Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[follower of Christ]

moved ahead with additions.

 

[follower of Christ]

NOT on whether the Bible is the Word of God or not (thanks to your deviation...).

Please....that is the ENTIRE issue here.
God protected His word of instruction to His people thru the Jews and thru other sinful men....If He WANTED the writings of unscriptural teachers like Augustine included in His word then it would BE there...or are you claiming that God was powerless in the matter ?

But because it is NOT ALONE as a teaching medium to instruct and perfect the saints to do the Will of God.

It certainly is.
The ECFs are completely UNtrustworthy for ANY doctrine as they absolutely cannot agree among themselves on many points of doctrine. Their own bickering is proof enough of that. They are no more trustworthy then men like John Gill or Wesley who also seem to be at odds with each other on doctrine.

Reflect on Ephesians 4:11-13 and see what this short passage does for "sola scriptura".

yeah...we already covered this passage that is irrelevant as the NT scriptures werent completed and collected together at THAT point in time....anything else ?

No doubt you will grant me that the first century of Christianity is a stunning success to the growth of Christianity WITHOUT the useage of the New Testament? Thus, a person finds the Bible USEFUL, not NECESSARY to the point of being the ONLY means of hearing God's Word. Millions are converted to God on the words of pastors and preachers alone. As we know, these men do more than just read the Scriptures to their flocks...

oh golly gee...I guess I might have to admit to being wrong....*IF* they actually had a NT at that point.
Since they DIDNT yet they had to use what they DID have....

Once GOD led sinful men to gather and collect His word into what it has become, those INSPIRED writings ARE the final authority in matters of doctrine...or is it your claim that the inspired instruction of the living God can be dismissed ?
Well, you dont have to answer that. I think youve already made it clear what you think on that point.

 

[follower of Christ]

The issue is not whether the Bible is God's Word, but rather, whether it is the ONLY place we find the infallible teachings of God.

So youre obviously claiming that the ECF's or someone else is also infallible....who ?
The popes who at one point call protestants 'heretic' and then later call them 'separated brethren' ?
Sorry, but that HUGE contradiction is enough for us to not accept the teachings of those men.
The ECFs are even worse....

Since the Bible never states that, and even ACTIVELY ENDORSING ANOTHER SOURCE (the CHURCH),

Non-sequitur, Im afraid.
That the bible doesnt expressly SAY 'this is the final authority', it does NOT follow that it isnt.

My boss NEVER said "I am your authority"...not ONCE....but I KNEW it to be true.
The same with the government. NO ONE has come to my home and told me they are my authority...so by your absurd logic here they CANT be

Im sitting on a chair here, FD...it doesnt SAY its a chair, but golly gee it sure LOOKS like a chair. Is it a chair ?
Gods WORD....His WRITTEN instruction and commandment IS the authority by default in matters of doctrine. Im sorry but its just the fact and no amount of mindnumbing repetition here is going to nullify that fact.

we can safely know that the Bible is NOT the sole source of our faith.

Strawman now ?
The source of our faith is GOD.
The FINAL written authority in matters of doctrine is the bible...

 

[francisdesales]

1. What IS the Scriptures? A community must agree on that, since the contents are not self-authenticating.

What are the OT scriptures then, gent ?
PROVE that even your church OR the Jews got it right ....you CANT...NEITHER can they.
When its all said and done the ENTIRE BIBLE can be subject to corruption/suspicion when MEN are the ones who have said what belongs and what doesnt.

GOD is the ONLY being that can be trusted. He preserved His OT scriptures by the hands of the hardhearted jew...

The problem with that is it relies on begging the question. As you said, there is no "proof" that any Church "got it right". We look at the source of the writings, the Paul's and John's (it is NOT self-evident that God wrote ANY of the Bible...) and believe their word based upon their life and teachings. This is the ordinary means by which men are converted to God. Not by the hand of God dragging men to "see the light". At the end of the day, any "experience of God" is not "proof" of God.

Thus, it is a fallacious argument to rely on "God preserved His Scriptures", when this is all after the fact begging the question. We know that God is active in the Church by viewing the life of the Church from within, not by scientific and empirical evidence.

Thus, you PRESUME that there is only ONE source that "God preserved" from on high without regarding the OTHER source that is right in front of your face, the Church.

Denying one denies the other... At the end of the day, there is no avoiding that.

2. The intent of Scriptures, when written, was not to be an all-encompassing text book.

Sorry but that is YOUR assertion and likely based on what your church as demanded that you believe.
You werent there, you didnt write it, so you have NO authority to sit here and tell us what the INTENT was, now do you ?

You are incorrect. It IS self-evident that the Scriptures were not intended to be a theologically all-encompassing book because there are large swathes of subjects not even covered! Isn't that quite obvious by our very conversations on this board???? The very structure of the bible easily leads one to conclude that it is a series of letters, the intent of which to ease the problems at particular communities, not even necessarily ALL problems that were faced by Christians.

They are letters to communities who need help and succour in the face of human tendencies and the devil. There is no indication that the author INTENDED to cover EVERY theological issue, thus, making sola scriptura void.

Fallacious.
The scripture IS our source of doctrine, therefore it is the FINAL authority in matters OF doctrine.
You dont have to agree, gent...the truth remains....

Above, you said God is the source of our doctrine, correct? Now, the BIBLE is the FINAL source??? Did Paul read a Bible BEFORE he received the revelation of God's doctrines??? Did God give Paul a "book of Mormon" or a "Koran" straight from heaven? It is those non-Christian religions that hold to such a belief, not Christians. Christianity is a religion that deals with the WORD of God, Jesus Christ. It is not absolutely dependent upon reading a book, nor is it our "source" from which all springs. It is God's CHURCH, the BODY OF CHRIST, from which He graces us, not from a Bible, since it is this very COMMUNITY that He empowered, not the Bible. The Bible was inspired BY the Spirit, but the Church is the HOUSE, INDWELLED by the Holy Spirit. It is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. You cannot ask for a more obvious words than that, if you TRULY consider the Bible to be the Word of God.

3. The Bible says it is USEFUL for teaching doctrine. NOT by itself, as Ephesians 4:11-13 points out.

Boy you really have the typical double standard, dont ya ?
You just told someone else that their passage didnt actually make the argument they were presenting...and yet here YOU are doing the exact same thing :naughty

Apparently, you will do or say anything to show you are not wrong. Saying I present a double standard isn't enough. Tell me how Ephesians 4:11-13 does not prove that the Bible is NOT the only source of perfecting the saints? Clearly, there is ANOTHER SOURCE, the TEACHING CHURCH!!! Sola is not sola...

Im sorry, show us where this says (READERS, this was written BEFORE the NT as we know it was finished and canonized...ie no 'bible' existed as of yet as far as the NT goes) 'the bible isnt the final authority in matters of doctrine'...or anything even close...

It doesn't, and it wasn't my point. This is not about whether the Bible existed or not, or your pointless logic about the NT being the Word of God based upon begging the question...

If there is another means of perfecting the saints that doesn't stress the Sacred Scriptures, apparently, sola scriptura is a false teaching. Paul taught about the Eucharist without needing to refer to the Bible. He did so orally. Hence, men can infallibly KNOW the doctrines of God by another means than reading the Bible in a vacuum.

Not only is sola scriptura false, it is COUNTER to the Gospel, as we have yet to find where Paul's COMMAND OF GOD to keep both oral and written teachings has been abrogated.

YOU claim to follow the Commands of God found in the Word of God, and yet, you cannot provide me any Command from God that countermands this command???

:naughty

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that moves people AWAY from God's Word. It is found nowhere in Scriptures, even actively pointing out ANOTHER infallible way of coming to God.

I will be busy the rest of the day, so forgive me for not "harassing you" further today.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

I can see already what my day is going to be spent doing ... ;)

The problem with that is it relies on begging the question. As you said, there is no "proof" that any Church "got it right".

There is no more proof of that than there is proof of Gods existence.
We either BELIEVE because we have faith, or we dont...simple as that.

We look at the source of the writings,

Hmmmm...and you can PROVE these sources even existed ? Were you there ?
ANY of the details could be false, friend....the entire thing could be a hoax...the bible, the whole christian and Jewish religions....so please....

At the end of the day, any "experience of God" is not "proof" of God.

Actually that experience is the ONLY actual proof there is for the individual.
Without the FATHER DRAWING NO MAN can come to Him...without the EXPERIENCE with God no person can have faith or believe.
The experience and the subsequent faith derived from Him IS THE SOURCE of our belief and our walk....

 

[follower of Christ]

Thus, it is a fallacious argument to rely on "God preserved His Scriptures", when this is all after the fact begging the question.

All these non-sequiturs are dizzying to say the least.
you have not yet proven your view, so lets not draw any fallacious conclusions from it just yet

We know that God is active in the Church by viewing the life of the Church from within, not by scientific and empirical evidence.

Thats quite a twist because this all comes down to the definition of 'church'...which Im certain isnt going to be something we agree on.
The ACTUAL meaning of the word is simply a 'calling out'...and it INCLUDES EVERY person who believes and has been born again regardless of where they are...even in their homes....
So I AGREE that God is active in the 'church'....and the intent there is that He is active in those whom have been 'called out'....ie ALL of His people wherever they are....

Rom 16:5 And greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.

1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, together with the church that is in their house.

Col 4:15 Greet the brothers who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church in his house.

Phm 1:2 to Apphia the beloved, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house:

 

[follower of Christ]

You are incorrect. It IS self-evident that the Scriptures were not intended to be a theologically all-encompassing book because there are large swathes of subjects not even covered!

oh please.....
Not even the HUGE amount of laws man has covers EVERY Single possible 'wrong' a man can commit.
It is impossible to do so because evil men will ALWAYS come up with something new to try to get away with.
The scriptures cover the basic precepts necessary and with those ANY matter can be judged.
Youre simply trying to complicate things so you sound like you have an argument....you dont.

Isn't that quite obvious by our very conversations on this board????

uh...no, its not.
That the contentious are as much doesnt mean that God failed. It means simply that some will argue that grass isnt green while looking right at it....obviously using some 'absence of light' issue to get away from the facts that the lack of reflected light DOESNT alter the composition of the grass itself.

Sounds intelligent, for certain, but in the end isnt worth a hill of rotted beans.

 

[follower of Christ]

Above, you said God is the source of our doctrine, correct? Now, the BIBLE is the FINAL source???

Hmmm....and WHERE did man get the scriptures again ?
Could be wrong, but last I read it was God

The WRITTEN word...the BIBLE....ie GODS word...is the FINAL written authority in matters of doctrine.
I didnt think I had to add the word "written" there previously because I ASSUMED we all knew that the bible is Gods 'written' word.

Did Paul read a Bible BEFORE he received the revelation of God's doctrines???

Firstly, is your claim that this pharisee of pharisees WASNT learned in the scriptures ? I certainly hope not.
Secondly Paul was the one who WROTE most of the NT instruction, friend....so of course PAUL did not have a NT BIBLE to use to begin with.
PAUL was the one who the inspired word came thru....so please...

Did God give Paul a "book of Mormon" or a "Koran" straight from heaven? It is those non-Christian religions that hold to such a belief, not Christians. Christianity is a religion that deals with the WORD of God, Jesus Christ.

Here we go with this nonsense again.
It really doesnt occur to you that youre destroying your own arguement with this one, does it ?
*IF* MAN is to be trusted...*IF* MANS WORD and WITNESS is to be trusted....the the koran or the book or mormon would BE Gods word BECAUSE MAN SAYS SO.....making any sense yet ?

We have FAITH in GOD that HE preserved His word....with FAITH that GOD gave us to begin with.

Now, lets see if we can twist that statement around to argue for Islam and Mormonism some more here ;)

It is not absolutely dependent upon reading a book, nor is it our "source" from which all springs.

uh uh...dont even try to twist my words here friend.
I NEVER said that the bible is the sole source of our faith. GOD is the source...and GODS WORD is the final written authority in mattters of doctrine....
Lets keep this above the table please...

It is God's CHURCH, the BODY OF CHRIST, from which He graces us, not from a Bible, since it is this very COMMUNITY that He empowered, not the Bible.

Define 'church' as you intend it...
edit >> Tho I disagree because the fact is that Gods word IS paramount in matters of doctrine....
Some views seem to make a mockery of Jesus' words...

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(Matthew 4:4 KJVA)

Given to us thru His prophets and apostles.
Where did Jesus (aka GOD) go and in doing so give us example ? straight to what is WRITTEN !

 

[follower of Christ]

Apparently, you will do or say anything to show you are not wrong.

Pot...kettle...black....something like that..cant remember exactly what it was....

Saying I present a double standard isn't enough. Tell me how Ephesians 4:11-13 does not prove that the Bible is NOT the only source of perfecting the saints? Clearly, there is ANOTHER SOURCE, the TEACHING CHURCH!!! Sola is not sola...

Already have, gent..you just keep ignoring facts.
The INSPIRED writings that became the NEW testament were NOT EVEN FINISHED and collected at that point in time.
And Ill ask you AGAIN where that passage SAYS that the INSPIRED writings are NOT the final authority
anything ?

It doesn't, and it wasn't my point. This is not about whether the Bible existed or not,

Of course it isnt...because that point destroys your fallacy.
Its absurdity to ask something about a book that did NOT YET EXIST !

The LETTERS of INSTRUCTION that BECAME the bible WERE inspired and ARE Gods instruction and commandment to His people and ARE the final authority.
If GODS WORDS tells husbands to love their wives are you actually claiming here that that command ISNT the final authority in the matter ????

Not only is sola scriptura false, it is COUNTER to the Gospel, as we have yet to find where Paul's COMMAND OF GOD to keep both oral and written teachings has been abrogated.

When those oral traditions conflict with Gods word they are to be abrogated....such as bowing to idols, for instance...

YOU claim to follow the Commands of God found in the Word of God, and yet, you cannot provide me any Command from God that countermands this command???

As you have yet to prove that anything not mentioned in scripture is *required* for salvation OR obedience to God...

 

[follower of Christ]

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that moves people AWAY from God's Word.

An oxymoron, for certain.

SS gives us a concrete foundation.
And yes, some try to pervert that foundation, but they will be exposed on that day. The faithful who do their best to 'study to show themselves APPROVED' need not fear as they have done what they are called to do.

It is found nowhere in Scriptures,

Such a ridiculously absurd argument. I cant believe I keep seeing this one.
If the moon doesnt have a big sign on it saying 'Im the moon' then I guess it isnt the moon

even actively pointing out ANOTHER infallible way of coming to God.

Sorry but we come to God THRU the drawing of the Father. Jesus shows that clearly in the gospels.
NO man comes to Him without that drawing, thus HE is the source.
And His written word is THE final authority in matters of doctrine...otherwise His word is fallible and full of error.

 

[follower of Christ]

Paul CLEARLY tells the Thessalonians to hold onto the traditions (teachings) that they had received - BOTH oral AND written. I find NOWHERE in Sacred Scriptures where this COMMANDMENT FROM GOD (as you have stated) has been abrogated, set aside, or made inconsequential.

These 'traditions' that existed when the WRITTEN word had not yet been concluded are LIKELY to simply be the SAME things we see IN Gods word.

I see nothing in Gods written word about confession to priests or penance...very ODD that such CRITICAL areas of doctrine (as some claim) are entirely ABSENT from the very inspired writings that the people who canonized those scriptures practiced.

We dont find it ODD that the CC was a huge factor in canonization of NT scriptures, yet the very traditions she claims is so critical to the faith isnt in the NT ANYWHERE ???

ALL you have, friend, is ONE word 'tradition' which does not say one way or another what the writer is actually referring to...what practices he means.
Your argument is thin to say the least....non-existent to be certain *IF* you are trying to use the scriptures to support your views.

I see NO evidence in Gods word that this 'tradition' mentioned includes ANY practice not specifically mentioned in scripture, which it very well COULD mean since the NT did NOT YET EXIST when the statement was made to the Thessalonians.

Which brings us right back to the start....and thus entirely stalemated and without resolution...even if you believe otherwise.

And of course we also realise that THIS sort of issue is precisely why some here have to claim that the bible is incomplete...




.

 

[Tina]

^

What Sola Scriptura is all about?

I think there’s a tad misunderstanding here about this whole issue. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument AGAINST tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, and/or anti-biblical doctrines and traditions. Bearing in mind that Sola Scriptura was only introduced in the 16th century by Luther to counter the greed and corruption of the Catholic Church then, the oral traditions that were practiced during biblical times CANNOT be used against Sola Scriptura today as the Bible wasn’t even in existence then. Today we have the whole set of the Bible and EVERYTHING a Christian NEEDS to know concerning salvation and beliefs are already clearly laid down for us in the Holy Scriptures which we now know as the Bible. Christianity is all about salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, and obedience in practicing of our faith through worship, baptism, holy communion and church fellowship, all of which are entirely Biblical. What else is there to follow? Should there still be a need to appeal to extra-biblcal beliefs and practices introduced by church fathers? If there is a compelling need for church fathers to introduce a certain new tradition, they should exercise Godly wisdom and prayerfully examine the traditions against the scriptures just as the wise Bereans did. And if there are contradictions and discrepancies, it is only right that they exercise their rightful authority to REJECT those traditions as being unbiblical and unscriptural. For failure to do so could lead to LOSS of salvation for the believers who choose to follow those unbiblical traditions, as the Bible clearly warns.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Galatians 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:3-5
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy personâ€â€such a man is an idolaterâ€â€has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

The Church has the serious responsibility to nurture and ensure salvation for its flock and not lead people astray with false hopes through unbiblical traditions. I believe Sola Scriptura is the only way to ensure that. Sola Scriptura is Biblical because from the Old to the New Testaments God has repeatedly warned His people not to add to or take away from His commands and His words. That He did not give this warning every single minute or that this warning was only mentioned in a few scriptures here and there and left out in other parts of the Bible does not in any way automatically nullify the truth about Sola Scriptura because it is by FAITH that Christians believe the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation is the Word of God and God-breathed, which 2 Timothy 3:16 confirms loud and clear – “ALL scripture is God-breathed “ …… Yes, it says all scripture is God-breathed, it never says “All scripture and oral tradition is God-breathed†– ONLY scriptures, only what is written down, ie Word of God. Which obviously means that what is NOT written down in scripture, ie. unbiblical oral traditions are NOT God-breathed, and hence what is not God-breathed is not going to bring salvation to anyone. That is what Sola Scriptura is all about, believing only the Bible and whatever traditions that conforms with the Bible, such as teachings, studying scriptures, church fellowship, baptism, worship and holy communion (eucharist), none of which contradict the Bible, but only makes one a true believer in Christ. If Sola Scriptura can accomplish that, what more do we need?


:amen

 

[Osgiliath]

Well, that was worth the price of admission. :D That was like the good ol' days. I'm a fan. Where are you two touring next? I think I'm gonna buy a bus. :shades

 

[francisdesales]

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that moves people AWAY from God's Word.

An oxymoron, for certain.

SS gives us a concrete foundation.

And yes, some try to pervert that foundation, but they will be exposed on that day. The faithful who do their best to 'study to show themselves APPROVED' need not fear as they have done what they are called to do.

You are being exposed here on this very thread but are too proud to admit it. Let me break it down for you in a short summary, rather than your scattershot attempts with your multiple postings...

I wrote this recently, bolding it and highlighting it for you so you could see the fallacious position that you have hitched your wagon to...

Not only is sola scriptura false, it is COUNTER to the Gospel, as we have yet to find where Paul's COMMAND OF GOD to keep both oral and written teachings has been abrogated.

Let's break this down for you...

You claim to believe that the Bible is the unadultered Word of God, literally COMMANDS from God, you said, correct?

On the one hand, according to YOUR logic, we have a COMMAND from God to maintain BOTH oral and written traditions given. It is written in the Bible, so it is a COMMAND FROM GOD. LISTEN UP and OBEY!

And on the other hand, YOU ignore God's COMMAND - NO, not only do you IGNORE it, you believe that a COUNTERMANDING order is necesary - DISOBEYING God, not just ignoring God.

And you are a "follower of Christ"? You don't REALLY believe that the Bible contains commands from God, do you. That is just talk, when I break it down this way.

You hold to a tradition of men, explicitly denied by Sacred Scriptures.
You deny that sola scriptura has led men into divisions in the Church of God by giving men the perogative to invent their own theologies. You deny this by denying what occurs on these very threads everyday...

At the end of the day, you are in denial, because sola scriptura leads men away from God's COMMANDS found in Sacred Scripture and brings about further dissensions within the Church of God.

Sounds like a tool of the devil, when you look at it from that perspective. I call it as I see it, and sola scriptura is a farce, not "solid foundations". Look where it has led the great classic protestant communities of the past... Now, every clown can pick up a bible and claim that the "spirit" speaks to them as they form a "church of one". Why? Sola scriptura... Even Martin Luther in his later life realized the Pandora's Box he had opened and greatly regretted it.

THAT is your "solid foundation"????

Good grief, give it up. It is a hopeless position. I have heard this weak defense of sola scriptura and have YET to hear an answer to Paul's command, from God, as you agree. Clearly, you are disobeying a command of God and REFUSE to admit it.

:naughty

 

[francisdesales]

I think there’s a tad misunderstanding here about this whole issue. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument AGAINST tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, and/or anti-biblical doctrines and traditions. Bearing in mind that Sola Scriptura was only introduced in the 16th century by Luther to counter the greed and corruption of the Catholic Church then, the oral traditions that were practiced during biblical times CANNOT be used against Sola Scriptura today as the Bible wasn’t even in existence then. Today we have the whole set of the Bible and EVERYTHING a Christian NEEDS to know concerning salvation and beliefs are already clearly laid down for us in the Holy Scriptures which we now know as the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is indeed against "traditions" that are not explicitly laid out in the Scriptures. It is the idea that God was writing a theological treatise when He inspired the men who wrote it. It is NOT "Chapter One, the Trinity; Chapter Two, Christology; Chapter Three; the Redemption of Mankind, etc...". It never admits this and people should not demand this from the Bible. As a result, sola scripturists deny numerous catholic doctrines implied from Scriptures, but not clearly spelled out, such as the sacrifice of the Mass and the Communion of Saints. Luther et. al. denied these catholic teachings that were part and parcel of the Church for 1500 years as witnessed by liturgical practice and everyday Christian action. "Tradition" is a manner of reading and interpreting the Scriptures, its not just about unwritten teachings. The first catholics read the writings of Paul and the oral teachings of John in a particular way. WITHOUT this tradition, the Bible can be interpreted in a multiple manner.

Tina, witness the numerous threads here on the Trinity. Really, who would dare to admit that the concept of a Triune God is CLEARLY found in Sacred Scriptures, IF one were to take the Bible off the shelf and read it WITHOUT interaction with the Church Traditions, the specific manner of reading the Bible??? WITHOUT Sacred Tradition, we have a foundation built upon sand, despite my other interlocutor's slavish love of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura allows private interpretation, holding the person to be the highest source of authority (despite denials, this is true, since we all interpet Scriptures, they don't interpet themselves).

That is what sola scriptura does, sister. It attempts to separate the Bible from the Church community that wrote and interprets (even now) that Book. Not only does the Church verify the Scriptures are from God, but the Church has been tasked with maintaining the message - this according to the Sacred Scriptures themselves (no doubt you have read the Pastorals...)

Christianity is all about salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, and obedience in practicing of our faith through worship, baptism, holy communion and church fellowship, all of which are entirely Biblical. What else is there to follow?

This generic formula can be seen in a variety of communities, many who are not even Christian. If we go back to the first century, I am sure that Paul would disagree with the above attitude, however, as he seemed to believe that the Judaizing Christians were in danger of losing their salvation. It appears that "Christianity" is more than a vague idea of "faith in Jesus Christ". That very question, WHO IS JESUS CHRIST, is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE, separating Christians from non-Christians, quite frankly. Being Christian is not merely about orthopraxy, but orthodoxy, as well. This is clearly evident in the writings of Sacred Scriptures.

Should there still be a need to appeal to extra-biblcal beliefs and practices introduced by church fathers? If there is a compelling need for church fathers to introduce a certain new tradition, they should exercise Godly wisdom and prayerfully examine the traditions against the scriptures just as the wise Bereans did.

The Bereans were ALSO given the choice to "appeal to extra-biblical beliefs and practices". Point to me the source of Scriptures available to the BEREANS that says "Jesus rose from the dead" or "Jesus is the Messiah" or "the Eucharist is to be practiced by the community" or "One is saved by Baptism" and so forth. The entire panalopy of catholic practices, during the time of the Bereans, were "extra-biblical".

To put the icing on the cake, WHERE INDEED did the Apostles find the Scriptural authority to STOP a previous COMMAND from God - to be circumcised - as per Acts 15??? No doubt, the Judaizers and the Sola Scripturists of today share a common thread, a kinship, since they REQUIRE A VERSE!

And if there are contradictions and discrepancies, it is only right that they exercise their rightful authority to REJECT those traditions as being unbiblical and unscriptural. For failure to do so could lead to LOSS of salvation for the believers who choose to follow those unbiblical traditions, as the Bible clearly warns.

This is only done by the ENTIRE voice of the Church, not individuals who refuse to do what the Bible commands - to obey their leaders appointed by God. From my experience, the vast number of people who "reject traditions as being unbiblical" are not aware of the ACTUAL teachings of the Church. They see the surface, bring their own traditions to the table, and reject ANY explanation that points to the implied Scriptural connection. ALL Catholic beliefs held by the universal church considered doctrines are found in the church's tradition of reading the Sacred Scriptures. None are invented out of thin air.

Furthermore, to correct you, the Bible does NOT warn against "unbiblical traditions", sister. It warns against traditions that lead men and women from God. A teaching does not need "Scriptural warrant", IF it brings us closer to God. That is THE INTENT of Sacred Scriptures - to lead us to God. There is NO verse that tells us that we can ONLY come to God via means described EXPLICITLY in Scriptures. Jesus' warnings against traditions were vs. those that attempted to CIRCUMVENT the commands of God.

Clearly, as I have pointed out, sola scriptura is EXACTLY that. It circumvents the STILL CURRENT command of God to hold onto teachings given, BOTH oral and written. NOWHERE do we find a command that overrides that. Sola scriptura eliminates part of the teachings of God. Thus, by definitions found in Scriptures, sola scriptura is a tradition of men.

Until we find another Biblical command that abrogates God's command to the Thessalonians through Paul, anyone who denies oral traditions is disobeying God...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

it is by FAITH that Christians believe the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation is the Word of God and God-breathed, which 2 Timothy 3:16 confirms loud and clear – “ALL scripture is God-breathed “ …… Yes, it says all scripture is God-breathed, it never says “All scripture and oral tradition is God-breathed†– ONLY scriptures, only what is written down, ie Word of God.

Clearly, the intent of Paul was to witness to the OLD TESTAMENT as being "Scriptural".

But what's more, your logic is faulty. What I need to point out is that the language here is not DEFINING the extent of what is God inspired or breathed. It is only a testimony to the Old Testament.

To use a modern day example, if I said "the Sky is Blue", does this mean it is the ONLY thing that is Blue???

No. Clearly, your logic that denies teachings given orally is faulty. Obviously, Paul was not concerned with the MEDIUM OF TRANSMISSION of the Gospel, otherwise, he would never had told the Thessalonians to "HOLD ONTO THE TRADITIONS GIVEN, BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN".

I would advise that you reflect on this, sister.

I do not condone ANTI-BIBLICAL teachings, and sola scriptura is an anti-biblical teaching, going AGAINST God's Word. ANY teaching that is AGAINST God's Word (found in Scriptures) is a false teaching, which is why I will continue to expose it for what it is - a tradition of men leading people from the Gospel fully given to the Church.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Saying I present a double standard isn't enough. Tell me how Ephesians 4:11-13 does not prove that the Bible is NOT the only source of perfecting the saints? Clearly, there is ANOTHER SOURCE, the TEACHING CHURCH!!! Sola is not sola...

Already have, gent..you just keep ignoring facts.
The INSPIRED writings that became the NEW testament were NOT EVEN FINISHED and collected at that point in time.
And Ill ask you AGAIN where that passage SAYS that the INSPIRED writings are NOT the final authority
anything ?

Why don't you read what I wrote, you even quoted it above...

I will only address this response here, as you continue to be confused on the point of my bringing up this verse in the first place.

Take a deep breath now.

I use Ephesians 4:11-13 to point out that there is ANOTHER source of perfecting the saints. You claim there is only one source, the bible, pointing me to 2 Timothy 3. You call it the only source. Ephesians 4 points to another means by which the saints are perfected, the teachers of the Church.

I am not using this to speak about the veracity of the Scriptures as the Word of God!!!

Arguing red herrings will not get us anywhere. Focus on what I write and respond to the fact that Ephesians 4 denies sola scriptura by providing ANOTHER means of PERFECTING the saints, which denies your interpretation of 2 Tim 3 that the Bible is "suffiicent" by itself and only IT can perfect the saints.

Regards

 

[Benoni]

I do not condone ANTI-BIBLICAL teachings, and sola scriptura is an anti-biblical teaching, going AGAINST God's Word. ANY teaching that is AGAINST God's Word (found in Scriptures) is a false teaching, which is why I will continue to expose it for what it is - a tradition of men leading people from the Gospel fully given to the Church.

Sola scriptura is not God’s Word. It is a translation; it has been influenced by corrupt, religious, bias men with an agenda; all men are liars and must be looked over carefully; there is a reason God’s Word declares the letter that killeth.

God’s Word is two totally different Words; the logos/living Word or the letter that killeth

So many of God’s people cannot see what is beyond the letter that killeth; such a strong word “killeth†given to describe what happens when you use you carnalize, literalize and especially religiousize your understanding when interpreting scripture.

So much doom and gloom in Traditional Christianity;

Are we destroying, slaying, and killing God’s Word when we refuse to allow God’s Spirit to give it life. Is not the spirit of truth with in us; but is that what we are following when all we see is the negative. God’s Spirit is in all of us, we have gone way to accustom to hearing man; and not The Spirit of truth with in.

Killeth: NT:615 apokteino (ap-ok-ti'-no); from NT:575 and kteino (to slay); to kill outright; figuratively, to destroy:

2 Corinthians 3:1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory

 

[Tina]

^

As a result, sola scripturists deny numerous catholic doctrines implied from Scriptures, but not clearly spelled out, such as the sacrifice of the Mass and the Communion of Saints.

That’s right, Sola Scriptura denies numerous Catholic doctrines implied from Scriptures but not clearly spelled out, because if such doctrines and traditions were needed for Christian living and DID NOT contradict scriptures, God would have inspired the apostles to WRITE them down EXPLICITLY, so that believers like us will not have to end up speculating, implying and arguing about them.

Luther et. al. denied these catholic teachings that were part and parcel of the Church for 1500 years as witnessed by liturgical practice and everyday Christian action.

Are you saying that the early church Christians practiced sacrifice of the Mass and Communion of Saints? Nowhere is there mention of such practices in the Bible, nowhere. But then again, as you said yourself, they are not clearly spelled out, only implied. Hence Luther et al. discovering how such vaguely biblical practices had gone out of control with the abuse of indulgences, and finally had to decide to make a stand against them.

"Tradition" is a manner of reading and interpreting the Scriptures, its not just about unwritten teachings.

I agree.

The first catholics read the writings of Paul and the oral teachings of John in a particular way.

That’s because the Bible wasn’t in existence at that time.

WITHOUT this tradition, the Bible can be interpreted in a multiple manner.

Even WITH this tradition, there’s no guarantee of infallible interpretation either. Actually it’s far worse because oral traditions obviously get interpreted in more diverse ways than written traditions.

Tina, witness the numerous threads here on the Trinity. Really, who would dare to admit that the concept of a Triune God is CLEARLY found in Sacred Scriptures.

On the contrary, here are more than enough scriptures to prove Trinity.
If they are not clear enough, I don’t know what is.

John 14:6-7
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Matthew 3:16
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him."

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

John 9:38
Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

John 14:9-10
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hopeâ€â€the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Matthew 14:33
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Matthew 28:9
Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Luke 24:52
Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

2 Corinthians 13:14
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

John 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever the Spirit of truth.

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

Romans 9:5
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Colossians 2:9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

1 John 5:20
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is trueâ€â€even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

Romans 8:9
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

1 Peter 1:2
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:

2 Peter 1:1
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.

2 Peter 1:21
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:38
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.


.

 

[follower of Christ]

I can do this all day long FD...so I hope you have plenty of time on your hands for what appears to be nothing but repetition...

Not only is sola scriptura false, it is COUNTER to the Gospel,

Balony....or is it bologna ?
Saying it dont make it so.....

as we have yet to find where Paul's COMMAND OF GOD to keep both oral and written teachings has been abrogated.

Ah...copy and paste will do here....

These 'traditions' that existed when the WRITTEN word had not yet been concluded are LIKELY to simply be the SAME things we see IN Gods word.

I see nothing in Gods written word about confession to priests or penance...very ODD that such CRITICAL areas of doctrine (as some claim) are entirely ABSENT from the very inspired writings that the people who canonized those scriptures practiced.

We dont find it ODD that the CC was a huge factor in canonization of NT scriptures, yet the very traditions she claims is so critical to the faith isnt in the NT ANYWHERE ???

ALL you have, friend, is ONE word 'tradition' which does not say one way or another what the writer is actually referring to...what practices he means.
Your argument is thin to say the least....non-existent to be certain *IF* you are trying to use the scriptures to support your views.

I see NO evidence in Gods word that this 'tradition' mentioned includes ANY practice not specifically mentioned in scripture, which it very well COULD mean since the NT did NOT YET EXIST when the statement was made to the Thessalonians.

Which brings us right back to the start....and thus entirely stalemated and without resolution...even if you believe otherwise.

And of course we also realise that THIS sort of issue is precisely why some here have to claim that the bible is incomplete...