Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[francisdesales]

Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004
been here about a year and a half longer than you have, apparently.

Haven't heard of you until the last few months, and I posted here practically every day (minus a vacation or two) for a long time. Maybe you were in a different forum area.

Then stop talking about Oral Tradition in this SOLA SCRIPTURA thread.

I will continue to talk about Oral Tradition when I feel it is REFUTES the premise of the thread, despite your attempt to control the conversation and steer it towards Catholic bashing and away from the SS.

Being that you don't care what I write, I find it interesting that you are bothered by what I write, when I use the word "oral", a scriptural word that we are COMMANDED to follow.

When you bring oral tradition up it leaves us having to EXAMINE and DEBATE that issue, which inevitably means discussing the oral 'traditions' (precepts/transmissions) themselves to see if they in any way are even hinted at in the scriptures to begin with.

You seem to be unversed in how to examine and debate a subject matter (or purposely trying to deflect the responsibility that the claimant has to prove his premise and listen to differening opinions).

All I have to do is present evidence of another authority by which Christians were BOUND to obey! Two Thessalonians CLEARLY does. Ephesians 4 does - and someday, you'll care about those verses, with the grace of God. In addition, as I have shown, 2 Tim 3 is misinterpreted to say what it does not say! Nothing about "only" or "sufficient", which the term "sola" means. Sola scriptura claimants pretend that the bible is the only source of truth for Christian living. I provide evidence to the contrary from the actual words of the Bible. I don't add or change the words.

I attack the premise of this thread from two directions...

1. sola scripturists change the words of the Scriptures. (detect any hypocrisy here?? how ironic..)
2. ANOTHER authority is found that Christians are bound to obey, provided for the sake of perfecting them into "saints". BOUND, I say. And nowhere abrogated by the "sole" authority (detect any more hypocrisy here??? how ironic...)

Sola is no longer sola (I apologize, my mistake - NEVER WAS sola)

Thus, the whole premise is defeated.

If it is YOUR desire to explore WHAT ARE the oral traditions, that is your perogative, in another thread where Catholic discussion is allowed... It is inconsequential to this thread what those specific traditions happen to be. ANY oral tradition disproves sola scriptura. ANY command made to obey BOTH, without distinction, is a DEFEAT for SS.

I don't HAVE to detail oral traditions, just prove they exist and the Bible takes them into account AND COMMANDS we OBEY them.

You SAY you want to debate the matter, then conveniently you call foul when anyone tries to a bring evidence to bear that exposes your fallacy.

The forum's rules are clearly laid out, would you like me to post them for you regarding Catholicism? If you were such an ol' salt, you'd have a clue on WHY that rule is in place and know that I was in the center of that fiasco, for good or ill... I have been warned enough not to start such conversations...

Rick, I have tried to keep this on topic, you are free to go through and see how FoC is trying to provoke me.

FoC, your desire is to talk about the Church Fathers and Confession and other such things, RATHER than the fact that the Emperor has no clothes on, because you know you cannot defend this house built upon sand...

Classic table-turning.

No thanks, just defend sola scriptura, if you can and stop attacking the messenger who awakes the unwary of the nightmare and fantasies of SS.

And EXPLORING the claims ABOUT what these traditions are and *IF* they fit into the gospel ARENT highjacking the thread either.

:biglol

The claim is that sola scriptura is biblical. I don't have to prove anything about the specifics of oral tradition, that's another subject altogether. If sola scriptura is not found in Scriptures and/or ANOTHER source of Tradition is given that Christians are bound to follow, then the fallacy is exposed, as are you, despite your attempts to steer the topic into less disquieting subject matter for you...

Im not an idiot, FD...I can SEE that you are simply trying to control this discussion and THAT is why you are getting bent out of shape with me..because Im not following your game plan.

I am going to have to disagree with the first statement, sorry. And anyone can plainly see that you are trying to change the subject here, not me. If you can't figure that out by now, you further prove my decision to disagree.

I am having a relatively good conversation with Tina, staying on topic. It is you who is whining and crying about the Catholic Church. You can't refute my points, so you are trying to turn the tables by changing the subject. My interlocutors are like night and day. One is one topic, the other is not. I am consistently trying to stay on topic, despite your lame attempts to highjack and hide the naked emperor.

Now, yet again, I ask you, where has oral traditions been abrogated by anything other than a tradition of men from the 1500's???

God's command is to hold onto BOTH oral and written traditions. If you get rid of one, you have gotten rid of the other, since no distinction is made by Paul or anyone else regarding the means of transmitting the Gospel.

It is my hope that this thread will not get locked down, despite your cherished efforts to provoke me into name-calling and other such topic-changing material. I am willing to have an adult conversation with anyone on this subject.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I will admit, being a new Christian, I had to look this term up and read up a bit and even now maybe I should not participate in this discussion. However, since I am here to learn and debate and not to "EXPOSE" ;) I wish to throw some of my thoughts out there.

After reading most of this thread and researching this issue a bit I think it boils down to one question. Is it alright to have traditions within a faith group derived from something other than the bible? If not, are there traditions in some faith groups that contradict the OT / NT. If it is acceptable to have traditions not based on scripture what are those examples and what do folks think about these traditions and their value to the "church"?

I am a little torn on this one but will admit that is due to my newness to Christianity. I will throw out there that I grew up Catholic until the age of about 11 or 12 but had a falling out with my faith for over 20 years until this year. Just to give some perspective on where I am coming from.

Aero,

Seems like we have walked the same path, I was born and raised Catholic, fell away around 18 and remained agnostic for some 20 years before I returned to the faith God has given me from the beginning.

Naturally, you'll hear the cries of "it isn't in the Scriptures" on particular practices of Christians. For example, giving a wedding ring. It isn't in the Scriptures, so some Christians, in the slavish attempt to hold up the SS farce, deny that people can give wedding rings to their spouses. No kiddin'. While most SS adherents are not this bad, the point is the same: THEY judge what is "Scriptural" and what is not, when the fact remains (as you no doubt see here) that it is not found in Scriptures. It is quite ironic that a pillar of their faith is not found in the Bible. Not only that, OTHER sources of truth are given - the Church teachers and pastors, whom we are commanded to obey in the effort to perfect us.

Tradition is a loaded word, quite frankly. It can refer to "Apostolic Traditions", teachings meant to be held by everyone, in every place for all time. It can also refer to "traditions", which are not necessary to hold, are often useful only to limited people for limited times. We are not bound to the later "traditions". The intent of traditions, any of them, is to move people closer to God, whether it is found in Scriptures, an Apostolic teaching, or praying the rosary. What is important is NOT whether the later is found in the Bible, but whether it moves us closer to God or not. If the rosary does not move you closer to Christ, then don't do it. If the meditation of the rosary helps you follow Christ, it is useful in building and perfecting the saint. Forget about "bible alone".

The Spirit will allow you to decide whether a practice makes you more saintly, more sorrowful for your sins, more ready to convert to Christ, rather than if a practice is found in a 2000 year old Book. A serious reflection is in order. "Does this practice make me more God-like"?

It is my belief, backed by Scriptures, that God loves those who seek Him out and have faith in Him. Not worrying about whether something is explicitly found in the Bible or not! Family traditions are of value in our walk with God, even if they are not in the Bible...

I apologize for the slight deviation from the topic, but you asked and it is a good question. Perhaps this explanation of "tradition" may help others.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

...

This is getting to be really repetitious, FD.
Im going to cut and paste from now on where its applicable as Im not going to keep REtyping out the same responses to your fallacies.

 

[follower of Christ]

Haven't heard of you until the last few months, and I posted here practically every day (minus a vacation or two) for a long time. Maybe you were in a different forum area.

We've done this before FD. Shall I go and see if the old threads are still around ?

I will continue to talk about Oral Tradition when I feel it is REFUTES the premise of the thread,

And I will continue to show that your Oral Tradition is not scriptural

despite your attempt to control the conversation and steer it towards Catholic bashing and away from the SS.

Again, its not bashing when the facts are brought to bear.
If you DONT want to TALK about oral tradtion the DONT bring it up.
When you do I will discuss the matter...

Being that you don't care what I write, I find it interesting that you are bothered by what I write, when I use the word "oral", a scriptural word that we are COMMANDED to follow.

Sorry gent but that 'oral tradition' doesnt have to be anything more than the gospel which the LETTERS to the Thessalonians was very brief about.
Romans is a much more inclusive writing .

 

[follower of Christ]

You seem to be unversed in how to examine and debate a subject matter (or purposely trying to deflect the responsibility that the claimant has to prove his premise and listen to differening opinions).

Ive given my goal in this thread.
Now please get BACK to the TOPIC ...

All I have to do is present evidence of another authority by which Christians were BOUND to obey!

Wrong gent...you have to PROVE that the verse indicates ANYTHING NOT presented in the REST of the NT writings !
you have FAILED MISERABLY In doing so.

 

[follower of Christ]

I attack the premise of this thread from two directions...

1. sola scripturists change the words of the Scriptures. (detect any hypocrisy here?? how ironic..)
2. ANOTHER authority is found that Christians are bound to obey, provided for the sake of perfecting them into "saints". BOUND, I say. And nowhere abrogated by the "sole" authority (detect any more hypocrisy here??? how ironic...)

Absurd.
What SS advocates do is DEMAND that you PROVE that these 'oral traditions' are ANYTHING NOT PRESENTED elsewhere in Gods word.
You havent and cant.
And again its VERY odd that NONE Of these oral traditions the CC church professes are anywhere to be found in scripture.

*IF* they were youd have been bashing my skull in with the scriptures by now....
And I even offered to accept the Apocrypha *IF* You actually had anything that SAID what you claim...

 

[follower of Christ]

IANY oral tradition disproves sola scriptura. ANY command made to obey BOTH, without distinction, is a DEFEAT for SS.

FAllacious nonsense because AGAIN WHEN your pet passage was WRITTEN NO NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE YET EXISTED.

Not sure why this is so complicated for you, but its really not that hard.

NO NT bible EXISTED WHEN that verse was WRITTEN....thus MOST of even the SIMPLE GOSPLE would have been ORAL TRADITION AT THAT TIME

Getting it YET ????

I don't HAVE to detail oral traditions, just prove they exist and the Bible takes them into account AND COMMANDS we OBEY them.

No, you have to PROVE that these oral traditions WERE SOMETHING NOT mentioned in the REST of the NT...

 

[follower of Christ]

Rick, I have tried to keep this on topic, you are free to go through and see how FoC is trying to provoke me.

No one is provoking you gent.
WHEN YOU USE ORAL TRADITION FOR YOUR ARGUMENT THEN WE WILL DISCUSS THAT ORAL TRADITION to SEE if it works or not.....you want to bring it up...you just dont want anyone refuting your error about it...which is why you keep trying to control the discussion...

 

[follower of Christ]

FoC, your desire is to talk about the Church Fathers and Confession and other such things, RATHER than the fact that the Emperor has no clothes on, because you know you cannot defend this house built upon sand...

Oh brother.
I know you WISH this were true, friend, but your fallacious views have been refuted and exposed....admit it or not.

No thanks, just defend sola scriptura, if you can and stop attacking the messenger who awakes the unwary of the nightmare and fantasies of SS.

And I will defend it by exposing the fallacious assertions you use to object to SS...including examining the oral tradition you keep referring to.

 

[follower of Christ]

The claim is that sola scriptura is biblical.

Which is what we are doing here. Evidencing that it is biblical. And to do so we have to expose fallacies about things like Oral Tradition.
Thats just how it works, friend.

I don't have to prove anything about the specifics of oral tradition, that's another subject altogether.

No, its not.
When you bring something to bear in THIS discussion to evidence your view then we are going to examine that evidence THOROUGHLY whether you like it or not.

If your claim is that Oral Tradition is something OTHER than the teachings that ended up becoming the New Testament, then you HAVE to show that that is the case.

Comparing Romans and Hebrews to many other letters it is VERY EASY to discern that those two writings have a HUGE amount of data in them pertaining to the gospel.
EVERY SINGLE PRECEPT in Romans and Hebrews that ISNT STATED/PRESENTED in the the letters to the Thessalonians but WAS given to them ORALLY would BE ORAL TRADITION AT THAT TIME before the Thessalonian church would have HAD IT IN WRITING....

again, is this making any sense yet ? Or would you reject it even if it was making sense ?
I ask because I cross that sort all the time where even when they are getting it and I can tell that they are, their pride wont allow them to admit it.

If sola scriptura is not found in Scriptures

Please...this is a RIDICULOUS concept.
Paul wrote how man letters ?
And Peter ?
John ?
These men had NO CLUE what would end up becoming of those letters.
Paul seemed to think that Christ might even return in his lifetime...so he certainly did NOT expect that centuries later that all those letters would be collected into what we call the New Testament.
Paul was writing INDIVIDUAL LETTERS to EACH church he addressed.

It is ILLOGICAL...no, it is laughably absurd, to claim that Paul would have KNOWN to ADD something to his letters to show that this bible that did not yet EXIST would be the SOLE source of Christian doctrine.

and/or ANOTHER source of Tradition is given that Christians are bound to follow,

The bible is the final authority in matters of doctrine.
Prove the assertion wrong.....and in doing so show just how you feel about the very word your church brought together.

then the fallacy is exposed, as are you, despite your attempts to steer the topic into less disquieting subject matter for you...

Keep right on telling yourself this...maybe you'll even believe it eventually.

And anyone can plainly see that you are trying to change the subject here, not me. If you can't figure that out by now, you further prove my decision to disagree.

PUHLease.

It is you who is whining and crying about the Catholic Church.

When a catholic brings up oral tradition what other oral tradition can that person mean but catholic tradition ?
If you dont want to discuss oral tradition, then dont bring it up.

You can't refute my points,

Or so yo believe.

Now, yet again, I ask you, where has oral traditions been abrogated by anything other than a tradition of men from the 1500's???

And *I* will ask you again to PROVE that the Oral Traditon that PAUL IS REFERRING to in the SMALL letter to the Thessalonians is not something presented in Roman and Hebrews which are more exhaustive concerning Christian PRECEPT (ie 'tradition').
\

.

 

[follower of Christ]

God's command is to hold onto BOTH oral and written traditions. If you get rid of one, you have gotten rid of the other, since no distinction is made by Paul or anyone else regarding the means of transmitting the Gospel.

To repeat...
Comparing Romans and Hebrews to many other letters it is VERY EASY to discern that those two writings have a HUGE amount of data in them pertaining to the gospel.
EVERY SINGLE PRECEPT ("tradition") in Romans and Hebrews that ISNT STATED/PRESENTED in the the letters to the Thessalonians but WAS given to them ORALLY would BE ORAL TRADITION AT THAT TIME before the Thessalonian church would have HAD IT IN WRITING....

You have NOT yet PROVEN that the ORAL tradition mentioned by Paul in these SHORTER letters isnt simply something covered in the LONGER letter of Romans and Hebrews.
And you have YET to give us the support for these traditions that you adhere to from SCRIPTURE.

 

[follower of Christ]

For example, giving a wedding ring. It isn't in the Scriptures, so some Christians, in the slavish attempt to hold up the SS farce, deny that people can give wedding rings to their spouses.

And how, again, does a wedding ring relate to the bible being the FINAL authority for matters of Christian DOCTRINE for salvation and obedience to God ?
It doesnt and this is simply deflection and distraction.

Tradition is a loaded word, quite frankly. It can refer to "Apostolic Traditions", teachings meant to be held by everyone, in every place for all time.

Actually the word itself is simply a 'transmission'....what was transmitted by one man to another. MEN with agendas add to that definition.

Eating the Lords supper....that was 'transmitted' from some in the church to others in the church...we have CLEAR written record of this 'tradition' ('precept'), thus we KNOW it is godly and to be partaken of in the church.

Other 'traditions' (precepts) that ARENT mentioned in Gods word, while they may be partaken of and SOME may be harmless, CANNOT BE TAUGHT as being necessary for ANY believer.

"tradition"
G3862
ÀαÃÂάδοÃιÂ
paradosis
par-ad'-os-is
From G3860; transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the Jewish traditionary law: - ordinance, tradition.

 

[Tina]

^

Galatians 2:1-3
Galatians 5:2-6
Galatians 6:12-16
1 Corinthians 7:17-19
Colossians 2:8-12
Philippians 3:2-3
There you have it – plenty of scriptures that speak volume about circumcision being a thing of the past, that being saved from our sins is received through faith in Christ to save us from our sins, and it is this act of turning from our sin and self-righteousness and turning instead to reliance upon Christ’s finished work on the cross that makes us “circumcised of heart †-- the works of the flesh accomplish nothing.

Tina, these were all written AFTER the decision made as related in Acts 15!!! ;)

The Apostles and the Holy Spirit had already found it "good" to put aside this command of the past. All of your verses merely tell us "after the fact" explanations of WHY the Apostles made an extra-biblical decision. MORE IMPORTANTLY, note, the Apostles EXPECTED that they be heeded, despite the Judaizers looking for a verse, as you do today...

The Church's authority in action... An infallible source, given by God to the apostles to bind and loosen the community. And Christians were expected to OBEY. This is a fine example of how the Church was not or EVER "SS", until the rebellion of "Korah 2", Mr. Luther, came onto the scene.

I think you are missing my point. My point is that TODAY, today Scriptures CLEARLY tell us circumcision is NOT mandatory – it’s no longer a law. However not mandatory does NOT mean forbidden. There are some families today that still carry on this tradition of circumcision, and it no way means that they have deviated from or contradicted the Bible because it was an OT law that was not forbidden in the NT, merely made redundant. Hence whether a man should circumcise or not is entirely up to him. Circumcision is not going to guarantee any man salvation, a man who does it is not going to be rewarded in Heaven for it any more than a man who does not do it is going to Hell or be punished by God for it. As a matter of fact, some Christians that I know today don’t eat pork because it was an OT law. They are neither right nor wrong and we are not to judge them. Practices such as circumcision and eating of pork are non-essential, non-salvific issues which God is not concerned about anymore. God is concerned about our hearts and minds and how we revere Him and follow Him. A person who gets circumcised or avoids pork does not make him any holier if he attends church week after week on Sundays yet fornicates, smokes and curses with his mouth.

The original canons of the Bible and the New Testament especially were only settled in the 4th century. Till then, traditions were upheld by the Catholic Church.

They continue to be "upheld", Tina. There is no "cutoff date" of Apostolic Tradition.

If traditions such as venerating and praying to Mary, dead saints and angels and praying the rosary were important “oral†traditions that were upheld by the church through centuries, I don’t understand why the apostles failed to translate them into “written†traditions, ie. scriptures. Why did they merely remained as “oral†traditions ? .. After all, the NT canon was only settled lmuch later, centuries later, was that not enough time for the apostles to duly record down such important traditions, since the last book of Revelation was only finished in 95AD. Did the apostles forget to write them down or were they non-important and non-inspired traditions to begin with ?

Remember what Paul said in Luke 1.

Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke said he “carefully investigated everything†“from the beginningâ€Â. “It seemed good to him to write an orderly accountâ€Â, so that “you may know the CERTAINTY of the things you have been taughtâ€Â.

Sounds like a meticulous person to me. He said he carefully investigated “everythingâ€Â, not “something†or “most thingsâ€Â, but “everything†.. "from the beginning".

Well then, how could he have missed traditions such as venerating and praying to Mary, dead saints and angels and the rosary? Or how could any of the other apostles have missed these traditions which SHOULD have been recorded down if the church has faithfully followed them through centuries ? Nowhere in the Bible, absolutely NOWHERE is there mention of Christians practicing them, not as individuals, not as families, not as a church. In fact, such practices only contradict what scriptures say in the 1st and 2nd Commandments and also Deuteronomy 18.

Deuteronomy 18:10-13
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God.

I have already proved a couple of times that the bible is packed with ALL written scriptures that is needed for salvation and Christian living. If you insist that nothing was proven, it does not mean that you are right.

Because you have been relatively cordial, I'll do it again in a bit more detail, and hopefully, you'll understand.

First, where does the Bible say "all that is needed"? Here is what is says...

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

It says USEFUL. PROFITABLE. WHERE does it say "all that is needed for salvation"? FASTING is useful. PRAYER is useful. Reading the Bible is useful. Giving ALMS is useful. But nowhere does the Bible say "all that is needed".

You have highlighted everything else except the most important word which I have been highlighting all along but you failed to see.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.

The key word here is “every†… This precisely is the word I had highlighted all along in my posts but you overlooked.

You suggest that the Bible is the ONLY thing needed for salvation, and you are quite wrong. I will explain it in two ways.

1. First, bad interpretation. If I may, I will use the same exact example I used before...

If I say "the sky is blue", does that mean it is the ONLY thing that is blue? If the Bible is profitable, does that mean it is the ONLY thing that is profitable in instruction or perfecting the saints???

2. The Bible gives us ANOTHER example of perfecting the saints that does not include the Bible. This makes "ONLY" a false teaching.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:11-13

The apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers are ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints. This makes sola scriptura EXPLICITLY DENIED BY SACRED WRIT!!!!

If another means of perfecting the saints exists, then sola scriptura ends up in the dustbin of history along with other logical fallacies and false gospels and "good intentions" that deny God's Word.

This ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints – how is it understood? Where is it taken from ? From the Bible. From Ephesians 4. Well then, how does this deny SS ?

As I’ve explained before, and I think this is the 4th time I’m explaining this – as long as the tradition is explicitly included and written in the Bible, Sola Scriptura makes perfect sense. SS only rejects non-biblical traditions. That Christians today still appeal to pastors and teachers does NOT falsify SS because it’s all IN the Bible and we are simply adhering to what the Bible says. Sola Scriptura proponents are not a one-man solo church, we are a corporate body of believers in Christ and desire to study scriptures together and also in our own private times.

Even during it writing, it didn't cover all possible contingencies.

Obviously because it was still in writing, not yet completed.

Even AFTER it was completed, it doesn't cover all contingencies. If it did, everyone would be in perfect agreement over the Trinity...

Trinity is merely a CONCEPT. It is NOT a tradition. We do not pray to Trinity, we do not practice Trinity, we do not worship Trinity. It is merely a one-word convenient term to describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and it is entirely Biblical. The Gnostics that time denied the deity of Christ, just as some other cults do these days, so the Trinity is an excellent concept to adopt in order to differentiate true Christianity from false ones.

THUS, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the Bible...

So you are now elevating the Roman Catholic Church ABOVE the Bible ?

Where did I say that? I am quoting Scriptures. And we do not call ourselves "the Roman Catholic Church". No official document issuing from Rome calls itself the "Roman Catholic Church". The term stems from the Anglicans and their invention of the branch theory from the 1600's. We do not use that term. We call ourselves "Catholic", and including all Catholics, whether they are Latin, Byzantine, or Syrian (and there are dozens of others who are Catholic but not Roman).

I used the term “Roman Catholic Church†because that is the church with Apostolic Succession of Popes and Papal Infallibility, which the Orthodox Catholic Church rejects. Besides, Catholic mean “Universalâ€Â. The early universal Catholic Church is very different from the Roman Catholic Church of today, the way Protestants see it. The Roman Catholic Church was only established in 590AD, with Saint Peter as its founder, while the other Orthodox Churches had other apostolic founders. Is the Orthodox Church not a Catholic Church too ?

That is not what I said. I said non-biblical traditions like sola scriptura can lead people away from God.

First and foremost, Sola Scriptura is not a tradition. It is a Biblical concept that accords highest supremacy and superiority to the Word of God, including only traditions that are entirely biblical.

You have yet to show me ONE verse that states that the Bible is the sole source of our faith or that the Bible has ALL I NEED to be a good Christian. It is useful, it is profitable, but so is giving to the poor.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.

It is a tradition of men because the Church has never believed it, it is not found anywhere for 1500 years until "Korah 2", and moves people AWAY from part of God's revealed Word. It is man-made because the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth, has not taught it. Not only not taught it, but has taught something different. Thus, it is an invention of men in rebellion.

Have you been to a Protestant Church – the church that embraces Sola Scriptura ?
In my country, God shows up BIG TIME in Protestant Churches to perform healings, deliverances, miracles, signs and wonders – EXACTLY what Jesus and His disciples did in the New Testament. I’m not talking small numbers, I’m talking hundreds and thousands. And I’m not talking occasionally, I’m talking every week after week. If Sola Scriptura is a man-made invention in rebellion, then perhaps God is showing up in Protestant Churches to punish them by healing them of all kind of sicknesses and incurable diseases, delivering them from demons and performing other miracles !!! … LOL !


.

 

[Tina]

^

Deciding what conforms or what doesn't conform is a matter of personal opinion - and as we see here, is subject to acceptance or rejection by the individual. Remember, the individual is not tasked with judging God's Word against the community or leaders God has established.

Case in point, I cite 2 Thessalonians 2:15. You refuse to conform to Sacred Scriptures, and thus, go against God's Word.

I’ve already explained to you that 2 Thess 2:15 that was written in 51AD is referring to oral traditions that were “passed†on before 51AD, NOT new traditions that man takes the liberty to introduce based on his whims, fancies and some spooky apparitions.

Can't have it both ways, sister. According to your logic, written traditions don't apply anymore, either. Paul makes NO DISTINCTION AT ALL between the means of transmission. He says "both oral and written". Thus, if oral traditions are no longer in effect (because he used the past tense), then anything WRITTEN after 51 AD is to be ignored, as well. You have just tossed 2/3 of the NT away with that logic. :gah

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth OR by letter.

Paul did not say both oral and written. He said “whether by oral OR by letterâ€Â.

The term “word of mouth†, ie. “oral†is found only 2 times in the entire Bible, once in 2 Thess 2:15, the other time in Acts 15:27.

Acts 15:27
Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

In this scripture, Luke is emphatically stating : “ to CONFIRM by word of mouth what we are WRITING. “ The “written†was CONFIRMED by the “oralâ€Â.

The word “written†is found 250 times in the entire Bible.
The word “writing†is found 37 times in the entire Bible.
The word “letters†is found 74 times in the entire Bible.

Written traditions are visible – we can see it in scriptures and be certain of it. The ONE time uncertain “oral†tradition ignored in 2 Thess 2:15 is not going to nullify the other 361 times mention of “written†, “writing†, or “letters†all over the rest of the Bible.

Furthermore, to point out your mistake, the Pastorals show Paul giving Timothy and Titus (and no doubt, other leaders) the task of passing on the Gospel UNADULTERED, reminding them of the promise and gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of TRUTH. Are you saying that Paul didn't believe that the Spirit would keep the promise to guide and guard the deposit of the faith given to the next generation, and the next, and so forth???

Actually, if you want to put it that way, Yes …. That’s what I’m saying, because if the Holy Spirit was really present, it would have inspired the apostles to write down the oral traditions. The “oral†would have been confirmed by the “writtenâ€Â. That the “oral†was not confirmed in writing leaves much to be desired in terms of “God-inspiredâ€Â.

Protestant Christians follow the example of Bereans that tested traditions against scriptures so that we do conform to Sacred Scriptures.

Yes, they provide a wonderful example of disunity and discord, thanks for the example... Does it match up with the unity presented in the Scriptures ???

I’ve already presented an example of diversity of opinions that led to division between Paul and Barnabas, and how Jesus’ own disciples had a hard time understanding His words. Disunity and discord happens in EVERY church, not just in Protestant churches. There’s no such thing as a perfectly united church, history shows otherwise. Men are imperfect and we form imperfect churches in this imperfect world that cannot escape disunity and discord. History will uncover numerous reports of NON-Protestant, Non-Sola Scriptura churches closing down across the globe. History will also reveal many NEW Protestant Churches being started because of growing number of people converting to Christianity and accepting Sola Scriptura. Thousand of new converts are embracing and appreciating Sola Scriptura because they witness God working in their lives through healings, deliverances and miracles, NOT because they practiced some oral traditions. When they tested the healings, deliverances and miracles against scriptures just like the Bereans did, they discver that they perfectly align with scriptures, that’s why they have no problem accepting Sola Scriptura because they have already witnessed God working in their lives and they don’t see any need to have to connect with God through any other means such as extra-biblical “oral†traditions.


.

 

[francisdesales]

Actually the word itself is simply a 'transmission'....what was transmitted by one man to another. MEN with agendas add to that definition...Eating the Lords supper....that was 'transmitted' from some in the church to others in the church...we have CLEAR written record of this 'tradition' ('precept'), thus we KNOW it is godly and to be partaken of in the church.

Well, wonders never cease, you said something that makes sense and I agree with. Now note that a "transmission" of the Gospel is not dependent upon the MEANS of transmission. Orally or written, there is no difference. We don't see it anywhere mentioned in Scriptures that oral transmission of the Gospel is of little consequence, nor do we see any sort of abrogation of oral transmissions in favor of written ones.

The point is that God instructed and formed a Church to transmit the Gospel, not a book.

I have read all of your posts, and really, you still have not addressed where the sola scriptura tradition comes from in the Bible ITSELF. IF sola scriptura was consistent, you should find something in the Bible itself. Surely, IF that was God's intent, that all things to be believed were found in the Bible, we would find a verse, presuming this was such an important pillar of Christianity.

Unfortunately for ss, there is no evidence of it in Christian history until the massive rebellion called the reformation, not exactly an auspicious occasion for the beginning of a "pillar of faith"...

I don't intend on addressing each and every one of your posts, since most are just repetition of the same claim that you are right, without proving it. The only new point you make is "volume of material", as if Paul, mentioning oral tradition only a couple times, means he didn't consider it as highly as written tradition - is reaching for straws. What we DO actually have in writing regarding oral tradition is that it is highly regarded and not to be set aside.

Thus, again, I ask you.

Where is the abrogation of oral traditions found in Scriptures? To be consistent, ss DEMANDS that a verse be found that tells us oral traditions had limited time and would be abrogated. We don't find any such verse, nor do we find any attitude that leads us to believe that oral traditions were on a lower plane then written transmission of the Gospel.

Other 'traditions' (precepts) that ARENT mentioned in Gods word, while they may be partaken of and SOME may be harmless, CANNOT BE TAUGHT as being necessary for ANY believer.

WHO has the power to bind and loosen, the Church or the Bible??? The Church determines what is an Apostolic Tradition, to be believed by the Church (found implicitly in Scriptures) or not. YOU don't make those determinations, nor does the Bible bind me to reading and heeding ONLY IT!

"tradition"
G3862
ÀαÃÂάδοÃιÂ
paradosis
par-ad'-os-is
From G3860; transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the Jewish traditionary law: - ordinance, tradition.

I already addressed this. What you are saying is that I can pick and choose what WRITTEN Laws of God to follow and what to ignore, since Paul doesn't make your distinction in 2 Thess 2:15 et. al. In your logic, written "precepts" are ordinances, as well. I suppose this explains the recent trend in "non-denominational churches" to feel free to believe bits and pieces of the already emasculated Gospel that they care to believe. Words explicity denying particular "theologies" are part and parcel of the "new wave" of modern Christianity, where everyone is led by the "spirit" and "what's OK for him is OK for him - what's OK for me is OK for me" attitude that basically says there was no divine revelation...

Yea, SS is good for nothing. A "wonderful trend" that leads to private interpretation and no longer is there "one faith".

Again, the smart-aleck remarks and self-aggranidizing comments are childish games that I do not intend to stoop to. My pointing out your lack of a proficient defense is enough for others to see where we stand. When you actually say something of value to this conversation, I will address it, as above.

Until then, the question remains unanswered for the SS worshipper.

WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL VERSE THAT TELLS ME I AM TO FOLLOW ONLY WHAT'S IN THE BIBLE?

Regards

 

[turnorburn]

Say Fransisco what does Social Security have to do with this? :naughty

I will continue to talk about Oral Tradition when I feel it is REFUTES the premise of the thread, despite your attempt to control the conversation and steer it towards Catholic bashing and away from the SS.

 

[francisdesales]

I think you are missing my point. My point is that TODAY, today Scriptures CLEARLY tell us circumcision is NOT mandatory {clip edited for shortness by Francisdesales}....A person who gets circumcised or avoids pork does not make him any holier if he attends church week after week on Sundays yet fornicates, smokes and curses with his mouth.

I fail to see what all of this has to do with sola scriptura. This is all very well and good TODAY, but YOU are missing MY point. The point is that sola scriptura (SS) was NEVER a teaching of the Church until the reformation. The Apostles felt called by God to change the LAW OF GOD, a requirement that DEMANDED every male to be circumcised who desired to be part of the people of God. They did this WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL WARRANT. They did it based upon the instructions of Jesus Christ and the command that THEY obey HIM.

If traditions such as venerating and praying to Mary, dead saints and angels and praying the rosary were important “oral†traditions that were upheld by the church through centuries, I don’t understand why the apostles failed to translate them into “written†traditions, ie. scriptures.

As I said before, the Apostles didn't exactly write a systematic theology book. The very fact that the Church DID hold onto such particular teachings, during good times and bad, tells us that these teachings are indeed part of the transmission of the Gospel, given by oral or written means.

There is absolutely no requirement in Scriptures that makes the claim that IT contains ALL we need to know about our faith. Nowhere. Remember, the Scriptures were incomplete during the writing of the NT, and the subsequent Protestant demand fails to note that there is no provision for SS in the Bible, OT or the NT writings. It is a tradition of men added later, MUCH later. It is clearly an ASSUMPTION that such teachings be found in Sacred Scriptures...

Let's talk about an example. Baptism. The Scriptures clearly tell us Baptism is the means by which we are saved. We are connected to the work of Christ THROUGH Baptism. YET, the Bible NEVER mentions the specifics on how this is properly done. It is certainly a ritual that requires some sort of form of prayer and use of material, but the exact ritual is nowhere mentioned. WHY? Because the people reading the letters ALREADY KNEW how people were baptized. Oral transmission of the Gospel.

Why did they merely remained as “oral†traditions ? .. After all, the NT canon was only settled lmuch later, centuries later, was that not enough time for the apostles to duly record down such important traditions, since the last book of Revelation was only finished in 95AD. Did the apostles forget to write them down or were they non-important and non-inspired traditions to begin with ?

Apparently, only bible-alone people have demanded that the apostles actually WRITE things down. It seems that the first Christians were content with the Spirit of God moving in the Church to teach and preach all that Christ had taught the Apostles, who later taught successors to continue their teachings.

Remember what Paul said in Luke 1.

Luke said he “carefully investigated everything†“from the beginningâ€Â. “It seemed good to him to write an orderly accountâ€Â, so that “you may know the CERTAINTY of the things you have been taughtâ€Â.

Sounds like a meticulous person to me. He said he carefully investigated “everythingâ€Â, not “something†or “most thingsâ€Â, but “everything†.. "from the beginning".

And yet, would Luke tell us that he included EVERYTHING LITERALLY???

No. EVERY MIRACLE is NOT related in Luke. Go and read Matthew. There are more miracles and parables related by Matthew. If Luke LITERALLY included everything, then we would only need one Gospel...

In fact, such practices only contradict what scriptures say in the 1st and 2nd Commandments and also Deuteronomy 18.

Was Jesus disobeying that command when He spoke with Moses and Elijah during His Transfiguration??? The Catholic practice of praying for the sake of the dead is not witchraft or consulting the dead. We don't expect a RESPONSE directly from a saint, for example, to tell us what is going to happen August 20th...

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.

Again, it is a leap of logic that presumes the intent of SS, FIRST... The English interpretation just does not allow this reading, Tina.

Praying is also useful to thoroughly equip us for EVERY good work. Are you saying that prayers cannot equip us for particular good works, and that only the Bible can equip us for EVERY good work of love? That is the demand here.

Prayers only equip for 40% of good works?
Fasting only equips for 50% of good works?
Alms giving is only good for 10% of good works?

Only reading the Bible equips us for 100% of the possible good things we can do...????

NOTHING ELSE equips the man of God to do good works but the Bible???

Again, Tina, your use of the English language is being twisted by your attempts to "prove" what the Scriptures clearly do not tell us. Common sense clearly tell us that your reading does not work.

Furthermore, consider that this is a personal letter of Paul written to TIMOTHY, not to the community in general. It was Timothy's responsibility to teach the faith and be a good leader in Christ. The Bible, Sacred Scriptures, is a tool that is USEFUL, not absolutely NECESSARY, for our good works.

But nowhere does it claim that the Bible is the ONLY thing that can provide for EVERY good work...!!!

This ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints – how is it understood? Where is it taken from ? From the Bible. From Ephesians 4. Well then, how does this deny SS ?

Because ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints is given, pastors and preachers. Not the Bible alone. SS demands only the Bible as the ONLY means of perfecting the saints. Your twisting of the English language in 2 Tim 3 proves this. You claim only the bible can perfect the saints, but here, the SAME BIBLE says otherwise...

As I’ve explained before, and I think this is the 4th time I’m explaining this – as long as the tradition is explicitly included and written in the Bible, Sola Scriptura makes perfect sense. SS only rejects non-biblical traditions.

According to your reading of 2 Tim 3, the Bible is the ONLY means of doing good works. This goes WAY beyond the claims of even SS!!! Now, a few sentences later, SS only rejects non-biblical traditions.

Then SS rejects itself, because we don't find any of your claims in the Bible...

Please, where does it say that "non-biblical traditions" are rejected by the Bible???

The only traditions to be rejected, Tina, are those that lead us AWAY from GOD and His commands. Literally, that means that Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, since it leads us AWAY from God WITHOUT, any Scriptural warrant, to reject PART of God's teachings, given to us in oral form by the Apostles.

That Christians today still appeal to pastors and teachers does NOT falsify SS because it’s all IN the Bible and we are simply adhering to what the Bible says. Sola Scriptura proponents are not a one-man solo church, we are a corporate body of believers in Christ and desire to study scriptures together and also in our own private times.

That sounds good on paper, but the reality is much different. The pastors and teachers are NOT authority figures in the ss world. The private individual decides WHAT is the "correct" interpretation of the Scriptures. The pastor may very well be teaching a Scriptural, biblical item. But the person doesn't agree with that interpretation. HE claims HE knows the Bible BETTER - no, the pastor is wrong, I am right. Thus, I must leave and go find another "church" that "has got it right".

The soul of Protestantism is cursed because of this built-in problem, the curse of sola scriptura, where each and every person becomes his own authority on what the Bible says or doesn't say.

In the end, Tina, what IS a clear teaching from Scriptures that Protestants of SS persuasion can AGREE on without discord??? Not very many, I'd venture. Heck, some don't even believe Jesus was/is God or that He rose bodily from the tomb... So much for ss...

Trinity is merely a CONCEPT.

Not sure on this defense... The point clearly is made that the "concept" of Trinity is DENIED by followers of SS. That is very clear on these threads. People who make the claim of SS as their rule cannot see the Trinity in there. Jesus is not God, to them. The Holy Spirit is not a person, to them. And they drag out verses and proof text back and forth, denying what the "Trinitarian traditions" teach. This is just one example of many on how private SS fails - and why it was never a requirement within the Church until people were looking for an excuse to rebel against God.

I used the term “Roman Catholic Church†because that is the church with Apostolic Succession of Popes and Papal Infallibility, which the Orthodox Catholic Church rejects. Besides, Catholic mean “Universalâ€Â. The early universal Catholic Church is very different from the Roman Catholic Church of today, the way Protestants see it. The Roman Catholic Church was only established in 590AD, with Saint Peter as its founder, while the other Orthodox Churches had other apostolic founders. Is the Orthodox Church not a Catholic Church too ?

Again, you misuse the term "Roman". The Churches I named above ALSO hold to apostolic succession of popes and papal infallibility. There are over 20 rites that are not Roman, but Catholic. All believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and is infallible when solemnly defining a teaching on faith and morals. The Orthodox also believe in apostolic succession and the fact that the pope has pride of place within the Church - we disagree with them on the role of the Pope in the overall Church as per jurisdiction among the universal Church.

The Roman Catholic Church was established in 590??? You have been duped. The Catholic Church is the same before Constantine as it is now, the "real" Catholic Church didn't just suddenly go away in 590 while the "Roman Catholic Church" took over... A bit of thought will put aside the Jack Chick tract material...

First and foremost, Sola Scriptura is not a tradition. It is a Biblical concept that accords highest supremacy and superiority to the Word of God, including only traditions that are entirely biblical.

It is a concept not found in the Bible, Tina. Where indeed? You have pointed out that the Bible is useful for every good work, but so is praying. So is almsgiving. So is fasting. Teachings given by pastors are useful for good works. Thus, you attempt to make the verse say more than it does.

Other verses you point out mention how good written material is, but again, that doesn't prove the point.

And finally, there is that problem that still remains unaddressed.... Where has the Bible (since ONLY THE BIBLE is the rule of faith for you) told us that oral traditions are null????

You base this upon a priori held convictions. You have been taught a tradition of men and through this tradition, all things must be fit through. But when someone actually asks "where is that tradition in the bible"? there really is nothing of value to prove the point.

SS cannot even pass its own requirements... Thus, the SS adherent is not consistent with their pillar of faith. It is even explicitly DENIED by several verses I have already pointed out...

Have you been to a Protestant Church – the church that embraces Sola Scriptura ?
In my country, God shows up BIG TIME in Protestant Churches to perform healings, deliverances, miracles, signs and wonders – EXACTLY what Jesus and His disciples did in the New Testament. I’m not talking small numbers, I’m talking hundreds and thousands. And I’m not talking occasionally, I’m talking every week after week. If Sola Scriptura is a man-made invention in rebellion, then perhaps God is showing up in Protestant Churches to punish them by healing them of all kind of sicknesses and incurable diseases, delivering them from demons and performing other miracles !!! … LOL !

[/quote]

I have been to Protestant worship services. Usually, the service is all about the pastor's private interpretations, not holy worship of God. He goes on for an hour or more about his own personal judgment about what verse so and so means. No doubt, people can find some benefit to this, but clearly, that is NOT the only thing that equips the saints for good works!!!! And let's not forget, the perennial call for "give me money"... It made me sick. In addition, most of these congregations prey on the emotions of men. Put on a show and whoop up the emotions of the simple-minded, and get them to think "God" is there in the babbling "tongues" of some guy. No, I am not impressed in the main by these people who REQUIRE constant emotional shows. I am more impressed with my Lutheran and High Anglican brothers who ATTEMPT to worship God in the way HE wanted to be worshipped.

As to healings and such, I haven't seen those at Protestant services, but it is an incredible stretch to attribute them to SS!!! Again, as Christ said, "these" come out by prayer and fasting, not reading the Bible to the demon. The power of God is through prayer.

SS is a man-made invention - but pastors do use the Word of God, and often, they get things right, expounding what the Church already teaches, like the Resurrection of the Christ and Life after Death...

SS doesn't make Protestantism more "successful". It is God's Word DESPITE the tradition of men, that allows some life to remain within these communities.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth OR by letter.

Paul did not say both oral and written. He said “whether by oral OR by letterâ€Â.

??? HOW does this prove that oral traditions are now defunct? "You are to follow what I taught, whether by oral or written means". Your 'word-smithing" is not helping. By emphasizing "OR", you are not helping your cause... I am not getting your point here. Does this mean I should do away with WRITTEN means and follow only the oral, or the other way around, or does Paul mean BOTH...

I would suggest the later. Paul means both, since ALL of his teachings on the Gospel were from God, unless he stated otherwise.

The term “word of mouth†, ie. “oral†is found only 2 times in the entire Bible, once in 2 Thess 2:15, the other time in Acts 15:27.

Acts 15:27
Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

In this scripture, Luke is emphatically stating : “ to CONFIRM by word of mouth what we are WRITING. “ The “written†was CONFIRMED by the “oralâ€Â.

The word “written†is found 250 times in the entire Bible.
The word “writing†is found 37 times in the entire Bible.
The word “letters†is found 74 times in the entire Bible.

God, in His Word, details the Decalogue twice. Does this mean that it is of inferior quality to the Jews? Can we safely assume that the Jews heard the Ten Commandments over and over in their lives via oral form, MANY more times? Does this mean that the oral form is more important? All of this counting how many times a word is in Scripture is of little consequence, since some of our most cherished beliefs are not even mentioned explicitly, such as Trinity and Incarnation. It is a fallacy to think that the number of times something is mentioned equates to its overall importance in the scheme of life.

Rest assured that breathing is very important to me, but I rarely write about it...

Written traditions are visible – we can see it in scriptures and be certain of it. The ONE time uncertain “oral†tradition ignored in 2 Thess 2:15 is not going to nullify the other 361 times mention of “written†, “writing†, or “letters†all over the rest of the Bible.

Oral traditions do not require that they remain unwritten forever. Our greatest traditions have been detailed in writing on numerous occasions, and they claim to have implicit Scriptural backing.

Furthermore, to point out your mistake, the Pastorals show Paul giving Timothy and Titus (and no doubt, other leaders) the task of passing on the Gospel UNADULTERED, reminding them of the promise and gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of TRUTH. Are you saying that Paul didn't believe that the Spirit would keep the promise to guide and guard the deposit of the faith given to the next generation, and the next, and so forth???

Actually, if you want to put it that way, Yes ….

AH, that explains a lot. I didn't want to say this, but this is where it ends - you have no trust in the Spirit of God, since He has been given to the CHURCH for the sake of sealing us, sanctifying us, and leading us to all truth. THIS, at the end of the day, is why SS adherents desperately desire things to be written. They don't trust that the Spirit of God remains within the Church and that Christ's promises are null and void.

That’s what I’m saying, because if the Holy Spirit was really present, it would have inspired the apostles to write down the oral traditions. The “oral†would have been confirmed by the “writtenâ€Â. That the “oral†was not confirmed in writing leaves much to be desired in terms of “God-inspiredâ€Â.

Why are you REQUIRING the Holy Spirit to WRITE ANYTHING??? Don't you have any trust in God? Is this any different than the agnostic who says "show me a miracle"? Or the Jew who asked for further proof from Jesus that He was the Christ?

I believe the Spirit has done things this way to teach us faith and trust. If I had everything in a book, I could just trust myself. Why would I need a pastor or teacher? I could just do online studies and jettison a pastor who tells me how I should live my life. But again, this is part of the modern culture, not the Spirit of God. The demand to do things "my way" and being independent of anyone else is an American cultural way of thinking, but not Scriptural.

I’ve already presented an example of diversity of opinions that led to division between Paul and Barnabas, and how Jesus’ own disciples had a hard time understanding His words.

And I have already refuted that such "diversity" is not the same thing as dissension in the Church. There is a marked difference between deciding HOW to spread the Gospel vs. WHAT is the Gospel... When people disagree on the Gospel content, there is dissension. This is NEVER seen as a good thing in the Bible. Failure to admit this is a failure to uphold your primary tenet, SS...

Men are imperfect and we form imperfect churches in this imperfect world that cannot escape disunity and discord.

Again, disunity is not a good thing. Telling me the current state of affairs does not mean God approves of it. The Scriptures frown on ANY disunity that leads to separation within the community.

History will uncover numerous reports of NON-Protestant, Non-Sola Scriptura churches closing down across the globe. History will also reveal many NEW Protestant Churches being started because of growing number of people converting to Christianity and accepting Sola Scriptura.

People become Protestant because they hear the Good News, which is NOT SS... SS is a teaching people are given after they have accepted Jesus and the message. Since the pastor tells you "it must be in the Bible", you unwittingly believe it, without actually finding it for yourself.

Thousand of new converts are embracing and appreciating Sola Scriptura because they witness God working in their lives through healings, deliverances and miracles, NOT because they practiced some oral traditions. When they tested the healings, deliverances and miracles against scriptures just like the Bereans did, they discover that they perfectly align with scriptures, that’s why they have no problem accepting Sola Scriptura because they have already witnessed God working in their lives and they don’t see any need to have to connect with God through any other means such as extra-biblical “oral†traditions.

Uh, I can detail NUMEROUS "extra-biblical" traditions that ALSO lead to healings and miracles. Ever hear of Lourdes or Fatima???

This has nothing to do with whether SS is true or not... Whether God inspires and blesses particular Protestants is DESPITE their incorrect beliefs in SS.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Say Fransisco what does Social Security have to do with this? :naughty

I will continue to talk about Oral Tradition when I feel it is REFUTES the premise of the thread, despite your attempt to control the conversation and steer it towards Catholic bashing and away from the SS.

Nothing...

On several occasions, I have noted that "SS" meant sola scriptura.

 

[follower of Christ]

good grief. I had hoped that we were finished with your fallacies here finally.

Well, wonders never cease, you said something that makes sense and I agree with. Now note that a "transmission" of the Gospel is not dependent upon the MEANS of transmission. Orally or written, there is no difference. We don't see it anywhere mentioned in Scriptures that oral transmission of the Gospel is of little consequence, nor do we see any sort of abrogation of oral transmissions in favor of written ones.

Sorry gent, but this illogic doesnt fly.
By this sort of reasoning, as Ive already stated, men could ADD all sorts of godless tripe calling it 'tradition', even things that flat out contradict Gods word, such as bowing before images of things in the earth, and then claim we're all to conform.
WHEN you can do what you claimed earlier....SUPPORT these traditions from scripture...and I even said Id accept the Apocrypha to amuse you, give me a ring.

The point is that God instructed and formed a Church to transmit the Gospel, not a book.

uh....and they DID....
To repeat...
Comparing Romans and Hebrews to many other letters it is VERY EASY to discern that those two writings have a HUGE amount of data in them pertaining to the gospel.
EVERY SINGLE PRECEPT ("tradition") in Romans and Hebrews that ISNT STATED/PRESENTED in the the letters to the Thessalonians but WAS given to them ORALLY would BE ORAL TRADITION AT THAT TIME before the Thessalonian church would have HAD IT IN WRITING....

You have NOT yet PROVEN that the ORAL tradition mentioned by Paul in these SHORTER letters isnt simply something covered in the LONGER letter of Romans and Hebrews.
And you have YET to give us the support for these traditions that you adhere to from SCRIPTURE.

Unfortunately for ss, there is no evidence of it in Christian history until the massive rebellion called the reformation, not exactly an auspicious occasion for the beginning of a "pillar of faith"...

Such a ridiculous statement.
There was NO evidence of it in the beginning....WHY....AGAIN ???

READERS SAY IT WITH ME
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE YET IN EXISTENCE !

Hey, we're learning here....maybe it'll sink in eventually.

I'll repeat yet one more time that its VERY odd that so many critical points of tradition you push have NO mention, NO support in the very new testament that God used your church to bring His word together.
Very peculiar...you think theyd have had SOMETHING ;)

I don't intend on addressing each and every one of your posts,

Thank you...its becoming a bit tedious and time comsuming

since most are just repetition of the same claim that you are right, without proving it.

Look in a mirror gent. Youve yet to provide proof of even ONE of the oral traditions yoru church practices that Ive mentioned numerous times now.

The only new point you make is "volume of material", as if Paul, mentioning oral tradition only a couple times, means he didn't consider it as highly as written tradition - is reaching for straws.

What is reaching for straws is oral 'tradition' that tells a man to BOW to an image of another dead man when that act is FORBIDDEN in scripture....and somehow calling it 'godly'....

What we DO actually have in writing regarding oral tradition is that it is highly regarded and not to be set aside.

Not in GODS word you dont