot possibly be right thinking in Christ to believe that something other than God-breathed Scripture has any merit or more authority! That has the makings of "cult" all over it. Not acceptable!

Anything other than Scripture has great potential for ERROR, and is absolutely POWERLESS.

 

[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.

"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by INSPIRATION from God AND is profitable for DOCTRINE" 2Tim 3:16 IS (like Acts 17 and 1Tim 3) primarily a reference to the CONTINUED NT authority of what WE TODAY call the OT (the NT writers never call it THE Old Testament).

Not sure how this helps the RCC's argument here since IF The OT was AUTHORITATIVE enough to test all doctrine then the OT PLUS the NT "scripture" provides even MORE of a FIRM and exhaustive FOUNDATION for TESTING any doctrine or tradition that pops up.

In many ways, the OT does tell us all we need to know about proper conduct. It also makes predictions about the Messiah that would be essential for proving that Jesus was indeed the Messiah promised so many times.

Seeing that God has chosen to ADD NT SCRIPTURE to that which was already accepted and endorsed by the NT writers leads us to even MORE CONFIDENT reliance upon "the Word of God" - SCRIPTURE -- not a LESS confident one -

Paul writes in Gal 1:6-11 that "IF ANYONE comes to you preaching a DIFFERENT GOSPEL" let him be accursed -- EVEN if it is "one of US OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" that is doing it.

Considering that Galatians would have been writtne before the Gospels Galatians was written around 55 AD, and the first Gospel to be written, MArk, was written no earlier than 65 AD, it stands to reason that teh Galattians should have rejected the Gospels.

How sad that these strong affirmations of scripture AND of the sufficient nature of the First Century text -- the NT testament is so often rejected in some Christian groups.

in Christ,

Bob

REALLY? Wow... are you serious?
:o

 

[Laudate Dominum]

It cannot possibly be right thinking in Christ to believe that something other than God-breathed Scripture has any merit or more authority! That has the makings of "cult" all over it. Not acceptable!

Anything other than Scripture has great potential for ERROR, and is absolutely POWERLESS.

How can you be so sure?

 

[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.

Fine. In Acts 17:11, the Jews in Thessalonica studied OT prophecies about the Messiah to

Indeed as Paul AFFIRMS --
"TEACHING NOTHING but what is already stated in in the law and the prophets".

How is this "helping you"???

In Acts 17 you have the devastating case of NON-CHRISTIANS fully able to TEST an APOSTLE of the FIRST order in the NT -- "Sola Scriptura".

Something that the RCC claims "shouldn't even be POSSIBLE without magesterium telling you what to think". Yet this "TEST of an APOSTLE's teaching" is being done by NONChristians - how much MORE "capable then" when actual CHRISTIANS employ the SCRIPTURES for such a test!!

It makes no sense to use that in support of Sola Scriptura

I find your reasoning there "defensive at best" - some objectivity here would be more useful.

, sine they were not studying the whole of Scripture. The NT hadn't been written yet, anyway.

Indeed -- IF HALF of todays scriptures is STILL ENOUGH to "test PAUL" how much MORE SUFFICIENT is ALL of Scripture!! How much MORE sufficient ALL of scripture employed by ACTUAL CHRISTIANS!!

Basically this slams the door TWICE on the notion "ignore the scriptural TEST of man made traditions just accept whatever your magesterium says"!!!

Do you or do you not interpret Revelations 22:18-19 in favor of Sola Scriptura?

You have never seen me use that text in a sola-scriptura argument.

The answer is that while I believe the text is true - I don't use it for sola scriptura proofs.

Now back to the points actually raised.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It cannot possibly be right thinking in Christ to believe that something other than God-breathed Scripture has any merit or more authority! That has the makings of "cult" all over it. Not acceptable!

Anything other than Scripture has great potential for ERROR, and is absolutely POWERLESS.

I agree with your statement that nothing has equal authority -- much less more athority than scripture.

But I do not agree that all other information teaching is worthless. Rather it is to be tested. For example Billy Graham and other great bible teachers have a lot of good doctrinal arguments to make and can be tested "sola scriptura" to see that they have made statements well worth reading and following.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Alabaster]

It cannot possibly be right thinking in Christ to believe that something other than God-breathed Scripture has any merit or more authority! That has the makings of "cult" all over it. Not acceptable!

Anything other than Scripture has great potential for ERROR, and is absolutely POWERLESS.

How can you be so sure?

I am sure because the Lord tells us. Man is prone to wander---sheep, ya know! But the Scriptures are impeccably infallible and powerful. They are ALIVE!

 

[Alabaster]

It cannot possibly be right thinking in Christ to believe that something other than God-breathed Scripture has any merit or more authority! That has the makings of "cult" all over it. Not acceptable!

Anything other than Scripture has great potential for ERROR, and is absolutely POWERLESS.

I agree with your statement that nothing has equal authority -- much less more athority than scripture.

But I do not agree that all other information teaching is worthless. Rather it is to be tested. For example Billy Graham and other great bible teachers have a lot of good doctrinal arguments to make and can be tested "sola scriptura" to see that they have made statements well worth reading and following.

in Christ,

Bob

Unless the teachings are Bible-based, they can be tossed, as far as being held as God-given truth.

 

[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.

Fine. In Acts 17:11, the Jews in Thessalonica studied OT prophecies about the Messiah to

Indeed as Paul AFFIRMS --
"TEACHING NOTHING but what is already stated in in the law and the prophets".

How is this "helping you"???

In Acts 17 you have the devastating case of NON-CHRISTIANS fully able to TEST an APOSTLE of the FIRST order in the NT -- "Sola Scriptura".

Something that the RCC claims "shouldn't even be POSSIBLE without magesterium telling you what to think". Yet this "TEST of an APOSTLE's teaching" is being done by NONChristians - how much MORE "capable then" when actual CHRISTIANS employ the SCRIPTURES for such a test!!

I have not made such a statement. Why the quotes there?

I already explained what part of it they were testing.

[quote:c58e1]
It makes no sense to use that in support of Sola Scriptura

I find your reasoning there "defensive at best" - some objectivity here would be more useful.

, sine they were not studying the whole of Scripture. The NT hadn't been written yet, anyway.

Indeed -- IF HALF of todays scriptures is STILL ENOUGH to "test PAUL" how much MORE SUFFICIENT is ALL of Scripture!! How much MORE sufficient ALL of scripture employed by ACTUAL CHRISTIANS!!

Basically this slams the door TWICE on the notion "ignore the scriptural TEST of man made traditions just accept whatever your magesterium says"!!![/quote:c58e1]

These verses are used to support using Scripture as the sole source of doctrine. If they cannot possibly refer to the NT, then either the NT or Sola Scriptura has to go.

[quote:c58e1]
Do you or do you not interpret Revelations 22:18-19 in favor of Sola Scriptura?

You have never seen me use that text in a sola-scriptura argument.

The answer is that while I believe the text is true - I don't use it for sola scriptura proofs.

Now back to the points actually raised.

in Christ,

Bob[/quote:c58e1][/quote]

I'll stop putting words in your mouth if you'll stop putting them in mine :wink:

 

[BobRyan]

Seeing that God has chosen to ADD NT SCRIPTURE to that which was already accepted and endorsed by the NT writers leads us to even MORE CONFIDENT reliance upon "the Word of God" - SCRIPTURE -- not a LESS confident one -

Paul writes in Gal 1:6-11 that "IF ANYONE comes to you preaching a DIFFERENT GOSPEL" let him be accursed -- EVEN if it is "one of US OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" that is doing it.

Considering that Galatians would have been writtne before the Gospels Galatians was written around 55 AD, and the first Gospel to be written, MArk, was written no earlier than 65 AD, it stands to reason that teh Galattians should have rejected the Gospels.

I have not argued that "sola scriptura" means "that the NT letter can not be new scripture BUILT on the FOUNDATION of the OT".

You keep inserting arguments that I am not making.

The argument I am making is that the TEST of all doctrine is scripture -- and the NT authors show that this devastating RULE WORKS EVEN in the extreme case of only have the OT text and of the TEST being done by NON-Christians!!

It blows the RC argument of "just accept whatever your magesterium says" right out of the water -- so to speak.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed as Paul AFFIRMS --
"TEACHING NOTHING but what is already stated in in the law and the prophets".

How is this "helping you"???

In Acts 17 you have the devastating case of NON-CHRISTIANS fully able to TEST an APOSTLE of the FIRST order in the NT -- "Sola Scriptura".

Something that the RCC claims "shouldn't even be POSSIBLE without magesterium telling you what to think". Yet this "TEST of an APOSTLE's teaching" is being done by NONChristians - how much MORE "capable then" when actual CHRISTIANS employ the SCRIPTURES for such a test!!

I have not made such a statement. Why the quotes there?

I already explained what part of it they were testing.

Sorry about the quotes I am using them to say "The RCC makes arguments OF THE FORM" and then read the quote as a paraphrase of what I am finding -- sometimes the sentiment is in your posts as well.

IF for example you argue "NO - in fact I say that NOn-Christians SHOULD be using SOLA SCRIPTURA practices of taking the OT text and TESTING anything that is said by an APOSTLE or claimed-APOSTLE to SEE IF those things are SO" -- then feel free to state your correction.

Also show some kind of RC text that would back up your view IF you also claim that the RC is not in agreement here with what I have stated.

So far ALL of the "pro-magesterium" and "anti-sola-scriptura" posts by RC members even on THIS board appear to bear out the point I made.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Seeing that God has chosen to ADD NT SCRIPTURE to that which was already accepted and endorsed by the NT writers leads us to even MORE CONFIDENT reliance upon "the Word of God" - SCRIPTURE -- not a LESS confident one -

Paul writes in Gal 1:6-11 that "IF ANYONE comes to you preaching a DIFFERENT GOSPEL" let him be accursed -- EVEN if it is "one of US OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" that is doing it.

[quote:8fbb3]
Considering that Galatians would have been writtne before the Gospels Galatians was written around 55 AD, and the first Gospel to be written, MArk, was written no earlier than 65 AD, it stands to reason that teh Galattians should have rejected the Gospels.

I have not argued that "sola scriptura" means "that the NT letter can not be new scripture BUILT on the FOUNDATION of the OT".

You keep inserting arguments that I am not making.

The argument I am making is that the TEST of all doctrine is scripture -- and the NT authors show that this devastating RULE WORKS EVEN in the extreme case of only have the OT text and of the TEST being done by NON-Christians!!

It blows the RC argument of "just accept whatever your magesterium says" right out of the water -- so to speak.

in Christ,

Bob[/quote:8fbb3]

So, you're trying to say that pretty much any doctrine is okay unless it is contradicted by Scripture? Is that what you're trying to say?

And I don't think I've ever referenced the Magesterium ion any of my posts here. This isn't even in the RCC forum.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Indeed as Paul AFFIRMS --
"TEACHING NOTHING but what is already stated in in the law and the prophets".

How is this "helping you"???

In Acts 17 you have the devastating case of NON-CHRISTIANS fully able to TEST an APOSTLE of the FIRST order in the NT -- "Sola Scriptura".

Something that the RCC claims "shouldn't even be POSSIBLE without magesterium telling you what to think". Yet this "TEST of an APOSTLE's teaching" is being done by NONChristians - how much MORE "capable then" when actual CHRISTIANS employ the SCRIPTURES for such a test!!

[quote:a84bd]
I have not made such a statement. Why the quotes there?

I already explained what part of it they were testing.

Sorry about the quotes I am using them to say "The RCC makes arguments OF THE FORM" and then read the quote as a paraphrase of what I am finding -- sometimes the sentiment is in your posts as well.

IF for example you argue "NO - in fact I say that NOn-Christians SHOULD be using SOLA SCRIPTURA practices of taking the OT text and TESTING anything that is said by an APOSTLE or claimed-APOSTLE to SEE IF those things are SO" -- then feel free to state your correction.

Also show some kind of RC text that would back up your view IF you also claim that the RC is not in agreement here with what I have stated.

So far ALL of the "pro-magesterium" and "anti-sola-scriptura" posts by RC members even on THIS board appear to bear out the point I made.

in Christ,

Bob[/quote:a84bd]

Right now, I've only been making anti-Sola Scriptura argumetns. This is not the RCC forum, and as such, I have been trying to avoid making any explicit references to or preaching about Catholic belief. This isn't about me (referring to Catholics), it's about you (you being people who believe in Sola Scriptura).

I have not referenced any RC documents because I did not think them necessary or relevant. If there were a thread about the Catholic view of scripture, such documents would be relevant.

However, since we are discussing whether Scripture should be used as the sole source of doctrine, and that all non-scriptural doctrines should be discarded, then they are not relevant. Even if that is not what you believe, there are others in this conversation who DO seem to believe it.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding Sacred Tradition:

Mark 7:8
You disobey God's commands in order to obey what humans have taught.

Pointed and direct! :D

:smt023 More please!

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

 

[BobRyan]

However, since we are discussing whether Scripture should be used as the sole source of doctrine, and that all non-scriptural doctrines should be discarded, then they are not relevant. Even if that is not what you believe, there are others in this conversation who DO seem to believe it.

Ahh there is the issue -- terms and definitions.

Good point.

How about this "Sola Scriptura" as seen in Acts 17:11.
TESTING ALL doctrine (even if spoken to you directly and in person by the Apostle Paul HIMSELF) - against the written text of scripture to SEE IF scripture APPROVES or CONDEMNS the teaching.

SOLA Scriptura -- from the Gal 1:6-9 perspective:

"EVEN though Paul or Peter or John or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" might appear to you today and teach A DIFFERENT GOSPEL other than what we find IN SCRIPTURE to have already been presented to the NT saints -- "let them be accursed".

For example take - 1Cor 15:1-9 -- a very short summary of the Gospel.

Or take Romans 2:10-13 -- more "Gospel claims" by Paul


Does OT scripture condemn that teachingl or approve of it?

I find it to APPROVE of it!

But do I find 1Cor 15:1-9 "quoted in the OT" ? No.

Do I believe that both Romans AND 1Corinthians are ADDED SCRIPTURE to what is in the OT?

YES!

Do I think the NT Christians were supposed to just "swallow the letter to the Romans and Corinthians -- No questions asked -- no TEST against scripture"?? No!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now there we have the quotes - the lines and definitions drawn.

Contrast the statements above with the proposal "just take whatever traditions your church's magesterium may have and accept that as new doctrine without testing it against scripture. After all who are YOU to say that your church's magesterium is in error when tested against Scripture?.".

What say you to that contrast -- do you also reject that contrasting suggestion declaring it to be wrong for Christians to do?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Now there we have the quotes - the lines and definitions drawn.

Contrast the statements above with the proposal "just take whatever traditions your church's magesterium may have and accept that as new doctrine without testing it against scripture. After all who are YOU to say that your church's magesterium is in error when tested against Scripture?.".

What say you to that contrast -- do you also reject that contrasting suggestion declaring it to be wrong for Christians to do?

in Christ,

Bob

Those are your definitions, and they won't apply to everyone on any side, but I suppose I'll take what I can get... :-?

By all means, doctrines should be measured against Scripture as a means to discern their veracity. If a doctrine contradicts the message of Scripture, then it ought to be discarded. However, when interpreting Scripture, we must keep in mind the spirit of the law, rather than the letter.

What it will boil down to is this: if the Church does not have the final authority to properly interpret Scriptures, then every man is the Magesterium unto himelf. Does that make sense?

 

[Alabaster]

What it will boil down to is this: if the Church does not have the final authority to properly interpret Scriptures, then every man is the Magesterium unto himelf. Does that make sense?

Yes, every person who belongs to Jesus Christ---that is, who has made a conscious decision to give his heart to Jesus Christ, having repented of sin---is endued with the Holy Spirit, who takes up residence in him and gives all authority of Jesus christ to Him and also all ability to interpret Scripture correctly, as he seeks to be led by Him.

Why is that?

Each person is a building block of the Church---not an organization, not an edifice, and not a religion! We are LIVING STONES! We need no Magisterium. We need each other.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

What it will boil down to is this: if the Church does not have the final authority to properly interpret Scriptures, then every man is the Magesterium unto himelf. Does that make sense?

Yes, every person who belongs to Jesus Christ---that is, who has made a conscious decision to give his heart to Jesus Christ, having repented of sin---is endued with the Holy Spirit, who takes up residence in him and gives all authority of Jesus christ to Him and also all ability to interpret Scripture correctly, as he seeks to be led by Him.

Why is that?

Each person is a building block of the Church---not an organization, not an edifice, and not a religion! We are LIVING STONES! We need no Magisterium. We need each other.

In the body of Christ, there are many parts. To each of us, God gives particular gifts and responsibilities. Jesus established his Apostles as an authority to lead His Church. The responsibility lay with them to properly interpret scripture. That does not mean that no other part of Christ's body can interpret Scripture, but it means that the final authority on such matters is the authority which Christ established. Without such a final authority, people can (and have) come up with various absurd interpretations. How can so many interpretations appear if every Christian is truly guided by the Spirit in his interpretations?