Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[follower of Christ]

Private interpretation is your forte.

I dont let any group of men TELL me what scriptures says, that is correct.
If you do, that is your own problem.
I have eyes and a bible and am entirely literate. I dont need anyone telling me that I need to confess to men or pay penance for sin when GODS word says nothing of the sort.
If youre ok with that, more power to ya...dont push it in my direction tho.

You are enamoured with yourself.

Yeah..I think its getting time to call Rick or Vic in on this one ...

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...

Feel more than free to start a marriage thread, friend.
After 6000+ hours of study in that area, Im certain you have nothing to offer that Ive not seen 100 times before.

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

I trust God and His WORD....

Are you EVER going to actually do something other then run in circles and invent arguments that I don't even make?

Are you ever actually going to provide that support I asked about ?
Or is this your way of distracting from the fact that you cant....even tho I offered to accept texts that no other protestant would allow you to bring to bear ?

No doubt someone who cannot admit they are wrong.

Ditto...

We done here ?
Because now your posts are pretty much nothing but ad hominems....

 

[follower of Christ]

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...

I hope this makes you feel better, FD, I really do

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.

blah blah blah...back to the topic before moderation has to come by and have us get back on topic...

-irrelevance snipped-

Where are all these verses?

Where are yours again ?
The ones where God tells Paul to tell the church that His words of instruction ARENT sufficient ?
-irrelevance snipped-

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

Yawn....

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 ???

 

[follower of Christ]

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

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 ???

To prove this merely requires us to LOOK IN THE BIBLE and find NOTHING ABOUT THIS "DOCTRINE".

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 ???

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:3skajatf]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'.[/quote:3skajatf]

 

[follower of Christ]

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.

The BIBLE is the written authority for doctrine that the CHURCH is to obey....easy enough

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???

And how moronic is it to DEMAND that a writing that was comprised of MANY individual letters that had NOT YET been put together AS a bible SAY something like 'the BIBLE IS the authority for doctrine"

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

and it WONT be.
You are like benoni with this irrational, illogical demand you are putting on the texts....completely absurd.

Paul never once wrote about sola scriputra,

THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT THEN !!!

Whew...this would almost be fun if it werent such a waste of time

the Old Testament never discusses sola scriptura.

Please.
ALL true student of scripture KNOW what happened with the Jews when they ADDED their own 'tradition' to Gods precepts.
Shall we discuss what Jesus said to the Jews about that matter ?

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...

Please
Going OUTSIDE Gods LAW was what got the Jews into trouble, gent....lets not be daft...

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

One of us should quit before we look foolish to too many readers here...thats for certain

 

[follower of Christ]

to recap....



The Authority of Gods word, the Bible
Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that the scriptures as a whole ARE Gods words...His law, His precepts, His instruction to His people and that the final authority in matter of instructions is His word.

Also see this article for more proof about the bible being Gods word:
>> The Law of Moses IS the Law of God.

Supporting Evidence
Firstly we will establish that God HAS given His instruction and HIs precepts to man and it has been recorded for us in the writings we see in the bible.
Here is one such evidence where we can see very clearly that the law of Moses as we see it in writing in our bibles IS the 'word' of God;

And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:
(1Ki 2:3 KJV)

HIS ways, HIS commandments, HIS testimonies AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Law of Moses.
Gods law very much witnesses for itself that it IS His law.
We see VERY clear evidence in the above passage that cannot be denied except by the blind, the illiterate and those with agendas, that what is in the law of Moses IS the very words of the Lord our GOD. There is no escaping this fact for those who are honest.

Paul also says to Timothy:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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.
(2Ti 3:15-17 KJV)

This most definitely applies DIRECTLY to the OLD testament as the New Testament had not yet been finished or canonized.
Notice Pauls use of 'ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God"....thus the conclusion is, assuming that Paul knew what the Hebrew scriptures were comprised of, that the entire old testament collection of 'scripture' WAS INSPIRED by God, thus WAS GODS WORD as a collective whole.

And this is where we have to actually TRUST that GOD DID actively guide men to preserve what HE wanted preserved, otherwise individual books may not be inspired and thus Pauls words to Timothy are fairly useless/meaningless as we couldnt even begin to know what actually belonged and what didnt with any certainty.
Not EVERY Old Testament book says that God is speaking directly, but we dont just assume that Paul was LYING when he said that ALL scripture in the Old testament is 'God breathed'. No, we ASSUME that Paul wasnt a liar and even those books that DONT say God is speaking directly ARE STILL His inspired word, thus ARE 'Gods word'.

2.0
The question then is are the letters and historical accounts of the New Testament 'Gods Word' or the words of men ?
Lets look at the New Testament and see what we find...

Paul shows here in no uncertain terms that what he is writing ARE the commandments of the Lord.

What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
(1Co 14:36-37 KJV)

Paul surely presents that what he has written here to the Corinthians IS the commandments of God, thus what he writes IS the 'word' of God, otherwise Paul is a liar.
Paul is also VERY clear to be sure to alert the reader to when HE is speaking his own mind. Notice here that Paul makes plain distinction between the instruction of the Lord and when he is speaking his own thoughts in the matter;

Now to those who have married I command, yet not I, but the Lord: A wife is not to be separated from her husband-- and even if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband--and a husband is not to divorce his wife.
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her.
(1Co 7:10-12 EMTV)

Paul has no need to deceive. When he is not speaking the Lords instruction he apparently isnt afraid to state the fact. So there is no reason to believe on Pauls end that when he speaks words of instruction and guidance, and even just for encouragement, that he IS speaking by inspiration of the Lord unless Paul says otherwise.


3.0
What is the TRUE churches position where Gods word is concerned ?
The church does not DICTATE that the scriptures are Gods word, no she only CONFIRMS and AGREES in the matter by the witness of the Spirit of truth who indwells the church body, through the internal evidences within the scriptures themselves and by the many witnesses throughout history whom also evidence that the bible is Gods word to His people. By 'internal evidences' is meant any EVIDENCE that shows inspiration, not some unreasonable demand that the text state 'this is Gods word' which isnt the only type of evidence for inspiration that exists, yet those with agendas might demand.
Gods does not exist BECAUSE of the church, the church exists BECAUSE of God. Nor does His word exist BECAUSE the church, but the church exists BECAUSE of Him.
Men come and men go. Church doctrines change with the winds. One day a man is called a heretic, the next he is a 'separated brother'.
We cannot trust the passing whims of man. The only tangible thing we can trust for doctrine is Gods word which does not change with each new decade and every new church leader (popes, pastors, etc) and their wavering views.
The church does not decided what is and isnt Gods word, Gods word IS His word regardless. Each word that He has inspired IS His word whether the church accepts those words or not. The church can only decide to believe that the words ARE or arent His. She cannot change the fact that they are.
We either have faith in GOD that He has preserved His word, or we do not.
GOD is the source of our even believing in Him, thus HE is the source that convinced men of inspiration when canon was being brought together, and so we have FAITH in HIM that the bible is HIS word. Not because some man told us to believe, but because His Spirit witnesses with our Spirit and because His word HAS endured for a testimony to His church that He has preserved it.

The Bible teaches that the Spirit will guide us into all truth.

However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will announce to you things to come.
(Joh 16:13 EMTV)

It also teaches us that men would arise from our very ranks, wolves who teach heresies from among ourselves, not sparing the flock...

Act 20:29 For I know this, that savage wolves will come in after my departure, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also from among you yourselves will arise men speaking things having been distorted, in order to draw away the disciples after them.

So we cannot even trust those among us with any absolute certainty, regardless of their claims. Ultimately we can only really trust the word of God that has been protected and preserved by Him, just as He did with the Old Covenant scriptures, we trust that he has done with the new, the internal and historical lending evidence that our faith in Him is very much justified.

What this comes down to is faith, not what we hear from men.
If we CANNOT trust God then we are in the wrong religion.
If we CAN trust God, then we CAN trust Him that He has not let His true assembly be deprived of the instruction He gave for her in the beginning of this age by letters and historical accounts and even prophecy as represented in our bibles.

If God did not preserve His word and the church has been left without instruction, then that means God has failed.
Since God did not fail then we can be assured that the writings by Paul and others that HE WANTED preserved for His people have BEEN preserved for them.
We trust GOD, not man, that His word HAS been kept for us even though some have tried to destroy it and others have tried to shroud it in ancient tongues to keep us from knowing it.
Gods word has prevailed because GOD has protected it, just as He has protected His church.


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';

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'.

 

[Tina]

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.

This is the 3rd time you are elevating Church Traditions ABOVE the Bible but keep denying it. You actually expect me to believe that God called the Apostles to change HIS OWN LAW, making it a REQUIREMENT for every male to be circumcised, and yet failed to inspire them to put it in writing in the Bible – His very OWN BOOK ? … Such an important “CHANGE OF GODâ€ÂS LAW†actually escaped the pages of Holy Scriptures? You claim that it was based upon the instructions of Jesus Christ Himself and the command that they obey HIM, yet such an important command from the LORD HIMSELF remained “WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL WARRANT†?? … You mean Jesus actually told the apostles and church that they can scribble His new commands somewhere outside of the Bible … and then pass it off later as “scriptures†or doctrines ???

I had a discussion with a few Catholics on the same topic of Sola Scriptura in another forum. Not only did they NEVER mention anything to this effect, but they even went so far as to say that ALL their “oral traditions†are actually mentioned in the Bible, albeit by scant inferences. I was almost beginning to wonder why the heck then are they arguing against SS !! … I do not know whether they deliberately left out the fact that Catholic Traditions actually don’t need scriptural warrant, or they simply forget to inform me ! Well, now that you are telling me, why do we then even have to argue about Sola Scriptura? Sola Sciptura is the belief of the Protestants, not the Catholics. Catholics have a totally DIFFERENT religion of your own – it’s called Catholicism, it has got nothing to do with Protestantism or the Sola Scriptura. You are entitled to follow your religion however you want based on extra-biblical doctrines, and we are also entitled to believe and follow Sola Scriptura. We are from two different worlds – 2 different religions, so is there a need to even argue about SS ??

I find it amusing that Catholics seem to take an unduly keen interest and determination to tear down SS at all costs, but I’ve never heard of a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon arguing against SS even though they also claim to believe the whole of the Bible + their own “traditionsâ€Â. It speaks volume of the JWs and the Mormons having confidence and strong faith in what they believe in without the need to tear down another sect’s belief because they don’t see Sola Scriptura as a threat to them in any way. The Catholics on the other hand, seem to exhibit a great deal of anxiety and inferiority the moment a topic of Sola Scriptura is brought up, and obviously it proves SS is such a threat to their Catholic beliefs and traditions. They seem to think that if only Sola Scriptura can be successfully debunked, then their “Traditions†must hold true. Well just so you know, just because Sola Scriptura may be debunked, it does not automatically make the Catholic Traditions true and authentic. Or just because Sola Scriptura can never be debunked, it does not mean that Catholic Traditions are all false and bogus either, no Catholic will admit to that. Protestants reject Catholic Traditions NOT just because Sola Scriptura is true and Biblical, but simply because Sola Scriptura works just fine for us and we see no need whatsoever to appeal to any other extra-biblical traditions to practice our faith and experience God in our lives.

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...

I beg to differ …..

Deuteronomy 25:4
Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.

Luke 10:7
Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."


Note that 1 Timothy 5:18 is referencing to both an OT and a NT passage and Paul calls them both “Scripture†without differentiating or segregating one from the other. The use of the term “Scripture†in 1 Timothy 5:18 for both an OT (Deut 25:4) and NT (Luke 10:7) passage shows that by this time – 64AD – portions of the NT were already considered to be of equal authority to the OT Scriptures. Luke was written in about 60-80AD. It’s obvious that even as early as during that time, authentic Scriptures were already available for quoting – the apostles were up-to-date with Scriptures and did not always had to rely on “oral†traditions. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was written by Paul in 51AD. 1 Timothy 5:18 was written by the SAME PAUL in 64AD and he was ALREADY quoting Scriptures. There’s no mention of “oral†anymore !


1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Also in this passage above that Paul wrote in 55AD – barely 4 years after he wrote 2 Thessalonians 2:15 – he is already preaching according to the Scriptures, .. NOT “ oral†traditionsâ€Â. There is no more mention of “oral†, ever again ! … Catholic Traditions are all based on one obscure and outdated word “oralâ€Â.

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.

Baptize in Greek simply means “to submerge in waterâ€Â. And we are commanded by Jesus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Matthew 28:19. What’s so hard to understand about these truths that one must reply on “Oral†transmission ? And what sort of “material†is required for baptism anyway?

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...

All it shows is that firstly, Luke and Matthew did not hang out together all the time. Secondly, God only wants us to know what He wants us to know and what we NEED to know, otherwise the Holy Book would be too bulky for man to handle. And finally Luke also wrote the 28 chapters of the Books of Acts.

If Luke carefully investigated everything from the beginning so that it seems good to him to write an orderly account so that we may know the certainty of the things we have been taught, it shows that whatever that he chosed NOT to write an orderly account of was because they were NOT taught and we need NOT be certain about those untaught, unwritten accounts.

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...

Jesus is Christ, Lord and Savior. He has every right and authority to speak to the living and the dead. In 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, Peter even narrates accounts of Jesus preaching to the dead lost.

In Numbers 21:8, God commanded Moses to set up the brazen serpent merely as a symbol of faith so that those who look upon it will receive healing and survive, but Catholics today are very fond of taking this scripture out of context to justify their own unbiblical practices of praying to idols. When the people ABUSED the brazen serpent and made an idol out of it, God finally had it destroyed (2 Kings 18:4). John 3:14-15 explains that this brazen serpent that was lifted up by Moses symbolized Christ being lifted up so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life.


.

 

[Tina]

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 ain’t my personal twisted interpretation. This is your Catholic Church’s twisted interpretation to attempt to accommodate all sort of extra-biblical traditions. Paul addressed the CHURCH OF THESSALONICA when he wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians. It is absurd to conclude that he wrote two whole books just to address to only one person Timothy. Prayers, fasting, tithes and offerings are ALL INSIDE the Bible, they are all within the scope of the Bible, and is within the “All Scriptures … for EVERY good work†that is mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16. Looks like you still don’t quite understand the entire scope of Sola Scriptura.

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...

Oh my God , Good Heavens , you still don’t understand what Sola Scriptura really means, do you ? When we mean “Bible Aloneâ€Â, it does NOT mean we sit down at home all alone and each individual read our own bible privately and exercise our Christian faith privately away from the outside world. Is that what you thought Sola Scriptura is ? Absolutely NOT! Sola Scriptura is NOT SOLO Scriptura, on the contrary, we do everything that is required, including appealing to pastors and teachers, AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO THE BIBLE. That is what Sola Scriptura really means.

“Bible Alone†means we do not adopt any practices or traditions that are not mentioned in the Bible. It does NOT mean “me and my Bible†; it does NOT mean “hey pastor, don’t tell me what to do, you are an extra-biblical source, I don’t listen to you†…. Pastors and teachers are NOT deemed extra-biblical source because they did NOT write anything that contradicts the Bible, they did not spin any new doctrines that contradict the Bible, they do not teach us anything that contradict the Bible and they are certainly not people that contradict the Bible. Extra-biblical is a term that means new doctrines and practices introduced that are NOT found in the Bible, they are the EXTRA stuff – the non-biblical stuff – hence the term “extra-biblical†. If they are found in the Bible, then they are not called “extra-biblicalâ€Â, they are called “biblicalâ€Â.

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???

Absolutely! The Bible is the ONLY means of doing good works because it is the Book that contains ALL Scriptures that are needed for EVERY good work. Now, if not only the Bible, where else is one supposed to find “Scriptures†?

Mark 7:8-9 ; Matthew 15:2-3
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men. And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

Colossians 2:8-12
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Not only do the above 2 scripture condemn man-made traditions such as Catholic Traditions formulated by Church fathers and Pope et al., but Jesus says in John 10:35 that “Scripture cannot be broken†; He did NOT say “Traditions cannot be broken†, He ONLY mentions Scriptures cannot be broken.

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.

While I partly agree with you that some pastors many disagree with others over some bible passages, rest assured that fundamental salvific issues are NEVER compromised. All Protestants believe in Sola Fide, Faith Alone, we observe baptism and holy communion (eucharist) to demonstrate our faith. We all worship God. We heed Scriptures’s call to fellowship regularly and have pastors teach and train us. All these are primary Christian practices that perfectly align with Scriptures and every Protestant follows them. Disagreements are merely on NON-essential, non-salvific matters such as “how to baptize†and how to interprete certain bible verses.

Having said that, the Popes et al. have themselves interpreted Scriptures subjectively so that Catholic Traditions can accommodate into it. The entire Catholic denomination is being led astray as a result, away from God. The Church is cursed and there are many Catholics who not only disagree with the Pope on various issues, but they even go so far to outwardly express their bitterness and dissent on the internet. Examples of such issues are the use of condoms, abortions, celibacy, homosexuality and massive cover-up of sex scandals that have cost the Catholic Church billions of dollars and closing down of numerous parishes. Hence, be rest assured that your Popes are not exactly “infallible†either, as much as they pride themselves to be so. If God is showing up big-time in Protestant Churches and not in Catholic Churches, it can only mean that Protestants MUST be doing something right !!

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...

You are talking about CULTS, and they got nothing to do with Sola Scriptura !
If only every Christian embraces Sola Scriptura, there would be NO Cults.

Matthew 28:11-15
While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

The above passage is a perfect example of ORAL traditions that went wrong. The Jews rejected the ORAL report of Christ being resurrected. They found it hard to believe. Is Sola Scriptura to blame for this ?

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 beg to differ. Understand that there are many sects today that CLAIM to be “Christians†, there are many that CLAIM to be “bible believers†, but when we interact with them, the true colors of their religion begin to manifest. Hence, please don’t confuse Protestantism with Cults. NO cult in the world subscribes to Sola Scriptura, they use the Bible + their own extra-biblical doctrines. That’s NOT Sola Scriptura at all ! If there’s any denomination that denies Trinity, it is most definitely classified as a Cult , try as they might to deny it. I know because I met one in another forum who almost got me fooled with his strange “doctrinesâ€Â, and when I interacted with him further, I discovered much later that he denied Trinity and that he actually belongs to a cult, while all along adamantly maintaining that he is a “ Bible-believing Christian†.

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...

I neither agree nor disagree with you on this, but am not going to delve into this in this thread, as I’m already rushing for time.



.

 

[Tina]

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...

It’s Catholic Traditions that are all man-made and not found in the Bible. They are based upon a-priori held convictions influenced by a Church that failed to obey God, took its own liberty to revamp the entire 10 Commandments so that the 2nd Commandments mysteriously disappeared, and the Church is now left with only 9 Commandments. This is the product of a Church that failed to embrace Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church is cursed because of what God clearly says in Deuteronomy 28 about what happens to His people that failed to obey his commandments. Note that the curses for disobedience is almost 4 times more than the blessings for obedience. Protestants are able to accept and obey all of the 10 Commandments and do not attempt to change God’s Words in any way. It’s no wonder that Protestant Churches are very blessed with God showing up to perform healings and miracles week after week.

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 !

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...

You sound like another Catholic brethren I know of who visited a Protestant Church only twice, and then came back and posted on the internet all kinds of ill-rumors about the Church based on his two visits. Needless to say, the congregation of that Church only laughed at him and ignored him. They weren’t interested in wasting time arguing with a short-sighted Catholic who only had an hidden agenda to tarnish the reputation of that Church by all means. I’m not saying that you are like that, I’m sure you are a nice guy. But what I’m trying to say is that we cannot judge anyone, any church based on one or few visits to the church. Some of my protestant friends who occasionally visit Catholic Churches have nothing much to say about the Church except that they “don’t feel the presence of God†like they do in Protestant Churches. If they do feel the presence of God, they wouldn’t mind going back to Catholic parishes more often.

If the healings etc. that are taking place in Protestant Churches are not attributed to Sola Scriptura, what else do we attribute it to ? We fast according to the Bible, we pray according to the Bible – that is, to God directly in the name of Jesus Christ , we speak in tongues according to the Bible, we worship God according to the Bible, we partake Holy Communion according to the Bible …. EVERY single thing is done according to the Bible. That is what Sola Scriptura is all about. And God is faithfully showing up to honor the faith of His people by performing church-wide healings and miracles every single week.

I live in a small island with barely 4 million people and we have 400 churches islandwide including about 30 Catholic parishes. We have 3 Protestant mega-churches with an average of 20,000 members per church. The mega-churches obviously face a pressing need to look for bigger premises to accommodate their growing congregation. They do periodically ask for additional offerings from the congregation for church-building funds, but it is always emphasized that no one should feel the compulsion to give. One time, in just one day, one of the mega-churches collected a whopping $19 million – that‘s about $30 million USD – despite the pastor’s reminders that no one should feel compelled to give if they didn’t want to. $30 million US Dollars collected on just one Sunday, and the news was splashed all across the local newspapers. The Christians were rejoicing because it goes to show how much God has blessed the congregation financially. God is showing up in our churches not only to perform healings, deliverances and miracles but also bless us with financial prosperity. Needless to say, these 3 mega-churches are the 3 richest churches in my country, not because they have been soliciting money from the congregations, but because God Himself has blessed His people with financial prosperity that they are able to give generously out of their abundance.

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.

And I find that DESPITE the smorgasbord of extra-biblical rites and rituals of the Catholic Church, I hardly hear of testimonies of healings, miracles etc. happening in the Catholic Church, perhaps just a small fraction of what God is doing in Protestant Churches. There is a Catholic Church near my home that is now seeing such miracles, just a few, but it’s a good start, and this is happening only AFTER the Protestants prayed for that church, prior to which, we never heard of a single account of healing taking place in that Catholic parish.

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.

There is a stark difference between “oral and written†.. and … “oral or writtenâ€Â.

“Oral and written†obviously means Paul wants us to follow both.

“Oral or written†means that “oral†has been translated into “writtenâ€Â, so whether we follow the “oral†or the “writtenâ€Â, they are the same.

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.

And I find it very strange and confusing that almost all Catholic Traditions are based in the SILENCE of Scripture – Non-information found in the Bible – albeit supposedly found in one obscure word found in the entire Bible – that is “oral†…. DESPITE the numerous times Scriptures are quoted and emphasized by Jesus and the Apostles, despite warnings against traditions of men, yet it’s based in the SILENCE of Scripture and extra-biblical oral activities that all of the Catholic Traditions have been introduced. The church might as well just throw out the entire Bible and just stick to her one book “Catechism†which has all of her precious traditions contained in it !

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

You mean breathing is an oral tradition ?
But it’s good to know that at least you don’t wait for your church or pope to tell you to breath.

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 “writtenââ , “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.

That’s right, it’s just a CLAIM. The gays also CLAIM that it’s God’s will for them to be gay and they CLAIM Scriptural backing by saying that God never said Gays cannot marry…. Just an example of how people can make all sorts of claims according to their whims and fancies.


.

 

[Tina]

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?

Protestants don’t believe in Apostolic Succession because not only is it unbiblical, but the Scripture used to back that doctrine was taken out of context by the Catholic Church to exercise power over the church.

Not only that. That some of the popes seized power through fraud and bribery makes one wonder whether there really was unbroken succession. Was there really laying of hands ? Let’s say hypothetically, there really was laying of hands even in the case of the popes who seized power through fraud and bribery, was that really of God ? Was that really of the Holy Spiirt ? Does it make sense for God to “ordain†someone and give him the “holy spirit†if he had forcefully seized power ? Or was that merely a CLAIM and ASSUMPTION by the Church that it was the Holy Spirit ?

Also, that the Catholic Church has attempted to cover up numerous sex scandal cases over the centuries leaves one wondering whether the apostolic succession that was “broken†by the corrupt popes was also covered up, and the people of today ASSUME that no succession was broken because of the cover-up because they trust the Church too much to dare to raise such questions.

Finally, as I stated earlier, it is indeed strange that almost all Catholic Traditions are based in the SILENCE of Bibllical Scripture, rather than what the Bible really has to say. Nowhere in the Bible is there mention of NEW doctrines and NEW traditions to be introduced by fallible men.

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.

No, not all people become Protestants only because they hear the Good News.
On the contrary, this is what Jesus Himself says :

John 4:48
“Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe."

The phrase “miraculous signs and wonders†is found 14 times in the entire Bible from the OT through the NT. It’s obvious that’s something that God WANTS to do.

Acts 4:30
Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."

Acts 14:3
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who CONFIRMED the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

Most people don’t just believe by hearing the good news, they must see the works of God before they believe. In Acts 14:3 above, “the message of His grace was CONFIRMED by enabling Paul and Barnabas to do miraculous signs and wonders.â€Â

This is precisely what’s happening in Protestant Churches in my country, and that’s why many are turning to Christ. The message of His grace is CONFIRMED by miraculous signs and wonders,

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.

Does the God of the Catholic Church ONLY performs miracles in places like Lourdes and Fatima where Marian apparitions were sighted centuries ago ? Why not in the Church, why not in homes, why not in other places ? Isn’t God omnipotent and omnipresent ?

First and foremost, Marian apparitions are unbiblical accounts. Secondly, the Church has failed to exercise the wisdom of the Bereans to examine and test such incidences against the Bible, but instead went ahead to elevate such incidents ABOVE Scriptures, hence introducing a new doctrine of “Immaculate Conception†in 1854 based on the apparitions.

In our Protestant communities, God shows up to perform healings and miracles not just in churches, but even in our homes where a body of believers, ie. a church is gathered. As regular fellowship is exhorted in the Bible ( Hebrews 10:25 ), we meet in our homes weekly to worship God, observe Holy Communion, study the bible together, speak in tongues and pray for one another. Sometimes we also fast as a group. INSTANT healings have been reported. Now did we practice anything extra-biblical? Absolutely not … Everything was done ONLY according to the Bible – Sola Scriptura. SS works for the Protestants, but if it doesn’t work for the Catholics, that’s fine by me, you can practice whatever you want, but you don't have to tear down other people’s beliefs in doing so.


.

 

[francisdesales]

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.

The BIBLE is the written authority for doctrine that the CHURCH is to obey....easy enough

That is not the argument we ordinary Christians who do not believe in your extra-biblical tradition are making. Of course we are to obey the Sacred Scrpiptures. As are you. And I still have yet to find the command that ALL that I am to believe, do, and act are found in the Scriptures.

Yet again, I ask you about Baptism. We are saved THROUGH Baptism, but what IS Baptism??? How does it take place? The Bible is quite vague on it. Why? Because oral traditions taught HOW to conduct Baptisms. People SAW how Baptisms were performed. Thus, to say that "all doctrines and practices of Christians are found in the Bible" is false. Not only because this is not mentioned, but because we do things all the time that are not clearly directed by Scriptures.

If you can put your hatred of the Church aside and actually read the supporting documents that lay out Catholic doctrine, you will find numerous supporting Scriptural verses. Yet again, you must bring up red herrings. NOWHERE have I ever said that the Church supplants the Bible. You presume that because you believe in a false dichotomy, Church v Scriptures. We believe in BOTH authorities, found in the bible itself. You support a Scriptures vs Church concept, which is not found in the Bible...

And how moronic is it to DEMAND that a writing that was comprised of MANY individual letters that had NOT YET been put together AS a bible SAY something like 'the BIBLE IS the authority for doctrine"

The point remains, since sola scriptura DEMANDS that it is our rule of faith, yet is not FOUND in Scripures... Doesn't matter what it was called in 50 AD or whether it was incomplete. Even the completed Bible doesn't point out the sola scriptura that you magically came up with. Where is the expiration date of oral traditions?

You utterly miss the point. The logic is ridiculous. But let's try to explain this another way, maybe it will sink in...

What did Paul write the Galatians??? Let me refresh your memory with the Bible, since you haven't actually tried to defend this sola scriptura notion from the Bible for quite a long time...

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:8-12

Lots going on here.

1. Paul (along with the other "apostles") believes he is giving the Word of God to the Galatians. This Word is NOT a written letter only, but oral and written teachings, as he had yet to write the Galatians and told them he had already given them these teachings. NOWHERE does Paul EVER write that he has compiled all teachings into writings. That is later rebels who make that claim without any warrant.
2. Paul states without doubt that HIS Gospel, the preaching of the Apostles, is without error. He realizes that he has been given the authority to "bind and loosen" upon the community his particular interpretation of that Gospel. Note, this does not depend upon a book, as the "Book" had not been completed.

However, it is the simpleton who says "there was no bible yet", since there was a rather LARGE Old Testament that existed. IF the concept was valid, Paul would have written SOMEONE about this???

3. Anyone who teaches another Gospel is a false teacher. That clearly speaks of his idea of his infallibility in preaching the Gospel, orally or in written form.
4. Paul does not say that his future writings ALONE would be formulative, nor does he say "only this letter" is worthy of the Gospel. NO PROPHET from the OT mentions such an idea. Jesus Himself never states this. Paul says ALL that I have taught you. Nowhere is the claim that writings will be forthcoming that eliminate the need of other teachings. Quite obviously, this total Gospel is not summed up in the letter to the Galatians, since the Eucharist is not even mentioned in this letter. Thus, the teachings that the Galatians possessed would include what they had been taught and the letter they had received from Paul.
5. Paul makes absolutely no distinction between his written and oral teachings. If he taught it as Gospel, it was Gospel. He clearly believes he gives the true Gospel from God, and does not fret about whether he included every subject in his writing to the Galatians. He is concerned about Judaizers and bad moral practices. He rarely addresses the resurrection, the Eucharist, or the Incarnation, key elements of the faith. But if Paul was a responsible teacher, it becomes apparent that he must have mentioned other teachings via oral form...

It is PURE SPECULATION to PRESUME that Paul even THOUGHT about writing everything down.

Thus, to the Galatians, sola scriptura was the FURTHEST thing from their mind.

6. Based upon Paul's authority, the community accepted Paul's claim. We know crackpots exist and always have. They make wild claims about God and their relationship with Him. No doubt, there were many false preachers during Paul's time - he writes about them specifically. What makes PAUL'S letters "FROM GOD", while others are not? Is it so self-evident that Paul's letter is "Scripture"? Not on its own merit. They KNEW Paul and SAW Paul. They saw the Spirit working through Him and the Community, the Church. They came to believe that he WAS telling the truth. And so they accepted Paul's CLAIMS. They didn't NEED to call the "letter of Paul to the Galatians" with the formal term "Sacred Scripture" because they ALREADY BELIEVED what he SAID AND WROTE was from God Himself.

This is how I know the Bible is from God, because of the witness of the Church, people like Paul. Not because of such silly arugments that are circular...

7. This idea of infallibility was not an aberation. Second Peter writes the same thing about Paul's writings, apparently voicing the common opinion of the second generation Church:

even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 2 Peter 3:15-17

Clearly, the Christian community believed that Paul's Gospel, both orally and written, was infallible. His writings were termed "Scriptures". Note carefully the text "they that are unlearned wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction".

First, it seems that Paul's teachings were accepted as from God, as is Scriptures.
And secondly, without proper learning, given by the Church, one reads Scriptures unto destruction.

This is among the many verses that clearly tell us that "sola scriptura" is unbiblical. HOW can a "Bible alone" theology lead to one's own destruction??? Because the Bible is a tool that CAN be dangerous in the wrong hands; it leads to false interpretations. And thus, such teachings are no longer part of the infallible teachings given by Paul. WRITINGS can be twisted and lead to destruction, without proper guidance:

a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. Acts 8:27-31

The eunuch was a humble man and realized he needed help, guidance. We all do. Only the proud deny they need help. Here is another Biblical example of the notion that sola scriptura was never part of the Christian mindset. It was only later proud men, such as Luther, who invented sola scriptura so they could support their false gospels. The Church was established by Jesus Christ for the purpose of preaching and teaching the Gospel. Nothing about writing bibles. A Bible alone cannot teach the Gospel effectively, since unlearned reading LEADS TO DESTRUCTION. Without the Church, one is bound to be "destroyed".

Do we have any Scriptures that tell us that we are to remove ourselves from the Community of believers and interpret Scriptures on are own? Are we told that only written teachings are or WILL be operative? No. Thus, the entire thesis of sola scriptura is built upon sand. It has no scriptural support - and reading the Bible clearly points that out.

THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT THEN !!!

I am still scratching my head on how you get from "A" to "B" on that one.


Where exactly do you get sola scriptura from, then, if you admit it is not in the Bible that we NOW have??? Thanks for continuing to supply fertilizer for sola scriptura's grave...

the Old Testament never discusses sola scriptura.

Please.
ALL true student of scripture KNOW what happened with the Jews when they ADDED their own 'tradition' to Gods precepts.

Please? No, I will again prove you are clueless on the ways of the Scriptures.

Clearly, you are uninformed on Christ's warning against tradition. HE HIMSELF practised "extra-biblical" traditions, as well. The traditions that He chastized were those that moved people from God. There is NOT any warning to "remain within the Bible". True students of scripture know that you foist a false definition of "tradition" upon us. Jesus warns against such things as Corban, which circumvents the Commandments of God to honor one's parents. Just to refresh your memory (assuming you have EVER read this...)

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, [It is] Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free]. Mark 7:6-11

Note carefully what Jesus is condemning here, not your usual poorly thought-out cliches, but rather, avoiding the Will of God. He never mentions that a belief to be held must be found in the Bible. THUS, true biblical scholars do not fall for "sola scriptura", since it is a self-denying precept. In reality, it is a false teaching that Christ WARNS ABOUT, since it DOES move men and women from part of the Word of God, oral teachings and understandings of the Scriptures.

Shall we discuss what Jesus said to the Jews about that matter ?

I already have above, and again, you are wrong...

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...

Going OUTSIDE Gods LAW was what got the Jews into trouble, gent....lets not be daft...

It is, but one can do that WITH THE BIBLE IN THEIR PAWS! Second Peter makes that clear that men go off to their own destruction by ignoring the proper interpretations from the Church and reading Paul's letters. So let's not be daft, and let's actually listen to the Word of God, not people who prefer to hear themselves talk...

One of us should quit before we look foolish to too many readers here...thats for certain

We agree on that, and I am trying to allow you to save face, but you are too stubborn, I guess. I use Scriptures to refute you again and again, and you just repost the same snippets that quite frankly, are either not the subject matter (whether the Bible is God's Word - not under argument) or some crazy notion that says that because the NT didn't exist, sola scriptura doesn't have to be mentioned in the letters that NOW make up the bible... :crazy

Abra-cadabra, poof...

 

[follower of Christ]

whew....this was becoming pointless a LOOOONG while ago ;)
Any see the dead horse for a while here ?

 

[follower of Christ]

That is not the argument we ordinary Christians who do not believe in your extra-biblical tradition are making.

"we" being the catholic church.
Please do not include SS believing protestants in your statements.

WE believe that GOD INSPIRED men like Paul to write then PROTECTED that instruction HE gave to His people.

Of course we are to obey the Sacred Scrpiptures. As are you. And I still have yet to find the command that ALL that I am to believe, do, and act are found in the Scriptures.

Ill keep copying and pasting the response every time you bring this absurdity up again..

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 ???

Yet again, I ask you about Baptism. We are saved THROUGH Baptism, but what IS Baptism???

Firstly, when ALL of the data is harmonized, we see that we are saved by faith in the only begotten Son of God.
Secondly, when we are born again, are are 'baptised' into His Spirit and for most christians they will have a desire to be water baptised as an outward profession of this new found faith.

How does it take place? The Bible is quite vague on it.

No, the Bible isnt vague at all for the STUDIED individual who isnt just taking someone elses word for gospel.
Get a bible...you'll love yourself for it

 

[follower of Christ]

If you can put your hatred of the Church aside and actually read the supporting documents that lay out Catholic doctrine, you will find numerous supporting Scriptural verses.

Ive read the support..and I know it doesnt SAY what the CC claims it says....which is why I asked
And Ive also read things like the False Decretals....that sort of thing makes me steer clear of the CC and her 'traditions' and anything else she teaches.

Yet again, you must bring up red herrings.

Of which you have been king in this thread.

NOWHERE have I ever said that the Church supplants the Bible. You presume that because you believe in a false dichotomy, Church v Scriptures. We believe in BOTH authorities, found in the bible itself. You support a Scriptures vs Church concept, which is not found in the Bible...

IN matters of DOCTRINE the BIBLE is the FINAL authority.

Answer the question.
*IF* you church gives instruction that is AGAINST the writings in the bible....are they right or wrong ?

STOP dodging and give an answer....


.

 

[follower of Christ]

The point remains, since sola scriptura DEMANDS that it is our rule of faith, yet is not FOUND in Scripures...

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 ???

Doesn't matter what it was called in 50 AD or whether it was incomplete

yeah...it does...and the fact that you dont think it matters shows just how little you understand here.
Paul did NOT KNOW that any of his letters would become THE BIBLE...so it is PREPOSTEROUS for you to make the demand you are making.
Only the desperate here....you and benoni....would make such ridiculous demands on the texts..

 

[francisdesales]

This is the 3rd time you are elevating Church Traditions ABOVE the Bible but keep denying it. You actually expect me to believe that God called the Apostles to change HIS OWN LAW, making it a REQUIREMENT for every male to be circumcised, and yet failed to inspire them to put it in writing in the Bible – His very OWN BOOK ?

No, that is not the point. The point is that the Apostles didn't look to a sola scriputra mind-set when they went to Council and found that they and the Holy Spirit agreed that it was good to set aside the requirement that HAD been binding. Which verse did the Apostles use to proof text their ability to stop this requirement???

Such an important “CHANGE OF GODâ€ÂS LAW†actually escaped the pages of Holy Scriptures?

Please refer me to the verse they used at the Council, when they made their determinations... where is the sola scriptura attitude here?

You mean Jesus actually told the apostles and church that they can scribble His new commands somewhere outside of the Bible … and then pass it off later as “scriptures†or doctrines ???

What does the Acts of the Apostles say on the matter? The Apostles, Peter and Paul, had been given this particular teaching. They claim by God. They claim this teaching overrode the demands given to Jews. Subsequent entry into the Kingdom did not depend upon mutilating the flesh. At the time of this determination, what was their Scriptural warrant, Tina? Obviously, we believe that God indeed inspired the Apostles to act in this manner. They claim they did, and they were believed. Obviously, the Judaizers did not believe them, since they continued to preach against Paul and the Council on this matter.

I had a discussion with a few Catholics on the same topic of Sola Scriptura in another forum. Not only did they NEVER mention anything to this effect, but they even went so far as to say that ALL their “oral traditions†are actually mentioned in the Bible, albeit by scant inferences.

I presume they meant "Apostolic Traditions". But not all "oral traditions" are in the Bible. Some are very vague and require interpretation. And not all oral traditions need to be followed. The Church tells me which ones are Apostolic and which are Church disciplines and devotions that I am free to take up or set aside (like the rosary). Nor does the Bible demand such slavish adherence to such a rule. All that the Bible demands is that we do not have traditions that lead us from God (see Mark 7:6-11 for an example).

I was almost beginning to wonder why the heck then are they arguing against SS !! … I do not know whether they deliberately left out the fact that Catholic Traditions actually don’t need scriptural warrant, or they simply forget to inform me ! Well, now that you are telling me, why do we then even have to argue about Sola Scriptura? Sola Sciptura is the belief of the Protestants, not the Catholics. Catholics have a totally DIFFERENT religion of your own – it’s called Catholicism, it has got nothing to do with Protestantism or the Sola Scriptura. You are entitled to follow your religion however you want based on extra-biblical doctrines, and we are also entitled to believe and follow Sola Scriptura. We are from two different worlds – 2 different religions, so is there a need to even argue about SS ??

The difference is that Protestants DEMAND explicit biblical writings to support a tradition or practice or belief. The problem is that demand ITSELF is not biblical. There is nothing wrong with asking for biblical support or warrant, and nothing we do should go against what the Bible says, when properly understood. However, it is the demand for the Marian doctrines of the Assumption from the bible, for example, that are misplaced. Sola scriptura is a belief of SOME Protestants, but it is an inaccurate and extra-biblical notion, which seems to me to be hypocritical. Why do we argue? Because we love our brothers and sisters who have separated themselves (or were born separated) from our community and we desire unity, as does our Lord and Savior. Jesus also could have had the same attitude towards the Pharisees, but He taught the truth. The truth must be heard and it is up to you to decide if it is worthy of being followed and does have Scriptural backing.

I find it amusing that Catholics seem to take an unduly keen interest and determination to tear down SS at all costs, but I’ve never heard of a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon arguing against SS even though they also claim to believe the whole of the Bible + their own “traditionsâ€Â. It speaks volume of the JWs and the Mormons having confidence and strong faith in what they believe in without the need to tear down another sect’s belief because they don’t see Sola Scriptura as a threat to them in any way.

You are comparing apples and oranges, Tina. The Catholic Church was established by Christ and the Apostles. Naturally, the Mormons and JV's are not going to "tear down" SS because IT maintains their separation from the Church. It does for you, as well. it gives you a sense of security that justifies your continued separation, despite Christ's prayer that "they be one". Thus, Catholics have a duty to preach and teach the Gospel and call our separated brethren to return home. JV's and Mormons do not have that incentive, they prefer to remain where they are...

I presume you are aware of the similar attitudes found within the pages of the NT and how Paul and John and Peter and Jude and James all fought against false teachers. Was it for the sake of "keeping the peace"? No, it was done with the intent of love, calling people back to the truth, for only within the Truth can one fully experience Jesus Christ.

The Catholics on the other hand, seem to exhibit a great deal of anxiety and inferiority the moment a topic of Sola Scriptura is brought up, and obviously it proves SS is such a threat to their Catholic beliefs and traditions.

SS is not a threat, it is a joke. We are saddened that so many people are taken in by such a ridiculous and hypocritical doctrine. Why would we desire you to wallow in error? We strongly desire your return to us, and oftentimes, SS is the barrier that needs to be broken down to allow you to come home.

Well just so you know, just because Sola Scriptura may be debunked, it does not automatically make the Catholic Traditions true and authentic.

Of course... That is not why I feel the need to debunk SS!! I think you are misinterpreting our intentions. We place our faith in God's Work through the Church, which INCLUDES the Sacred Scriptures. God continues to work through the sacraments, the Bible, the Mass, and through other people we encounter.

Being Protestant is being an incomplete Christian. You are missing out on one of the greatest gifts of God, the Eucharistic Banquet, where He gives Himself to us, totally, Body, and Soul. Because you reject "Catholic Traditions" in favor of "Protestant traditions" which do not go back to the Apostles, you are missing out on the experience you COULD have. Not to say you do not have a relationship with Christ. But it would be improved, just as your relationship with your husband or significant other improves as you experience him more fully.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Luke 10:7
1 Timothy 5:18

Where is "Bible only" here???

Note that 1 Timothy 5:18 is referencing to both an OT and a NT passage and Paul calls them both “Scripture†without differentiating or segregating one from the other. The use of the term “Scripture†in 1 Timothy 5:18 for both an OT (Deut 25:4) and NT (Luke 10:7) passage shows that by this time – 64AD – portions of the NT were already considered to be of equal authority to the OT Scriptures. Luke was written in about 60-80AD. It’s obvious that even as early as during that time, authentic Scriptures were already available for quoting – the apostles were up-to-date with Scriptures and did not always had to rely on “oral†traditions. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was written by Paul in 51AD. 1 Timothy 5:18 was written by the SAME PAUL in 64AD and he was ALREADY quoting Scriptures. There’s no mention of “oral†anymore !

I have no problems with your discussion on how the nascent community realized and recognized that some writings were comparable to the Sacred Scriptures of the OT. However, I don't see any mention that 2 Thessalonian's mandate is abrogated, Tina. You take one sentence, 1 Tim 5:18, and because there is no mention of oral teachings, then oral teachings were abrogated? That is a tremendous leap of logic that is not supported by the rest of Scriptures. I remind you that Paul HIMSELF said that BOTH oral and written teachings were to be adhered to. WHY? Because these teachers had the power to bind and loosen the Christian community. NOT because they were slavishly following words in a book. Since there are no words that suggest that we DISMISS oral teachings, the command of Paul remains in place. You cannot just PRESUME that based on an argument from silence and your extra-biblical tradition.

Now, if we saw the first Christians ACTUALLY PRACTISING sola scriptura in the 2nd and 3rd century, you would have a leg to stand upon. You could use historical practice to show that the First Christians really DID understand that written word swallowed up oral traditions. This is NOT what we see, Tina. Thus, it is crystal clear that sola scriptura was NEVER the intent of the Christians of the first millenium. It is a MUCH LATER deviation added to the Gospel. The historical ACTUAL practice of Catholics in the first few centuries clearly points to the non-existence of sola scriptura.

Baptize in Greek simply means “to submerge in waterâ€Â. And we are commanded by Jesus to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Matthew 28:19. What’s so hard to understand about these truths that one must reply on “Oral†transmission ? And what sort of “material†is required for baptism anyway?

Washing my clothes is also "baptizing", right? Don't you think that the Christian community UNDERSTOOD something MORE than just going for a swim??? This is where oral tradition comes into play. It is the understanding of what baptism was, "filling in the blanks" that Scriptures leaves.

All it shows is that firstly, Luke and Matthew did not hang out together all the time.

Yet, you said EVERYTHING in the literal sense. Clearly, Luke didn't research as much as you give him credit...

Secondly, God only wants us to know what He wants us to know and what we NEED to know, otherwise the Holy Book would be too bulky for man to handle. And finally Luke also wrote the 28 chapters of the Books of Acts.

God wants us to know what we need to know does NOT mean it must be known through a BOOK!!! Thus, God has given us pastors, preachers, teachers, apostles, prophets, etc., to that His Word can filter through to us. Often times, this Word is an explanation of very vague concepts from Scriptures, like the end-times. It is presumption to state that God told us everything ONLY in the Bible. If so, we wouldn't NEED these pastors, preachers, teachers, etc. We could just get our Bibles and read it ourselves, formulating whatever doctrines suit us.

Unfortunately, this is not how the TRUTH is passed on. That concept you have is clearly not biblical.

In Numbers 21:8, God commanded Moses to set up the brazen serpent merely as a symbol of faith so that those who look upon it will receive healing and survive, but Catholics today are very fond of taking this scripture out of context to justify their own unbiblical practices of praying to idols.

We don't pray TO idols, if you are refering to statues. We use the visible statue to help move our minds to the actual person, asking him/her for their PRAYERS. NOT EVEN DEATH can separate a saint from Christ, so their prayers are efficacious. This indeed is Scriptural. I can ask you for prayers for my sake. Why would I need to ask you for anything, why can't I go right to Jesus? But there, Paul writes to Timothy et. al, urging Christians to pray for Paul, pray for others...

Your complaining is misplaced because you do not understand what we do and why. You see us in front of a statue and ASSUME we are praying TO A PIECE OF WOOD as if this was God! Ridiculous.

When the people ABUSED the brazen serpent and made an idol out of it, God finally had it destroyed (2 Kings 18:4). John 3:14-15 explains that this brazen serpent that was lifted up by Moses symbolized Christ being lifted up so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life.

The Jews prayed TO THE SNAKE AS IF IT WERE A "GOD". We don't, so the comparison falls short...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

That is not the argument we ordinary Christians who do not believe in your extra-biblical tradition are making.

"we" being the catholic church.
Please do not include SS believing protestants in your statements.

Benoni is not Catholic. Nor is stranger or drew. There are other examples of non-Catholics who do not believe in the farce called "SS". As usual, you fall short in your presumptions, the typical "protestants v catholic" polemics. This has nothing to do with such reformation period arguments, but whether SS is even found in what we now call the bible. It isn't. End of story...

Again....MANY of the LETTERS Paul wrote didnt even contain the ENTIRE gospel...

Nor do they TODAY... Can't you get that through your thick skull?

and canon did not yet exist as such...

I have already (as has Tina) that the earliest Christians already began to accept the writings of Paul and others as comparable to Tina. Perhaps you should read the Bible and 2 Peter 3. I just quoted it for you. Stop copying and pasting and try to address the posts...

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 ????

And yet again, there WAS a Bible during the time of Paul - and no sola scriptura. At what point in Christian practice did this "SS" become operative???

....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 ???

OLD TESTAMENT. NOT A WORD. NOR DOES PAUL CORRECT THESE OT WRITERS...



You merely provide more nails for the coffin...

 

[follower of Christ]

Where is the expiration date of oral traditions?

As far as UNscriptural ones, they 'expired' from the moment they contradicted Gods written word.
As far as those that dont go against scripture, have at it...do what you want. If you want to cluck like a duck when you pray, more power to ya....just dont even pretend that *I* have to do the same.

You utterly miss the point. The logic is ridiculous. But let's try to explain this another way, maybe it will sink in...

Your absurdity WONT SINK IN, gent.
I dont know how many more times you think you will run thru this nonsense thinking its going to have some effect on me.
I can tell you now your WASTING both our time....but Ill keep responding as long as this thread remains open and as long as you continue with it

What did Paul write the Galatians??? Let me refresh your memory with the Bible, since you haven't actually tried to defend this sola scriptura notion from the Bible for quite a long time...

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:8-12

Yeah...there ya go...ANOTHER gospel.
So when ANY church, including your own, does things that are contrary to THE gospel of Christ...let that person be accursed.

Paul was taught THE gospel by Jesus Himself....Paul then conveyed that gospel in his writings, more exhaustively in letters such as Romans and Hebrews.
.

1. Paul (along with the other "apostles") believes he is giving the Word of God to the Galatians. This Word is NOT a written letter only, but oral and written teachings, as he had yet to write the Galatians and told them he had already given them these teachings. NOWHERE does Paul EVER write that he has compiled all teachings into writings. That is later rebels who make that claim without any warrant.

TA DA !
And GALATIANS is a VERY short letter...and it is dealing with VERY precise issues. So SOME Of the data is in there...SOME of it is in OTHER writings such as Romans and Hebrews.

2. Paul states without doubt that HIS Gospel, the preaching of the Apostles, is without error. He realizes that he has been given the authority to "bind and loosen" upon the community his particular interpretation of that Gospel. Note, this does not depend upon a book, as the "Book" had not been completed.

Youre destroying your own case here gent, seeing that what PAUL taught was CONSISTENT..what the RCC has taught over the years, even that which had nothing to do with 'tradition' has been ANYTHING BUT consistent.

However, it is the simpleton who says "there was no bible yet", since there was a rather LARGE Old Testament that existed. IF the concept was valid, Paul would have written SOMEONE about this???

Ridiculous.
WHEN PAUL WROTE there was NO collective writing yet called 'the bible'.
It is YOUR absurdity that demands that Paul HAD to have known there would be a 'Bible' and would have known to write 'the BIBLE is the authority in matters of doctrine'.
PREPOSTEROUS !

3. Anyone who teaches another Gospel is a false teacher. That clearly speaks of his idea of his infallibility in preaching the Gospel, orally or in written form.

Id take this one VERY seriously if I were one who pushed things like penance, confession to priests, co-repemptrix nonsense, etc....but thats just me...

4. Paul does not say that his future writings ALONE would be formulative, nor does he say "only this letter" is worthy of the Gospel.

Absurd.
Paul doesnt HAVE TO say it.
Paul says AGAIN and AGAIN that HIS gospel IS CHRISTS gospel....

NO PROPHET from the OT mentions such an idea.

NOR WOULD THEY...duh..
They didnt KNOW their writings would be collected to MAKE A COMPLETE BIBLE...there would be NO CAUSE for them to make any such statement.

Whew...

 

[follower of Christ]

benoni is not Catholic. Nor is stranger or drew. There are other examples of non-Catholics who do not believe in the farce called "SS".

And isnt it odd that benoni has some of the most godless views imaginable...including GOD forcing Adam to sin...among other atrocities.
You do yourself NO favor by bringing benoni to your aid....

As usual, you fall short in your presumptions, the typical "protestants v catholic" polemics. This has nothing to do with such reformation period arguments, but whether SS is even found in what we now call the bible. It isn't. End of story...

Please.
The story will end when this thread is closed.....

Nor do they TODAY..

Yeah...they do.

. Can't you get that through your thick skull?

Tell ya what...thats your last shot.
Next time Im calling in Rick or Vic.
Is that clear enough for you?

I have already (as has Tina) that the earliest Christians already began to accept the writings of Paul and others as comparable to Tina.

Uh..yeah...they accepted Pauls words as being inspired....I think we covered this already.
And those WRITINGS were gathered into what we call the NEW testament for instruction to the church.

Perhaps you should read the Bible and 2 Peter 3. I just quoted it for you. Stop copying and pasting and try to address the posts...

Please.
Ive read the NT at least 400 times. Go back and talk to your magisterium...*I* READ MY bible....

And yet again, there WAS a Bible during the time of Paul - and no sola scriptura.

No, there was an OLD testament at the time of Paul...and IT WAS THE word of God to those who TRULY followed God.
The Jews who ADDED their own godless tradition and were chastised for it....sound familiar ?

OLD TESTAMENT. NOT A WORD. NOR DOES PAUL CORRECT THESE OT WRITERS...

Please...stop dodging with this tripe.
*I* am discussing the NEW testament writings and you KNOW it.

You merely provide more nails for the coffin...

laughable.

 

[francisdesales]

Private interpretation is your forte.

I dont let any group of men TELL me what scriptures says, that is correct.

Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took [men]: And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, [Ye take] too much upon you, seeing all the congregation [are] holy, every one of them, and the LORD [is] among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? Numbers 16:1-3

Yea, sounds familiar to YOUR boasts...

HERE is what the man of God does, since you seem unaware of the Scriptures themselves...

behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. Acts 8:27-31

And so forth...

You are enamoured with yourself.

Yeah..I think its getting time to call Rick or Vic in on this one ...

"FoC", I give you permission. But beware of what you wish for, since your words have not been policed very well. You keep promising you will, but I'm not seeing it.

Feel more than free to start a marriage thread, friend.
After 6000+ hours of study in that area, Im certain you have nothing to offer that Ive not seen 100 times before.

Yea, and I got 20000+ hours and my mom can beat up your mom... ;)

Newbie, about the dumbest thing to do on these forums is to pretend you actually are well-versed and studied in the Scriptures when you prove over and over that you are not... No one cares how many hours you CLAIM to have studied Scriptures. You still got them wrong...

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

I trust God and His WORD....

I do, given BOTH orally and in written form. Where in my writing can you point to places I do NOT trust in His Word? Where does His WORD ACTUALLY TELL ME this sola scriptura nonsense???

You are foisting extra-biblical traditions upon me, traditions that no Christian held until the great rebellion from God's Church in the 16th century. What about you? Oh, yea, you have decided to circumvent God's Law, just as Jesus told us NOT to do in Mark 7...

We done here ?
Because now your posts are pretty much nothing but ad hominems....

Yea, you're done, stick a fork in yourself. :yes

 

[follower of Christ]

Jesus Himself never states this. Paul says ALL that I have taught you. Nowhere is the claim that writings will be forthcoming that eliminate the need of other teachings.

And only the imbecilic would DEMAND such a statement given the FACTS that Ive presented here over and again.
Paul did NOT KNOW that his writings would become a collective whole....he had NO reason to make ANY such statement in ANY of the INDIVIDUAL LETTERS that 'the BIBLE' is THE authority in matters of doctrine.

Now that we HAVE those writings gathered up for us we HAVE the WRITTEN instruction GOD WANTED the church to have....

Quite obviously, this total Gospel is not summed up in the letter to the Galatians, since the Eucharist is not even mentioned in this letter. Thus, the teachings that the Galatians possessed would include what they had been taught and the letter they had received from Paul.

Duh...and you have YET to PROVE that even ONE WORD that Paul taught them AS IT PERTAINS TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST is NOT given in other letters such as Romans or Hebrews.
When you can, give me a ring...till then I trust that GOD guided men to create His word as HE wanted it to be....just as He did with the Jews in the old covenant.

5. Paul makes absolutely no distinction between his written and oral teachings.

See above....

It is PURE SPECULATION to PRESUME that Paul even THOUGHT about writing everything down.

And it is EXACTLY the SAME speculation that God failed to gather what HE wanted to be present in His 'bible'.

Thus, to the Galatians, sola scriptura was the FURTHEST thing from their mind.

Uh...duh....they got a letter....they werent even contemplating 1900 years passing and Christ STILL not having returned.
Your logic and reasoning (ie 'excuses') are staggering.