Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[follower of Christ]

Thus, again, I ask you.

Where is the abrogation of oral traditions found in Scriptures?

Again I ask YOU...where is the proof that ANY of these oral traditions that PAUL and Christs TRUE apostles gave us arent mentioned in the very detailed letters of Romans and Hebrews ?

We have a stalemate here gent....I know it because Ive done it 100 times with catholic brethren.

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.

Again, as soon as you can PROVE these oral traditions from scripture, give us a ring.
Till then your banging a gong to the deaf...

WHO has the power to bind and loosen, the Church or the Bible???

please
WHERE DID YOU GET THAT PRECEPT, GENT ???
From the BIBLE !
THAT is the POINT !

The Church determines what is an Apostolic Tradition,

Another UNscriptural tradition that has ended up causing so much corruption in the CC, regretably.
Your church would have been MUCH better off without these Popes who have so much power.
Absolute power corrupts abolutely.
And yet ANOTHER reason to reject ANY oral tradition NOT found in Gods word

YOU don't make those determinations, nor does the Bible bind me to reading and heeding ONLY IT!

And as I said somewhere here, if YOU want to dance like a chicken when YOU pray, go right ahead...but dont tell ME that *I* have to do it because you or your church does it and have been doing it.
WHEN you can PROVE that GODS WORD says to do it, THEN Ill have a look see

 

[follower of Christ]

I already addressed this.

And ?
Opening ones mouth to speak...raising ones hand to write.....does not mean that one has presented any relevant or valuable information.
My grandson who is 2 makes all sorts of sounds that have no meaning.

What you are saying is that I can pick and choose what WRITTEN Laws of God to follow and what to ignore,

Uh....no....and not even a good try ;)

*I* say that EVERYTHING WE NEED FOR SALVATION is contained in the WRITTEN word of God.
Is this unclear ?....or will you need to distort my words and intents further because otherwise youd have no real argument here ?

since Paul doesn't make your distinction in 2 Thess 2:15 et. al. In your logic, written "precepts" are ordinances, as well.

Again...EVERY WORD that was taught in Romans and Hebrews that WASNT REPEATED to the Thessalonians IN the LETTERS to them would have to have been ORALLY transmitted to THAT church.
And we HAVE Romans and Hebrews to see ourselves...

UNTIL you can PROVE that ANY PRECEPT that was NOT given to the Thessalonians in writing is ALSO NOT PRESENT in Romans, Hebrews, the Gospels, etc, then you are wasting MY time and YOUR time by persisting in this mind-numbing repetition...

Yea, SS is good for nothing.

So are;
-bowing to idols of dead men
-confessions to men rather than God
-penance for sin when the BLOOD is what pays for MY sin
-this Co-Redemptrix nonsense...JESUS ALONE is Redeemer

Oral tradition not SUPPORTED by Gods word is 'good for nothing' but rejecting the truth of the gospel.

A "wonderful trend" that leads to private interpretation and no longer is there "one faith".

There was no longer 'one' faith when the wolves came in and ADDED and PeRVERTED the simplicity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus

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

and the worshipper of dead men who bow to their images....

You cannot attack SS and US and not expect to be drawn to the carpet gent...

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

WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL VERSE THAT TELLS ME THAT THE BIBLE DOESNT NOW CONTAIN ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WERE ORALLY TRANSMITTED ?

 

[follower of Christ]

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

God can perform miracles to those who have faith EVEN THRU things that ARENT scriptural.
Just as Paul said that he would rejoice in the gospel being preached EVEN BY those whose motivations werent pure.

Some indeed are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will: The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Nevertheless in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice; yes, and I will rejoice.
(Philippians 1:15-18 EMTV)

So the SOURCE is not relevant. God can use even the ungodly to do His will....if that be the case.

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.

THAT, my friend, is a false assumption.

NO ONE taught me Sola Scriptura.
I never even cared about what you call oral tradition UNTIL *I* actually got into the bible and did MY OWN extensive studies.
Years ago before *I* studied Gods word I wouldnt have even blinked about your unscriptural traditions.
When I studied Gods word for years and saw that it HAS to be the foundation BECAUSE otherwise MEN will distort and pervert the gospel, as Paul warns us about in Acts, *I* concluded all by my self that the bible alone had to be the final authority for matters of doctrine.
I found out later that this concept had a name...

 

[follower of Christ]

Why are you REQUIRING the Holy Spirit to WRITE ANYTHING??? Don't you have any trust in God?

Huh.
Almost sounds like the gent who came and preached at a charismatic church one time who said 'I dont care what the bible says, Im just going to let the Spirit take control"....who then proceeded to break just about every rule Paul set forth about order in the assembly.

We dont require anything, friend.,...we UNDERSTAND that the Spirit HAS inspired the writings to the church.

Oral traditions do not require that they remain unwritten forever.

And yet no mention is made in Gods written word on many of these traditions...very peculiar.

Our greatest traditions have been detailed in writing on numerous occasions, and they claim to have implicit Scriptural backing.

Which I ASKED FOR a few times now....even resorting to accepting the Apocrypha....and youve continually IGNORED the request for some reason

WHERE is this SCRIPTURAL backing ?
Something real, now...;)

 

[follower of Christ]

There is absolutely no requirement in Scriptures that makes the claim that IT contains ALL we need to know about our faith.

Such an absurd statement.
The LETTERS that BECAME the NEW TESTAMENT were given FOR INSTRUCTION in the church.
The assembly receiving the letters would have UNDERSTOOD that what was in that letter by Paul, for example, WAS GOSPEL TRUTH !

In those shorter letters, NO one here is proclaiming that enough was given about the gospel or salvation.
But when GOD GATHERED ALL of those letters up, He certainly COULD have had OTHER writings that DID exist at the time collated along with what DID become the New testament....many of which WOULD HAVE supported many of these 'traditions' that the CC practices...

Yet He DIDNT.
Nor did the CC add even a single writing that COULD have been set with the rest so that these traditions would HAVE some sort of scriptural support.
Again, we find that VERY peculiar that the CC did not find ANY Of those writings by these other man as being 'inspired' enough to add to canon...

Odd indeed.

 

[francisdesales]

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.

??? Here we go again with YOUR logical fallacies...

We are not talking about your determinations of what is "godless tripe". You are presenting a false slippery slope that in your mind exists - but doesn't.

You say "because there are oral traditions, they must lead to "godless tripe". It doesn't follow. Your logical attempts are yet again in vain.

This speaks VOLUMES of your inability to trust the power of the Holy Spirit to protect the very thing that Jesus Christ Himself instituted.

You make your claims that God protects His Scriptures, but NOT His Church???? Ludicrous simpleton babble. First, God never said He would protect FUTURE writings (or even past ones). God said He would protect His CHURCH and keep it in TRUTH. Protect it from false teachings. The verses are there for the Church's protection, not the Bible. Yet again, you present more 'extra-biblical' teachings.

And of course, as this mostly-Protestant forum attests to, does written traditions automatically guarantee PROPER interpretations??? NO!!!

Even explicitly mentioned Scriptural words are totally ignored by those who do not want to hear the Word of God, but prefer their own interpretations, such as the "sola fide" fiasco. James 2 specifically says we are not saved by faith alone, but the sola fidists, who are usually sola scripturists, as well, can't even get their own acts together, preaching something totally opposite of what the bible SPECIFICALLY SAYS!!! Thus, the content in the Bible is not the point of contention, but trying to find proof verses to back up one's point of view. THIS is not the intent of the Sacred Writ....

What you want is a source outside of anyone else to tell you what God has revealed. If you have a book, you can jettison any Church authority and use private interpretation, so that YOU become the authority. And if some other Protestant community preaches a different Gospel "according to FoC", then it is "godless tripe", and FoC goes elsewhere, because HE determines what is God's revelation.

And thus, SS is ultimately a cause of dissension in the Church. It cannot even guarantee WRITTEN interpretations, because commentaries and sidebars are NOT Scriptures...

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.

We aren't in the kiddie section of christiansforum.net. This is the "big-boy" section. The first thing you need to do is identify who has the responsibility to do what when someone makes a claim of truth of a premise.

It is the responsibility of the SS adherents to prove that their false gospel is found in the bible. It is not. And trying to change the subject and make me prove ANYTHING is clearly not MY responsibility. All I need to do is attack the foundation built upon sand and show that it does not even live up to its OWN requirments...

As long as you suuport SS, it is up to YOU to PROVE it. So "ring me" when you learn how to back up your talk of "SS is in the Bible".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

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

uh....and they DID....

WHERE? I have been asking for that verse for a long time now. Is it a big secret, Gnostic knowledge, or just your fantasy world???

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....

Blah blah blah, add drewl...

As usual, more logical fallacies. Yet again, presenting a silly argument that is somehow supposed to EXCUSE the fact that the Scripture NEVER say that it is the sole source of Christian faith. Now, we have a two-for-one here...

1. The huge written data somehow makes other data non-important to the overall scheme of Gospel teaching... We are supposed to ASSUME that because Hebrews is a BIG BOOK, then it must have EVERYTHING summarize in it!!!

I don't talk about breathing, but I assure you it is VITALLY important to me.

Your statement is another example of a silly fallacious argument. The Gospels are pretty long, yet John HIMSELF says there are more things NOT included in the Scriptures on the life of Christ. This is a fallacious argument that somehow tells us that a few hundred pages must have set out to tell us EVERYTHING, when clearly, it was not the intent... Only in the deluded minds of SS adherents must this be SO! Ironically, nowhere does the Bible make such suggestions!!! How beautifully ironic...

The fact that Paul doesn't write about HOW to baptize does not mean they didn't baptize the community. It is incumbent upon people to understand that the Bible is a collection of LETTERS, not a SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY BOOK. Not your imaginations that the bible is do-all, tell-all theology book. Paul does not restate the Decalogue. And Paul hardly talks about Jesus Christ HIMSELF!!! Were these ALSO "unimportant"? If importance was based upon volume, you'd think Paul would have "WRITTEN" the Ten Commandments down for emphasis. And written about Jesus Christ and the Passion and His teachings...

2. The presumption that the Apostles INTENDED to collect all of their teachings into written volumes is nowhere found, only ASSUMED by some MUCH later Christians who prefer to rule themselves and not be ruled by God. This assumption, the foundation of Sola Scriptura, is COMPLETELY based upon "because it is"... Not a word from Scriptures support it, nor does Scriptures abrogate oral teachings.

You expect me to buy your drivel that EVERYTHING given to the Thessalonians is now found in Hebrews or Romans??? Based upon your claims without any support whatsoever. Just because YOU said it? That is clearly the epitome of a tradition of men. YOU tell me to stop following teachings of the Church that clarify the Scriptural teachings, like the Trinity, or reflect upon the implicit teachings of the Church, such as prayers for the dead... Thanks, but no thanks, you have done nothing but present yourself as an authority that's intent on patting himself on the back for refusing to answer some obvious questions that SS presents to the thinking man. Your logic is fallacious and you don't even realize it.

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.

LOL

The point is for YOU to prove to ME that it DOES!!!

Isn't it an "extra-biblical tradition" that implies that Hebrews and Romans DOES cover everything? Jeez, have you actually put your mind to this or are you just parroting this???

Only your imagination tells me that the "longer letter" covers ALL the Traditions taught to the Thessalonians, which clearly, it doesn't. Even the simplest of persons will realize that the letter to the Thessalonians addresses subjects that Hebrews and Romans DOES NOT cover!!! This destroys the notion that Hebrews and Romans is a summary of what came before.

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

Yes, the readers ARE laughing out loud - at you...

What is sad is that you don't realize it.

You are going to have to explain this supposed triumph, because this very THING destroys sola scriptura!!!

Can anyone be so dense as to not to see that???

Don't you even remember the tenant of SS??? It must be in Scriptures for it to be a teaching to be held by the Church. And yet, it is not there, based upon the "non-existence of the Bible"??? Well, there you have it, an admittance of the inability of the SS adherent to realize their own buffoonery.

The letters we have DID exist and they don't mention anything about sola scriptura. What we have doesn't mention the SS idea. It is only something that came along 1500 years AFTER the Bible was penned. I don't see any "expiration date" of Sacred Tradition, nor do I see any sort of suggestion that the written swallows the unwritten. Again, it is an "extra-biblical tradition" that claims that the Bible swallows oral traditions.

Our last command from God is to follow ALL of them, oral and written, not pick and choose.

ANYWHERE.

Readers, you may laugh at FoC's inability to realize he provides fodder for the proof that SS is extra-biblical tradition...

thanks

:biglol

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

I'm learning you don't have a clue and cannot provide Scriptural warrant for this silly doctrine... It is ironic how SS is not found in the Scriptures. It absolutely depends on the ASSUMPTION that "this is the way it is" cause I said so.

Not buying it.

[

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 ;)

More attempts to change the subject by provoking me to start another conversation on some other subject. Yet again, I can provide lots of support for extra-biblical traditions that were believed from the beginning.

The problem, for you, is I don't need to provide them.

It is YOU who are tasked with proving the premise, not me proving an alternative.

Once you figure that out, you're ready for the big-boy pool... Until then, don't blame me if you are in over your head...

 

[francisdesales]

Such an absurd statement.

The LETTERS that BECAME the NEW TESTAMENT were given FOR INSTRUCTION in the church.
The assembly receiving the letters would have UNDERSTOOD that what was in that letter by Paul, for example, WAS GOSPEL TRUTH !

So was the oral teachings.

Christians didn't care HOW Paul transmitted the Gospel. Only SS adherents care about such things. This statement tells us that NO MATTER HOW Paul taught, it was Gospel Truth. Same today... The Church teaches infallibly when she intends, no matter how she teaches. What is good for Paul continues today, since it is God's Spirit that enabled Paul, not his own abilities.

In those shorter letters, NO one here is proclaiming that enough was given about the gospel or salvation.
But when GOD GATHERED ALL of those letters up, He certainly COULD have had OTHER writings that DID exist at the time collated along with what DID become the New testament....many of which WOULD HAVE supported many of these 'traditions' that the CC practices...

Hocus pocus.

No SS in the Bible,

wave my magic wand,

And...

Poof,

Sola Scriptura is invented.

(just don't ask how we do that trick, us magicians don't share our secrets...)

:biglol

It seems to me that you have nothing further to add, since all your are doing is getting defensive. If this was a true doctrine found in Scriptures, you'd provide the verse that proves it is a valid teaching. Since SS is not found in the Bible, it fails the SS test.

 

[follower of Christ]

??? Here we go again with YOUR logical fallacies...

Please.
Your nonsense is the epitome of illogic.

We are not talking about your determinations of what is "godless tripe". You are presenting a false slippery slope that in your mind exists - but doesn't.

Refute something ;)

You say "because there are oral traditions, they must lead to "godless tripe". It doesn't follow. Your logical attempts are yet again in vain.

Scripture tells us NOT to bow to images of things in heaven or earth.
What does catholic 'tradition' teach ?

This speaks VOLUMES of your inability to trust the power of the Holy Spirit to protect the very thing that Jesus Christ Himself instituted.

It speaks volumes about my not allowing MEN to tell me that I have to do something that GOD has not commanded that I do ;)

You make your claims that God protects His Scriptures, but NOT His Church????

AGAIN with the MISrepresentation !!!
I hope you have better than this tripe because its exposing your desperation in the matter.
God has protected BOTH.
His assembly, who by the way ISNT the Catholic church, but is ALL of His people regardless of where they are and what group of other believers they are affiliated with.
And His assembly trusts in His WRITTEN word...

Ludicrous simpleton babble. First, God never said He would protect FUTURE writings (or even past ones).

Here we go with this nonsense.
Did God say BEFORE the OLD testament existed that He would protect it ?
Such a ridiculous argument
Paul shows very clearly that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, friend....He HAS protected His Old Testament thru them, and thru the church in this NEW covenant.

God said He would protect His CHURCH and keep it in TRUTH. Protect it from false teachings. The verses are there for the Church's protection, not the Bible. Yet again, you present more 'extra-biblical' teachings.

And HE HAS protected the assembly..in part by protecting and preserving His WRITTEN INSTRUCTION TO HER !

 

[follower of Christ]

And of course, as this mostly-Protestant forum attests to, does written traditions automatically guarantee PROPER interpretations??? NO!!!

And you keep whining about MY speaking about CATHOLIC traditions while you purposefully attack the protestant assembly...

While PERVERSE MEN live there will ALWAYS BE corruption in the assembly.
That has NOTHING to do with GODS WRITTEN WORD BEING HIS WORD !
HIS TRUTH REMAINS...even when the perverted mind tries to corrupt it !

Your logic is illogical and without any substance whatsoever....

Even explicitly mentioned Scriptural words are totally ignored by those who do not want to hear the Word of God, but prefer their own interpretations, such as the "sola fide" fiasco. James 2 specifically says we are not saved by faith alone, but the sola fidists, who are usually sola scripturists, as well, can't even get their own acts together, preaching something totally opposite of what the bible SPECIFICALLY SAYS!!! Thus, the content in the Bible is not the point of contention, but trying to find proof verses to back up one's point of view. THIS is not the intent of the Sacred Writ....

what a joke.
James does NOT say that we arent saved by faith.
James, IN CONTEXT, shows that when ARE TRULY SAVED that WORKS WILL BE PRESENT.
Those works DO NOT SAVE us...they are EVIDENCE OF salvation....

 

[follower of Christ]

What you want is a source outside of anyone else to tell you what God has revealed. If you have a book, you can jettison any Church authority and use private interpretation, so that YOU become the authority. And if some other Protestant community preaches a different Gospel "according to FoC", then it is "godless tripe", and FoC goes elsewhere, because HE determines what is God's revelation.

What YOU and the CATHOLIC church wants is for me to allow myself to be spiritually bullied into blindly accepting ANY nonsense this magisterium can push out....and God help me if the Pope ever speaks 'ex cathedra' and spews out some godless hate rhetoric because supposedly it'll be 'inspired' and I'll have to accept it as such.
I dont play that game with protestants and I CERTAINLY will not allow the CC to play it with me.
I agree with a LOT of catholic doctrine...trinity for one...but I END my affiliation at the point where I am told to BELIEVE something that the BIBLE does NOT support and in some cases flat out condemns...

 

[follower of Christ]

We aren't in the kiddie section of christiansforum.net. This is the "big-boy" section

Really FD?
Then why dont you and I take this little discussion over to Theologyonline.com where we CAN TALK as adults without all these rules keeping us from saying what we BOTH KNOW we want to say ?
Let me know if you can handle it. Im -FoC- over there.

The first thing you need to do is identify who has the responsibility to do what when someone makes a claim of truth of a premise.

What a dodge.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO said earlier that there IS scriptural support for your tradtions.
I REQUESTED that you show us that support.... *IF* you can...and I even said Id accept the Apocrypha.

You have YET to provide EVEN ONE WORD of scripture for support....THAT says a MULTITUDE !

It is the responsibility of the SS adherents to prove that their false gospel is found in the bible.

Laughable
YOU ARE THE ONE who is claiming that the bible is INSUFFICIENT for doctrine.
Therefore the burden of PROOF is on YOU to PROVE that we NEED anything BEYOND the bible.

All I need to do is attack the foundation built upon sand and show that it does not even live up to its OWN requirments...

Your 'attacks' have been pathetic so far.
I was hoping for a more formidable foe, quite honestly.

As long as you suuport SS, it is up to YOU to PROVE it.

;)
Wrong.
I accept the BIBLE that I have in MY hands right now.
It is on YOU to PROVE that anything OUTSIDE that bible is necessary for salvation.

You claim you know how debate works, yet apparently you dont..

 

[follower of Christ]

WHERE? I have been asking for that verse for a long time now. Is it a big secret, Gnostic knowledge, or just your fantasy world???

Uh...yeah....its called the NEW TESTAMENT gent.....maybe you should pick one up

WHERE? I have been asking for that verse for a long time now. Is it a big secret, Gnostic knowledge, or just your fantasy world???

I have a bible...many of them to be honest.
PROVE that I NEED anything outside that bible for salvation and doctrine.

The point is for YOU to prove to ME that it DOES!!!

YOU are the one claiming that Gods word is INSUFFICIENT for salvation and doctrine...the burden of proof is on YOU to show that its NOT ;)

Yes, the readers ARE laughing out loud - at you...

From what Ive seen here, gent, MANY follks here ARE SS...so whom are they laughing at do you think ;)

Don't you even remember the tenant of SS??? It must be in Scriptures for it to be a teaching to be held by the Church.

Sorry but it doesnt...any more then the OLD testament had to have it.
The Old covenant Jews ADDED Lots of tradition....and Christ was all over them for it ....sound familiar ? ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

I'm learning you don't have a clue and cannot provide Scriptural warrant for this silly doctrine... It is ironic how SS is not found in the Scriptures. It absolutely depends on the ASSUMPTION that "this is the way it is" cause I said so.

And I already knew that you absolutely have NOTHING to show that Gods word, even the apocrypha, supports the list of 'traditions' I inquired about ;)

The problem, for you, is I don't need to provide them.

yeah...you do....*IF* you expect US to buy into them.
Since you cant, we dont...end of discussion.

It is YOU who are tasked with proving the premise, not me proving an alternative.

no, YOU are the one claiming that scripture is insufficient...the burden of proof is on YOU to show that we NEED anything but what Gods word provides

Christians didn't care HOW Paul transmitted the Gospel. Only SS adherents care about such things. This statement tells us that NO MATTER HOW Paul taught, it was Gospel Truth. Same today... The Church teaches infallibly when she intends, no matter how she teaches.

PUHLEASE....
Protestants were declared heretics by the CC...and NOW we are separated brethren.
PLEASE dont even act like THAT nonsense is INFALLIBLE....

 

[francisdesales]

And of course, as this mostly-Protestant forum attests to, does written traditions automatically guarantee PROPER interpretations??? NO!!!

And you keep whining about MY speaking about CATHOLIC traditions while you purposefully attack the protestant assembly...

While PERVERSE MEN live there will ALWAYS BE corruption in the assembly.
That has NOTHING to do with GODS WRITTEN WORD BEING HIS WORD !
HIS TRUTH REMAINS...even when the perverted mind tries to corrupt it !

Your logic is illogical and without any substance whatsoever....

I am not attacking anything, just pointing out what is rather obvious to ALL, except you and your fantasies. Catholics all believe in the Trinity. Protestants, who can tell, each has their own set of beliefs, rather than the ONE FAITH Paul spoke of to the Ephesians ...

Yet again, you present a logical fallacy - not surprising, since you have yet to formulate a worthy response. You and your red herrings... I said nothing about whether God's Word was God's Word. That is your inability to come up with a coherent defense of SS! Thus, you must think of SOMETHING to attack in your limp attempt to turn the tables. Thus, you continually invent new red herrings, attacking what I never even imply...

You pretend that SS somehow will lead men to come up with the same teaching of the Apostles. Only by pure luck would something like that EVER occur, since men, unguided by the Spirit active in the Church, will not conclude by rational thought the Revelation that God has GIVEN to man. View these threads on TRINITY, my friend. Quite amazing where SS leads men. If people only followed the Spirit, found in the pillar and foundation of the truth, we WOULD have one faith.

Someday, you'll realize that Christianity is a revealed religion. It is not one where the Gospel is come upon by studying a book.

God's truth remains, but you won't find it without the Church. That is clear by this forum. Men read the Bible and come up with the strangest interpretations, far away from the Author's original intent. Since God tasked MEN to teach and preach all the Christ taught, it is incumbent that Christians realize that MERELY reading a book does not lead to the Truth of the Gospel. The "church of one" does not work. It is just another way of society doing it "my way", rather than God's way.

And you are a very good representative of that group, after reading your sorry defense of SS... There is none, but you will not admit it, and that is the saddest part of all - a person in denial of painting themselves into a corner...

James does NOT say that we arent saved by faith.
James, IN CONTEXT, shows that when ARE TRULY SAVED that WORKS WILL BE PRESENT.
Those works DO NOT SAVE us...they are EVIDENCE OF salvation....

The joke is you can't figure out what sola fide means. I only am responding to this because it details further evidence of your inability to defend the ACTUAL position of your interlocutor. We've been through pages and pages of discussion and you have not a single verse that proves SS. Now, we have an example of an explicit verse that denies a tenet of your faith, and you present more red herrings...

WHO CARES what James does NOT say??? Sola fide says we are saved by faith alone, which James WRITES tell us that it DOES...

Another command of God put to the wayside by "FoC"...

 

[francisdesales]

What you want is a source outside of anyone else to tell you what God has revealed. If you have a book, you can jettison any Church authority and use private interpretation, so that YOU become the authority. And if some other Protestant community preaches a different Gospel "according to FoC", then it is "godless tripe", and FoC goes elsewhere, because HE determines what is God's revelation.

What YOU and the CATHOLIC church wants is for me to allow myself to be spiritually bullied into blindly accepting ANY nonsense this magisterium can push out....and God help me if the Pope ever speaks 'ex cathedra' and spews out some godless hate rhetoric because supposedly it'll be 'inspired' and I'll have to accept it as such.

I'm sure every Judaizer in Galatia and Corinth and Rome felt the same way. "How DARE Paul tell me what to do. I can read the Torah, I don't need a Church..." History has an interesting way of repeating itself among the proud.

Not only do you share that with them, the inability to obey and be humble, but you also share the concept of SS with them, since they, too, demanded a verse on the resurrection and the removal of the requirment of circumcision without Scriptural warrant.

Good for you, "FoC"...

 

[francisdesales]

We aren't in the kiddie section of christiansforum.net. This is the "big-boy" section

Really FD?
Then why dont you and I take this little discussion over to Theologyonline.com where we CAN TALK as adults without all these rules keeping us from saying what we BOTH KNOW we want to say ?
Let me know if you can handle it. Im -FoC- over there.

LOL!!!!

I have said quite enough to deflate you and your pitiful arguments. What more is there to do? How much more do I have to say to make it obvious that SS is not Scriptural?

Actually, if you read the last few pages of your remarks, there is no "arguments" from the SS side. It sounds like a 13 year old kid, actually.

"Oh yea, well, prove oral traditions..." or
"Oh yea, well, you're wrong, 'cause..."



We both know you have nothing further to add to this conversation but red herrings and teenage attempts of one-upmanship. Really, is that the best you can do? But if we go to "theologyonline.com", you can tell me what you REALLY think? I guess there, you can swear at me and call me every name in the book without being chastized. I'm sure that the "FoC" would be able to REALLY give it to me there, showing the full display of His "discipleship in Christ"... Whatever.

Now, to defend the position, no, you can't do it any better there. You are so predictably sad. Trying to change the subject again...

I am absolutely certain you will present nothing new to defend the undefensible, SS and the garbage heap that it represents, a false doctrine that leads people away from part of the Word of God.

We both know how desperate you are to change the subject and take all of our eyes off the emperor without any clothes - or the sola scriptura without a scripture verse... Thus, we must direct our eyes to Catholic Traditions (which is NOT the topic), so we can forget about how flimsy sola scripture is.

Fact.

The first thing you need to do is identify who has the responsibility to do what when someone makes a claim of truth of a premise.

What a dodge.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO said earlier that there IS scriptural support for your tradtions.
I REQUESTED that you show us that support.... *IF* you can...and I even said Id accept the Apocrypha.

The dodge is your pitiful attempts to change the subject. The title of this thread is "IS SCRIPTURE ALONE BIBLICAL?"

Well, is it or is it not?

And I am dodging???

Why should I honor any of your requests on this thread, considering how you have been acting, if you cannot defend this supposed "rock solid" foundation that your theology rests upon? Why should I let you off the hook so easily?

DEFEND SOLA SCRIPTURA or ADMIT DEFEAT...

Then, perhaps, we can talk about the truth found in the Church. However, you are not ready for that yet. You must first admit the errors of your ways before you are able to accept truth. That is clear in conversion and in intellectual conversations. As long as you hold to error, you will NOT hear the Truth - just as the Pharisees.

You have YET to provide EVEN ONE WORD of scripture for support....THAT says a MULTITUDE !

Why would I provide support of the fallacy of Scripture Alone???? I already told you there is no Scriptural support for sola scriptura. Yes, I admit that!

It is the responsibility of the SS adherents to prove that their false gospel is found in the bible.

Laughable
YOU ARE THE ONE who is claiming that the bible is INSUFFICIENT for doctrine.

What's the topic again?

Yea, it is laughable that you have to be reminded so often that we aren't talking about whether the grass is green or the sky is blue or whether the Pope uses Crest or Colgate toothpaste. We are talking about whether the Scripture ALONE as a source of our faith is Biblical.

Have you proven that the Bible alone is biblical???

Not one iota...

I have patiently waited for SOMETHING. I have looked at your numerous responses. And I have answered them all, thoroughly destroying the sand of SS. The last few pages is just a person who cannot admit defeat... And now, I just chuckle as I watch you squirm in your folly.

Therefore the burden of PROOF is on YOU to PROVE that we NEED anything BEYOND the bible.

Wrong answer. I don't have to prove ANY alternative. All I have to do is show that Sola Scriptura is an extra biblical tradition. For the sake of THIS argument, the other option could be winged horses flying from heaven. It matters not. What matters to THIS discussion is that sola scriptura is a joke of a tradition, not found in the Bible. It fails ITS OWN TEST!!!

How is it that you cannot see the hypocrisy of this FACT???

I was hoping for a more formidable foe, quite honestly.

LOL! Flattery will get you nowhere...

What is sad is that such a pitiful foe like myself has shown how ineffective you are at defending your faith, smart guy. Imagine if a "formidable foe" appeared on the scene... I cringe to think how easily he would have you crying for mercy...

It is on YOU to PROVE that anything OUTSIDE that bible is necessary for salvation.[/b]

You claim you know how debate works, yet apparently you dont..

Newbie to Apologetics, I don't have to prove anything BUT to show that sola scriptura is a farce. But I got a bonus. I also showed that you cannot defend a key element of your faith. That is clear by the direction of this conversation, lame attempts to change the subject and an inability to accept responsibility for a claim made at the beginning of this thread...

 

[francisdesales]

yeah...you do....*IF* you expect US to buy into them.

I am not selling anything. All I am doing is showing that sola scriptura is not Scripture. It is up to you to overcome my argument.

Which you can't, obviously, by the direction of this thread...

Since you cant, we dont...end of discussion.

Yes, you will certainly run away, since you cannot defend this silly proposition, and proud people will NOT admit they are wrong, now, will they.... Thus, you must pretend you are going to leave in a huff because I didn't provide the color of the Pope's night wear or some other unrelated thing to this thread.

HOW DARE I!!!!

:biglaugh

no, YOU are the one claiming that scripture is insufficient...the burden of proof is on YOU to show that we NEED anything but what Gods word provides

This topic is not about which is the BEST means of learning the faith, or whether the bible is the Word of God. It is not about whether the Bible is "insufficient".

That is not the topic, smart guy... How many times must this be repeated to you? Are you obtuse or obstinate?

Let me know if you can think of something worthy of my time. It is beginning to bore me with your simpleton attempts to place the responsibility of this thread on me, as if I am supposed to defend something that the topic is not even about... Now, if this topic was about Catholic Traditions, sure, I would defend it, quote the Bible and historical sources, etc.

But your childish attempts will not force me to allow you to hide the sorry sacred cow of sola scriptura from view. Sola Scriptura is not found in Scriptures, making it a false doctrine, by its OWN RULE!!!

I say let people see the argument and make up their minds, based on what has been said.

 

[follower of Christ]

Whee..another 28 pages of mindless repetition.... :rolling

 

[follower of Christ]

I am not attacking anything, just pointing out what is rather obvious to ALL, except you and your fantasies.

You keep saying this sort of thing and trying to speak for 'ALL, but you keep forgetting that you DONT speak for ALL....has even ONE member supported your error here yet ?
Speak for YOU...not them. ;)
I like to bring the readers attention to some point.

Catholics all believe in the Trinity. Protestants, who can tell, each has their own set of beliefs, rather than the ONE FAITH Paul spoke of to the Ephesians ...

You are exaggerating the facts....MOST protestants believe in the trinity. NOT because the magisterium or the pope tells us to, but BECAUSE the scriptures are undeniable in the matter.
And please....I KNOW catholics...and the catholics i KNOW do NOT agree with the CC on quite a few details of doctrine.
So lets not go there.

Yet again, you present a logical fallacy - not surprising, since you have yet to formulate a worthy response.

Given whom Im talking to this really has no meaning to me whatsoever.
Now, if someone I felt was BIBLICAL was saying it, Id probably pay more attention.

You and your red herrings..

Kettle much ?

. I said nothing about whether God's Word was God's Word.

Your statements have been VERY clear about Gods word NOT BEING the final athority in matters of doctrine and salvation....otherwise we wouldnt be here since THAT was MY assertion to begin with that you rejected... ;)

That is your inability to come up with a coherent defense of SS!

please ing
Ive defended SS as well as youve defended your absurd oral tradition that you CANNOT support at all from ANY book in the bible...even the apocrypha...

You pretend that SS somehow will lead men to come up with the same teaching of the Apostles.

Sorry gent but I only trust Christs CHOSEN apostles and their teachings along with my Lord Jesus'.
I'll stick with those teachings and you can have your oral tradition that can change with the evening tides...

Someday, you'll realize that Christianity is a revealed religion. It is not one where the Gospel is come upon by studying a book.

Man....you are constantly trying to trash the Bible...GODS inspired word...one has to wonder what the motivation may be ;)
Its not a BOOK friend...it is the INSPIRED WORD of God !

God's truth remains, but you won't find it without the Church.

I find Gods truth where HE has given it....in HIS word. Just as He did in the OLD covenant....He spoke THRU His prophets and their words were RECORDED in WRITING for His PEOPLE to follow.
Apparently that concept is lost on those such as yourself.

That is clear by this forum. Men read the Bible and come up with the strangest interpretations, far away from the Author's original intent.

THAT is NOT the fault of the text, or God....we covered this nonsense already, friend.
That PERVERTED minds PERVERT things does NOT nullify that the bible IS GODS WORD !

And you are a very good representative of that group, after reading your sorry defense of SS... There is none, but you will not admit it, and that is the saddest part of all - a person in denial of painting themselves into a corner...

Hey friend....did ya find even ONE verse to support those traditions I inquired about ?
Im still waiting