Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[Benoni]

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

:biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol

What more can ISAY

 

[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.

What YOU want to do is dismiss Gods word entirely and so you and your church can make up ANY nonsense 'tradition' you want....any TEACHING you want...and there is NOTHING in writing to hold you accountable.
At least *I* have some WRITTEN authority..something concrete, in which to discern with.
All you have is whatever you are told to believe regardless of whether it is in direct conflict of Gods words nor not.

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.

Got that right.
When I somehow ended up in a "Jesus Only", trinity rejecting apostolic church I used GODS WORD and bailed on those folks ASAP.
And when I ended up in church that demanded I speak in tongues or go to hell...yep...used Gods word and DESERTED that group as well.
And when I came across the money grubbers who told me to give them $100 and God would give me 100 fold back....sure thing hoss..used Gods word and ditched them like a bowl of bad beans...

And anyone that, including a catholic, would have been a FOOL not to do the same....

I'm sure every Judaizer in Galatia and Corinth and Rome felt the same way. "How DARE Paul tell me what to do.

Paul tells me to adhere to sound doctrine....to study to show myself approved...and THAT is what *I* do....I dont let folks in the church who come up with insane 'traditions' like bowing to idols of men...and denying the trinity....tell me what to believe.
Ive done my time..Ive spent thousands of hours in study, just like PAUL tells me...so you need to try this nonsense with someone else

I can read the Torah, I don't need a Church..." History has an interesting way of repeating itself among the proud.

God word is the FINAL authority in matters of doctrine and salvation.
The 'church' is ME, friend...and YOU...and EVERY other believer.
The church, like it or not, isnt REQUIRED for INDIVIDUAL salvation.
All that is REQUIRED for salvation is the GOSPEL, GOD and SELF.
When the INDIVIDUAL is then born again they ARE the CHURCH (the 'calling out')..the are PART OF His assembly.
And as part of that assembly we gather with our brethren for fellowship.
Some groups took that concept and twisted it into a new sort of power trip to control the church.

 

[follower of Christ]

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

:biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol

What more can ISAY

I'll report you if you start this crap here, B..
Is that unclear in any way ?

 

[follower of Christ]

I have said quite enough to deflate you and your pitiful arguments.

Only in your mind.

What more is there to do? How much more do I have to say to make it obvious that SS is not Scriptural?

You could actually prove your case, for starters.
Then you could actually SUPPORT some of these oral traditions that you expect US to accept, including, but not limited to;
-confession to priests rather than God
-Mary supposedly being Co-repemptrixa long with Christ.
-penance for sin

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.

Puhlease.
YOU are the one who has used TRADITION to argue against sola scriptura.
YOU are the one who opened that door....so lets not even bother accusing me of changing the topic.

*IF* you dont want to discuss your oral tradition, then AGAIN....DONT BRING oral tradition up at all to argue against SS.

And speaking of flimsy....did ya find that support yet ?

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?

yeah....it is....so do NOT bring up the topic of Oral Tradition again in this Sola Scriptura thread
When you do then we WILL EXAMINE that oral tradition to see if it is biblical

We did this a few times already, didnt we

Why should I honor any of your requests on this thread, considering how you have been acting,

Frankly you shouldnt.
I already know that you cant provide anything for supporting your oral tradition other than some severe twists that are pulled with the texts...which is why I asked for support and why I said Id even accept the apocrypha *IF* it actually SAYS what youd claim it said

You certainly didnt think I came into this discussion blind, Id hope.
I dont discuss anything without doing the research first, friend.

if you cannot defend this supposed "rock solid" foundation that your theology rests upon? Why should I let you off the hook so easily?

Oh please....
This joke isnt even worth a response....

DEFEND SOLA SCRIPTURA or ADMIT DEFEAT...

SUPPORT THE TRADITION IVE REQUESTED OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANT
See, I can used All caps too...and I can even use big letters

Then, perhaps, we can talk about the truth found in the Church.

We will talk about oral tradition every time you bring it up.

Do you HONESTLY think that the readers here DONT see that you are dodging ?
All I asked for was this support from scripture for your traditions...and I have offered to accept even the apocrypha for that support...you wont get that consideration from many or even most protestants.
But you CANT show that support....not with any CLEAR scripture that the church hasnt added to or mangled entirely to push these 'traditions'.

However, you are not ready for that yet.

No...you simply dont have the support from scripture....period.

 

[follower of Christ]

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!

Childish.
We BOTH know...as does the READER...that Im talking about the support from scripture that YOU claimed exists for your traditions.

-penance for sin
-confession to priests
-Mary being co-redemptrix
-etc.

If you cant do this with some level of integrity then maybe its time for you to move along.

 

[follower of Christ]

What's the topic again?

Sola Scriptura....the bible is the authority.
Did you forget ?

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.

And again *IF* you want to discuss that topic alone, then do NOT bring up oral tradition for your arguments.
WHEN you bring that tradition up then we WILL examine that tradition.

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

And again the statement itself is absurd.
God SPOKE to the people THRU the prophets in the old covenant.
Those words were RECORDED in WRITING FOR the people.
And we have the SAME exact situation today....we have GODS WORDS spoken to His people thru His Son and His CHOSEN apostles as presented in His word.

Nuff said.

Now you prove to me that ANY writing is necessary for salvation or doctrine...

I have patiently waited for SOMETHING.

Please.
All youve done is what a couple others do here...put UNREASONABLE demands on the texts then complain when someone asks you for ANY support whatsoever for your own fallacies.

WHEN THE NT writings were WRITTEN they did NOT KNOW that those letters would be gathered into ONE collection and be called the Bible.
There would be NO reason for them to write anything you demand in ONE letter. There were MANY letters.
So WHICH one do you suppose that Paul should have said....'ONLY OBEY THIS" when Paul KNEW that MOST of the letters he wrote did NOT contain even the entire gospel.

Youre being ridiculous and trying to place absurd demands on the texts given how the NT came about.
I wish I could say that I know you know youre doing it, but honestly I dont know if you see how absurd your reasoning is or not.

I have looked at your numerous responses. And I have answered them all, thoroughly destroying the sand of SS.

Only in your own mind....

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.

keep saying it to yourself...maybe you'll believe it someday

 

[follower of Christ]

Wrong answer. I don't have to prove ANY alternative.

yeah...you do, friend.
I have a bible.
If YOU claim that bible isnt enough then YOU need to prove it. Otherwise we just stick to using our bibles.
You just dont get it, do you ?
SS wins by default here because WE use our bibles whether you like it or not because WE all use our bibles for doctrine.
If YOU CANNOT PROVE that OUR bibles are INsufficient....then sorry WE will just keep using them

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!!!

What a complete joke.
Not found in the bible
Read my previous posts for a response to this absurdity.
Again....MANY of the LETTERS Paul wrote didnt even contain the ENTIRE gospel...so in WHICH LETTER do you claim Paul should have written 'THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINE" ????
Im astounded that an intelligent person such as yourself even tries this illogical point.
Its almost like you dont know how the new testament even came into being...you DO, right ?
You KNOW it was a lot of letters and a few historical accounts...not originally written as one big book...right ???

 

[follower of Christ]

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...

Im certain that youve convinced yourself anyway
Bring over the big guns, if you wish...and the offer to take this to theologyonline.com where we have fewer constraints is open perpetually...just give me a ring if you decide to

Newbie to Apologetics,

That isnt surprising.

I don't have to prove anything BUT to show that sola scriptura is a farce.

Well, no offense but youve failed miserably.

All you did was bring up oral tradition, and that would have been a good point if it werent for the facts that the bible wasnt written AS a whole, but in individual letters and accounts.
Now, had your pet passage in Thessalonians been in a large writing called 'the Bible' instead of just one small letter, you may have some semblance of an argument.
But seeing that it was given in a short letter that doesnt even contain the entire gospel, it really doesnt prove much of anything.

4.0
"Tradition"

These 'traditions' Paul spoke of BEFORE the NT even existed CANNOT BE SHOWN as being ANYTHING not mentioned specifically in scripture.
The word 'tradition' as it appears in a pet verse of many Christians who push the idea that we have to follow many 'traditions' not specifically mentioned in scripture is this';
[quote:2st81fqc]Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
(2 Thessalonians 3:6 KJV)

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

a transmission....a precept.
This 'tradition' could be ANYTHING relating to the gospel...or even simply the GOSPEL ITSELF in its entirety...that had been conveyed to the Thessalonians by word OR by letter.

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 presented in the the letters to the Thessalonians but WAS given to them orally would be oral tradition before the Thessalonian church would have had it in writing....

Its is absolutely unsafe to assume that something such as penance, confession to priests rather than God, or bowing to idols of men and women long dead could even remotely be implied in this small passage since those concepts are nowhere to be found in the scriptures canonized by the very men who taught those 'traditions'.

http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... f=30&p=588[/quote:2st81fqc]

But I got a bonus. I also showed that you cannot defend a key element of your faith.

no, ya didnt.
I realize you THINK you did....but ya didnt.....honestly
All youve shown me is that you cant support even one of your traditions from scripture.

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...

YOU brought up oral tradition.
When ya did, you opened the floodgates on that topic yourself.

 

[follower of Christ]

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.

Like I have shown that your traditions arent scriptural

And as I asked in my last post, in WHICH letter Paul wrote was he supposed to say 'THE BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF DOCTRINE" when NO BIBLE yet EXISTED ???

Now, if Paul had seen canon and been able to add to it and THEN failed to do what you demand....THEN you might have a point.

Yes, you will certainly run away,

You dont know me very well, obviously ;)

since you cannot defend this silly proposition,

Its been defended, friend...your failure to admit that fact doesnt nullify it

and proud people will NOT admit they are wrong, now, will they...

Will you ?

. 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.

I dont remember saying I was going anywhere ;)

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".

Apparently it IS.
*I* said that the Bible is the final authority in matters of doctrine.....YOU rejected that assertion...thus YOU are claiming, expressed or not, that the bible is INsufficient for that purpose.

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

Id ask the same.

Now, if this topic was about Catholic Traditions, sure, I would defend it, quote the Bible and historical sources, etc.

Sure ya would ;)
And certainly not with the bible ...

YOU brought up tradition. When you bring it up we'll examine it.

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!!!

Again with this aburdity
Again....MANY of the LETTERS Paul wrote didnt even contain the ENTIRE gospel...and canon did not yet exist as such...so in WHICH LETTER do you claim Paul should have written 'THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINE" when at that point in time there WAS NO NT BIBLE ????

....as I asked in my last post, in WHICH letter Paul wrote was he supposed to say 'THE BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF DOCTRINE" when NO BIBLE yet EXISTED ???

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

I agree

 

[Benoni]

Report me. That is all you have.

How many times have you been asked by me to show scripture prove your claim and blatantly refused to give one verse in defense of your false claims; even thought you have shown verses that totally contradict you claim.

I do not agree with the Catholic Traditions either, and we are in agreement on this point; but all you have done is replace it another traditional teaching called orthodoxy BUT you claim to stand on God's Word; BUT ONLY when it fits your spin or agenda or bias. If the verse does not fit you spin it and refuse to back it up with God’s Word.

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

:biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol :biglol

What more can ISAY

I'll report you if you start this crap here, B..
Is that unclear in any way ?

 

[follower of Christ]

Report me. That is all you have.

THIS thread isnt about UR or predestination.
If you make ONE off topic post here, benoni, Ill report you every 5 minutes till youre booted out of here...got it ?
Its growing tiresome having you continually derailing threads to push your UR nonsense.

How many times have you been asked by me to show scripture prove your claim and blatantly refused to give one verse in defense of your false claims; even thought you have shown verses that totally contradict you claim.

Man...you really like to lie, dont you ?
You've been given scripture on those other topics...you know it, I know it.
And Im not an idiot.
I know you have run out of other wars to fight here and thats the only reason you are in this thread.
Either contribute TO this topic itself or control yourself like a big boy and dont post.

I do not agree with the Catholic Traditions either, and we are in agreement on this point; but all you have done is replace it another traditional teaching called orthodoxy BUT you claim to stand on God's Word; BUT ONLY when it fits your spin or agenda or bias. If the verse does not fit you spin it and refuse to back it up with God’s Word.

Either present a case for or agaisnt SS or please find a way to not post at all here.
Im not going to help you derail this thread....I'll report you instead after this. Are we clear ?

 

[Aero_Hudson]

This might be a little off topic but can I remind posters here that we are all brothers. Let's not let some doctrinal disagreements come between us and the core beliefs that we all share. Let's pipe it down a bit a remain civil. No need to get worked up.

Just some thoughts... :D

 

[Ed the Ned]

Just a small query as I have got a bit lost over all the heated debating. Is the question to this Thread:
Is Scripture alone Biblical? My question is the Bible scripture? The answer is Yes. Do I believe that the Bible is Gods Word? Yes. Have certain denominations added to Gods word to serve their earthly desires? Yes (Both sides of the spectrum both Roman Catholic and the emerging church). If we don't have a solid and authoritive source to define our beliefs and we allow human thoughts to be added and taken away from the word at will we end up the beliefs like: We are God, Mary has authority over Jesus etc etc etc. We can see it in Bible translations when the words are being replaced to accomodate the gender sensitive people and so on. I personaly believe that God has given us his Word in form of the Bible and we are to learn and get instruction from it, we are not to add to it. It has been printed so that individuals can have access to it daily. Yes we need fellowship and guidance but a Church is not to add to scripture or take away from it. I believe that everything should be checked against what the Bible says to determine if it is correct or not.

 

[francisdesales]

What YOU want to do is dismiss Gods word entirely and so you and your church can make up ANY nonsense 'tradition' you want....any TEACHING you want...and there is NOTHING in writing to hold you accountable.

More feabile attempts to attack the messenger with your pretend ability to "know what I want". I want nothing of the sort. I have over and over spoke about the goodness of Sacred Scriptures for building up the Christian in his walk. I have already said on numerous occasions that I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and Catholic doctrines come from them, implicitly or explicitly. Nice try.

The problem is that if I do not worship it, I am black-balled by the sola scriptura police. Anyone who does not worship the god of sola scriptura itself must want to "dismiss God's Word entirely".

How juvenile.

Grow up and try to use some common sense. The topic is on whether the Bible ALONE is in the bible. Me pointing out that the Bible does NOT say IT ALONE is the sole source of our faith is DEFENDING the Bible. It has nothing to do with me getting RID of the Bible "entirely"... What sort of buffoonery is this? More drama, I guess, since you don't have a logical leg to stand upon, you must invent your own show... Attack the messenger, that's the tactic of the week...

At least *I* have some WRITTEN authority..something concrete, in which to discern with.

And where does this WRITTEN authority tell us that IT ALONE is the sole source of our faith???

Back on topic, please...

Defend your point of view from the Bible (since SURELY, this RULE would be FOUND in Scriptures if it was VALID. WHO would be so silly as to invent a rule that the rule ITSELF does not follow????)

All you have is whatever you are told to believe regardless of whether it is in direct conflict of Gods words nor not.

Private interpretation is your forte. You are enamoured with yourself. You merely use the Bible to back up your already-held ideas and schemes. If the Bible is against it, such as sola fide or re-marriage, you must invent some scheme... It seems your theology is FULL of extra-biblical notions...

I trust God and place myself in His Hands. The proud are not capable of doing such things.

Are you EVER going to actually do something other then run in circles and invent arguments that I don't even make? Where did I say I want to do away with the written Word of God? What sort of "FoC" invents such dribble??? No doubt someone who cannot admit they are wrong.

 

[francisdesales]

What's the topic again?

Sola Scriptura....the bible is the authority.
Did you forget ?

:biglol

Anyone can read that you are avoiding the topic, not me. At this stage, you have buried yourself so deeply, I feel sorry for you since you are so in denial...

Kind of like the boy who refuses to say a punch in the arm doesn't hurt, when everyone knows that it does when he winces in pain... You remind me of that kid in so many ways.

Now, if you are serious, try telling us how the Bible ALONE is the sole authority, and this rule is found in the Bible. Stop lollygagging around and cut to the chase.

Where are all these verses? Or are you waiting for me to go to theologyonline.com before you can give me this gnostic wisdom that you are hiding from everyone here??? Oh, it's a big secret, so it must await our further discussions on a "real" apologetic site that doesn't have such restrictions on posting Scriptural verses.

Yea, christianforums.net is peculiar about such things, they don't let you post bible versions here, so maybe we should go to theologyonline...



Can you prove it or are you just whining because your pride is hurt?

 

[francisdesales]

Report me. That is all you have.

How many times have you been asked by me to show scripture prove your claim and blatantly refused to give one verse in defense of your false claims; even thought you have shown verses that totally contradict you claim.

I do not agree with the Catholic Traditions either, and we are in agreement on this point; but all you have done is replace it another traditional teaching called orthodoxy BUT you claim to stand on God's Word; BUT ONLY when it fits your spin or agenda or bias. If the verse does not fit you spin it and refuse to back it up with God’s Word.

You got this "FoC" pegged.

And that is the funny part, one that "FoC" fails to acknowledge...

This argument does NOT rely on Catholic Tradition, but on whether the Bible ITSELF makes the claims that these magicians and charlatans claim. A Catholic, a Christian not taken in by the false teaching of SS, an agnostic, a Muslim - it doesn't matter. We can ALL disprove the premise of this thread.

Where does the Bible state that it is the SOLE source of Christian doctrine?

To prove this merely requires us to LOOK IN THE BIBLE and find NOTHING ABOUT THIS "DOCTRINE". It doesn't rely upon a replacement theology, it doesn't require us to discard the Bible, it doesn't require a person be of any particular faith community. It requires a bit of common sense and conventional logic to see that, as it stands, sola scriptura is an 'extra-biblical' tradition, nowhere found in the Book that is called the Bible.

Quite simple, except for those who worship sola scriptura and are too embarrassed to admit they are wrong...

 

[francisdesales]

[/b] My question is the Bible scripture? The answer is Yes. Do I believe that the Bible is Gods Word? Yes. Have certain denominations added to Gods word to serve their earthly desires? Yes (Both sides of the spectrum both Roman Catholic and the emerging church). If we don't have a solid and authoritive source to define our beliefs...

What is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, Ed?

I know this is getting off topic slightly, but God did not leave us with only a Bible and HOPE we would get it right. No, look at the end of Matthew 28. Christ established a particular community and tasked THEM with preaching and teaching the Gospel. Not a Bible. In fact, Jesus does not mention anything about writing His teachings down for future generations. Apparently, He was quite confident about HIS ability to protect this Community from error in matters of faith and morals.

Now, I agree that the Bible is God's Word. But the point of this thread is "IS THE BIBLE ALONE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE". There is a marked difference between accepting and heeding the Bible, which I do, and one that tells me, as per extra-biblical traditions of men, that ONLY the Bible tells me what I should do - and THAT, my friend, doesn't take INTERPRETATION into account!!!

and we allow human thoughts to be added and taken away from the word at will we end up the beliefs like: We are God, Mary has authority over Jesus etc etc etc. We can see it in Bible translations when the words are being replaced to accomodate the gender sensitive people and so on. I personaly believe that God has given us his Word in form of the Bible and we are to learn and get instruction from it, we are not to add to it.

Any interpretation or commentary on Sacred Writ is "ADDING" to the Scriptures and our personal understanding of it. The minute you take up a commentary or read the Scriptures with your own personal background, you are "adding" to it. That, in of itself, is not wrong.

We can surmise that "doctrines" that teach the opposite of God's Scriptures are incorrect. But there is a world of difference in plumbing the depths of Scriptures and see what God implies with the writings and inventing something that is just not there. Sola Scriptura is just not there - it even contradicts some Scripture verses. This should set off sirens of warnings to the open minded.

In addition, the Bible itself tells us of another source of infallible truths. We know what it is. Christ, according to Matthew, tells Christians who disagree to take their disagreements to THIS source. NOT THE BIBLE. TO THE CHURCH.... The Church, led by Christ, guided by the Spirit, is the Body of Christ. Indwelled by the Holy Spirit. A Bible alone just cannot work - proof of that abounds. The Bible itself tells us to go elsewhere.

The question becomes "Do I trust God"? Sola scripturists, when they reflect, must wonder if they really DO trust God, constantly demanding things in writing from Him... This is trusting God???

It has been printed so that individuals can have access to it daily. Yes we need fellowship and guidance but a Church is not to add to scripture or take away from it. I believe that everything should be checked against what the Bible says to determine if it is correct or not.

I agree, but the Bible is not our only source of truth. Keep that in mind - the Bible gives us another source of truth that we have objective access to, something OUTSIDE of our own deviated and pride hearts. Appealing to "bible alone" is an excuse to soothe our prides and make us the keeper of our souls, when the Bible, quite frankly, has a different plan throughout. God places leaders over EACH of His various communities. Isn't that a cause to wonder about this "I can read the Bible myself and figure it all out" mindset?

Thus, sola scriptura fails, not only formally, since there are no bible verses that verify it, but also because ANOTHER source is vouched for in Scriptures. If one were to read the lives of the first Christians, they would see that THEY, TOO, agreed that this other source of authority was not in contradistinction to the Sacred Scriptures. If one REALLY believes in the Word of God as the Word of God, they would heed ALL of it, not just the parts that justify their own whims...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Again....MANY of the LETTERS Paul wrote didnt even contain the ENTIRE gospel...and canon did not yet exist as such...so in WHICH LETTER do you claim Paul should have written 'THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINE" when at that point in time there WAS NO NT BIBLE ????

Bravo, so put two and two together - sola scriptura is not in the letters that we have, thus sola scriptura is an extra-biblical tradition of men. The very words above says it all, but you probably still don't get it.

Your point clearly is wishful thinking that it MUST be there, EVEN IF PAUL NEVER WRITES ABOUT IT!!! So your confounded logic makes up excuses for why Paul didn't include this invention of charlatans in Scripture! Your pillar rests on that sand??? Because the letters of Paul were not called the "Bible" yet??? A bit of thought merely exaggerates the fact that you don't have anything to stand upon.

Now, your argument is that because there was no NT Bible, we shouldn't expect to find sola scriptura in the Bible? How moronic of a conclusion is that???

:crazy

IF IT'S NOT THERE, IT'S NOT THERE!!!!

Or are you doing another magic trick for us???

Paul never once wrote about sola scriputra, the Old Testament never discusses sola scriptura. Your point merely amplifies the fact that there IS NO SOLA SCRIPTURA in the Bible, whether it was called "the Bible" or "the letter of Paul to the Corinthians". Only in the deluded fantasies of magicians can we expect to hear anyone actually buying that, IF they actually subjected this test to a tiny bit of rational thought. It is an invention of the 1500's, not in the mind of Christians of the first millenium...

Perhaps you should quit before you subject yourself to further ridicule...

 

[follower of Christ]

More feabile attempts to attack the messenger with your pretend ability to "know what I want". I want nothing of the sort. I have over and over spoke about the goodness of Sacred Scriptures for building up the Christian in his walk. I have already said on numerous occasions that I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and Catholic doctrines come from them, implicitly or explicitly. Nice try.

Im sorry, but I dont see anything in the word of God where some of these traditions are concerned...care to point them out for me ?

The problem is that if I do not worship it, I am black-balled by the sola scriptura police. Anyone who does not worship the god of sola scriptura itself must want to "dismiss God's Word entirely".

Sorry gent, we worship God....and we hold Gods WORD as it should be.

Grow up and try to use some common sense.

right back at ya

The topic is on whether the Bible ALONE is in the bible.

No, the topic is if the concept is biblical....ie does the bible tell us that OTHER sources outside the bible are to be use INSTEAD OF the bible.
I see nothing to that effect in scripture....

Me pointing out that the Bible does NOT say IT ALONE is the sole source of our faith is DEFENDING the Bible.

No...its not....play this semantics game with someone who may fall for it...
Youre putting the scriptures into questoin as BEING THE authority in matters of doctrine...which is where YOU came into this discussion when you responded to my first post.

It has nothing to do with me getting RID of the Bible "entirely"...

Semantics.

 

[follower of Christ]

And where does this WRITTEN authority tell us that IT ALONE is the sole source of our faith???

Where does it need to ?
It doesnt.
Like I said, the Jews ADDED a lot of their own 'tradition'...and they got into all sorts of trouble over it. Sound familiar ?

Back on topic, please...

Ditto

Defend your point of view from the Bible (since SURELY, this RULE would be FOUND in Scriptures if it was VALID. WHO would be so silly as to invent a rule that the rule ITSELF does not follow????)

Again with this aburdity
Again....MANY of the LETTERS Paul wrote didnt even contain the ENTIRE gospel...and canon did not yet exist as such...so in WHICH LETTER do you claim Paul should have written 'THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINE" when at that point in time there WAS NO NT BIBLE ????

....as I asked in my last post, in WHICH letter Paul wrote was he supposed to say 'THE BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF DOCTRINE" when NO BIBLE yet EXISTED ???