Apostolic Tradition: Sola Scriptura is unbiblical

[belovedwolfofgod]

Again, I dont really care about your issue with the calling of a priest "father". Thats not what this thread is about. Once again, refocusing... Sola Scriptura is unbiblical and invalid.

 

[ttg]

So why do we have churches where people call the priests fathers? Good question. Only the catholic churches and churches that disobey Christ do that. In our church we call everyone, including the pastors, "brothers" just like Christ tells us to.

You go to church?

 

[thessalonian]

Defined by Dr. James White: Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.â€Â

So this is THEE infallible definition? Where is it in the Bible? I don't think it is the one that Solo or Heidi go by.

 

[Georges]

Jesus was clear? If that's the case, then why did Paul call himself a father and why do we find Churches in the bible calling men in them 'father"? Why did they call their Jewish ancestors their fathers?

It's hyperbole. People take it to the extreme to bash Catholics.

In the case of Roman Catholicism, it comes from Mithraism where a person who makes it to the top level (of 7 steps) in Mithraism is called Pater....

Of course Mithraism was Christianity's main competition in the era of Constantine...

 

[Heidi]

Defined by Dr. James White: Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.â€Â

So this is THEE infallible definition? Where is it in the Bible? I don't think it is the one that Solo or Heidi go by.

Of course it's in the bible in 2 Corinthians 11, in 1 Timothy and Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preaches a different gospel than the one you received, let him be eternally condemned!" Only the bible is the Word of God. John 1:1-3 says the Word is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But what difference does the bible make to the catholics? They'll disagree with it anyway.

 

[bbas 64]

Defined by Dr. James White: Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.â€Â

So this is THEE infallible definition? Where is it in the Bible? I don't think it is the one that Solo or Heidi go by.

Good Day, Thess

Who said it is infallible?? It is the definition, so you will not be inclined to redefine the term. If you were to do so then clearly you are errecting a "straw man" so you can knock it down.

Thanks JM for the post!!

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[stray bullet]

Of course it's in the bible in 2 Corinthians 11, in 1 Timothy and Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preaches a different gospel than the one you received, let him be eternally condemned!" Only the bible is the Word of God. John 1:1-3 says the Word is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But what difference does the bible make to the catholics? They'll disagree with it anyway.

The Gospel is not confined to the pages of the bible. Where you are making that leap is beyond me. The bible is mostly OT and letters, not Gospels, so your wacky hoop-jumping definition would make it wrong to read anything but the Gospel.
This also shows your ignorance in Christian history because the Gospel were written down much later, as late as the second century perhaps. Before then it was Holy Tradition, spread orally throughout the Church.

What part of John 1:1-3 says that only the bible is the word of God?

 

[stray bullet]

Jesus was clear? If that's the case, then why did Paul call himself a father and why do we find Churches in the bible calling men in them 'father"? Why did they call their Jewish ancestors their fathers?

It's hyperbole. People take it to the extreme to bash Catholics.

In the case of Roman Catholicism, it comes from Mithraism where a person who makes it to the top level (of 7 steps) in Mithraism is called Pater....

Of course Mithraism was Christianity's main competition in the era of Constantine...

You do realize that virtually all written sources of Mithraism come after the first century and therefore, is likely any similarities that are not coincides are Mithraism borrowing from Christianity?

The use of the word "father" comes from the leaders of the Church, as early as Paul's time, calling men of the Church fathers.

 

[Heidi]

Of course it's in the bible in 2 Corinthians 11, in 1 Timothy and Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preaches a different gospel than the one you received, let him be eternally condemned!" Only the bible is the Word of God. John 1:1-3 says the Word is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But what difference does the bible make to the catholics? They'll disagree with it anyway.

The Gospel is not confined to the pages of the bible. Where you are making that leap is beyond me. The bible is mostly OT and letters, not Gospels, so your wacky hoop-jumping definition would make it wrong to read anything but the Gospel.
This also shows your ignorance in Christian history because the Gospel were written down much later, as late as the second century perhaps. Before then it was Holy Tradition, spread orally throughout the Church.

What part of John 1:1-3 says that only the bible is the word of God?

Read 2 Corinthians 11:4 to find out what teachings are considered false teachings.

So...what do you think is a made-up gospel and who says? :o

 

[stray bullet]

Of course it's in the bible in 2 Corinthians 11, in 1 Timothy and Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preaches a different gospel than the one you received, let him be eternally condemned!" Only the bible is the Word of God. John 1:1-3 says the Word is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But what difference does the bible make to the catholics? They'll disagree with it anyway.

The Gospel is not confined to the pages of the bible. Where you are making that leap is beyond me. The bible is mostly OT and letters, not Gospels, so your wacky hoop-jumping definition would make it wrong to read anything but the Gospel.
This also shows your ignorance in Christian history because the Gospel were written down much later, as late as the second century perhaps. Before then it was Holy Tradition, spread orally throughout the Church.

What part of John 1:1-3 says that only the bible is the word of God?

Read 2 Corinthians 11:4 to find out what teachings are considered false teachings.

So...what do you think is a made-up gospel and who says? :o

What does this have to do with the issue? There is nothing in the bible that says you should only go by the bible. That's because when it was written, there was no 'bible'. When the letters were written, the Gospel was still being spoken.

A made up Gospel is any of the Gospels that the Holy Spirit tells us is not true.

 

[Heidi]

[quote="stray bullet":420aa]

Of course it's in the bible in 2 Corinthians 11, in 1 Timothy and Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preaches a different gospel than the one you received, let him be eternally condemned!" Only the bible is the Word of God. John 1:1-3 says the Word is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But what difference does the bible make to the catholics? They'll disagree with it anyway.

The Gospel is not confined to the pages of the bible. Where you are making that leap is beyond me. The bible is mostly OT and letters, not Gospels, so your wacky hoop-jumping definition would make it wrong to read anything but the Gospel.
This also shows your ignorance in Christian history because the Gospel were written down much later, as late as the second century perhaps. Before then it was Holy Tradition, spread orally throughout the Church.

What part of John 1:1-3 says that only the bible is the word of God?

Read 2 Corinthians 11:4 to find out what teachings are considered false teachings.

So...what do you think is a made-up gospel and who says? :o

What does this have to do with the issue? There is nothing in the bible that says you should only go by the bible. That's because when it was written, there was no 'bible'. When the letters were written, the Gospel was still being spoken.

A made up Gospel is any of the Gospels that the Holy Spirit tells us is not true.[/quote:420aa]

Paul clearly says that anyone who follows teachings that do not come from Jesus or the apostles than it is a false teaching. And John 1:1-3 says the Word is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus also said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. I'm sick and tired of people who call themselves Christians who think Jesus is a liar.

"In the beginning was the Word....And the Word became flesh." The Word is Christ! So if you say you follow Christ, then you better put your money where your mouth is and believe your Lord and savior instead simply saying you do. The bible has been around for thousands of years.

I expect atheists to disagree with Jesus and Paul but there is no excuse for someone who calls himself a Christian to do that. :evil:

 

[Heidi]

I also want to add that the Holy Spirit that resides in all bornagain Christians is the same Spirit with which the bible was written so they will never disagree. So it appears that your words are the made-up gospel because they're not coming from the Holy Spirit if you say some of the gospels aren't true. ;-)

 

[stray bullet]

I also want to add that the Holy Spirit that resides in all bornagain Christians is the same Spirit with which the bible was written so they will never disagree.

Heidi, the idea that you can privately interpret the bible infallibly is insane. The Holy Spirit does not protect laymen (non-apostles) from error. If it did, then all Christians would be in agreement. In fact, there would be no need for a bible because God would reveal everything to us the moment we believe.

So it appears that your words are the made-up gospel because they're not coming from the Holy Spirit if you say some of the gospels aren't true. ;-)

Heidi, you have a very narrow understanding of Christianity. I know how *13* Gospels alone. 9 are Gnostic and 4 are true- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The bible is not a magical book, it is not the Quran. It's a series of different books and letters a group of men 1500 years ago, inspired by the Holy Spirit, determined were authentic, in a world of false texts going around.

 

[stray bullet]

Paul clearly says that anyone who follows teachings that do not come from Jesus or the apostles than it is a false teaching. And John 1:1-3 says the Word is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus also said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. I'm sick and tired of people who call themselves Christians who think Jesus is a liar.

Heidi, don't imply I think Jesus is a liar. The problem is that you are working on a such a narrow understanding of Christianity you don't understand what the bible is or Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The Catholic Church is made up of apostles, successors of the first ones appointed by Christ- yet you reject them. You follow man-made notions like sola scriptura.

What your paragraph has to do with sola scriptura is beyond me. Sola Scriptura teaches that you go only by the bible, that is, what was WRITTEN DOWN. Not everything the apostles taught was written down, although a summary of the life of Christ, which was taught by spoken word, was recorded and these are our four Gospels.
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura because it teachs that you must reject some of what the apostles teach, simply because it wasn't written down.
We believe in the FULL word of God, but you only believe in PART of the Word because it wasn't written down. This, despite the fact that even what was written down doesn't say only to follow what was written down!

You are rejecting the word, because the protestant reformationists, who were not apostles, taught it! Do you not realize that you are rejecting the word of God because of the teaching of fallible men?
Just as the Holy Spirit protects the written word, so does He protect the spoken Word of God, Holy Tradition.

"In the beginning was the Word....And the Word became flesh." The Word is Christ! So if you say you follow Christ, then you better put your money where your mouth is and believe your Lord and savior instead simply saying you do. The bible has been around for thousands of years.

I expect atheists to disagree with Jesus and Paul but there is no excuse for someone who calls himself a Christian to do that. :evil:

I agree. But realize what you believe and where it comes from.
I believe in the FULL word, you only believe in part of it.

 

[Heidi]

Paul clearly says that anyone who follows teachings that do not come from Jesus or the apostles than it is a false teaching. And John 1:1-3 says the Word is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus also said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. I'm sick and tired of people who call themselves Christians who think Jesus is a liar.

Heidi, don't imply I think Jesus is a liar. The problem is that you are working on a such a narrow understanding of Christianity you don't understand what the bible is or Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The Catholic Church is made up of apostles, successors of the first ones appointed by Christ- yet you reject them. You follow man-made notions like sola scriptura.

What your paragraph has to do with sola scriptura is beyond me. Sola Scriptura teaches that you go only by the bible, that is, what was WRITTEN DOWN. Not everything the apostles taught was written down, although a summary of the life of Christ, which was taught by spoken word, was recorded and these are our four Gospels.
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura because it teachs that you must reject some of what the apostles teach, simply because it wasn't written down.
We believe in the FULL word of God, but you only believe in PART of the Word because it wasn't written down. This, despite the fact that even what was written down doesn't say only to follow what was written down!

You are rejecting the word, because the protestant reformationists, who were not apostles, taught it! Do you not realize that you are rejecting the word of God because of the teaching of fallible men?
Just as the Holy Spirit protects the written word, so does He protect the spoken Word of God, Holy Tradition.

"In the beginning was the Word....And the Word became flesh." The Word is Christ! So if you say you follow Christ, then you better put your money where your mouth is and believe your Lord and savior instead simply saying you do. The bible has been around for thousands of years.

I expect atheists to disagree with Jesus and Paul but there is no excuse for someone who calls himself a Christian to do that. :evil:

I agree. But realize what you believe and where it comes from.
I believe in the FULL word, you only believe in part of it.

No, I just believe Jesus, I don't "interpret" what he says. And that's why Jesus said we have to have the faith of a child. Children don't analyze, twist, or distort. They just believe...that is, until adults who claim to be infallible ask them to believe them over Christ.

According to you, then we take any licenses with scripture and even turn them around to mean the exact opposite of what Jesus says. Some people think Jesus doesn't mean we have one teacher but instead, two, or three, or maybe 7! This is called throwing away the bible and making up a new one. It is basic unbelief, pure and simply. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what the word "one" means. And if you don't, then consult a dictionary before you read the bible.

Your reasoning is what the univerals reconcilitaionists do when they try to claim that all are saved, or what the catholcs do when they claim Mary was a virgin all her life, or what the Lutherans do when they claim we are saved at baptism, or what the SDA's do when they calim that the Sabbath is a day of the week. They all change the words in the bible or make up new ones to say what "itching ears want to hear."

And Paul warned us about a time coming when people will no longer follow sound doctrine but instead, will surround themselves with a great number of teachers who say what itching ears want to hear. The fact of the matter is that these different "interpretations" can't all be right because they disagree with each other.

So how do we know who's right? We believe the bible. That means not turning the word "one" into two or three or several. That means not taking out the word "not" when Jesus tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father'. That means not inserting the words "And Mary continued to be a virgin for the rest of her life". That means not taking out the word "not" when the bible tells us not to erect for ourselves imgaes carved out of stone to bow down to. And all of the above are under the pretense of being "open-minded." Sorry Charlie, but all of the above is simply unbelief of God's words and replacing them with made-up scripture.