Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[follower of Christ]

Let's break this down for you...

As if we dont already know your viewpoint already

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

No, gent....what PAUL said...your argument is with Paul.

n 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!

Read my post above, friend.
By YOUR absurd logic ANY 'tradition' that any godless, perverted man wanted to ADD would BE 'tradition' at some point...sorry but that isnt how this works.
These 'traditions' Paul spoke of BEFORE the NT even existed CANNOT BE SHOWN as being ANYTHING not mentioned specifically in scripture.

The word 'tradition' in your pet verse there is:

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.
That could be ANYTHING relating to the gospel...or the GOSPEL ITSELF...that had been conveyed to the Thessalonians by word OR by letter.

YOU are the ones ADDING to the intent of this little verse that DOESNT say what you seem to claim..

nd 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.

Not ignoring a thing on this end.
YOU are simply ADDING and TWISTING what your pet verse there ACTUALLY says.

The rest of that post of yours was pretty much irrelevant given whats been presented here...

.

 

[Tina]

^

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...)

While it’s true that Sola Scriptura allows private interpretation, nobody said ONLY private interpretation is allowed. Private interpretation means that every Christian is encouraged to study the Bible on our own. Where there are scriptures that escape our full understanding, we DO consult our church pastors and leaders. We attend Bible Study classes conducted by qualified teachers. We read up Christian books and useful commentaries. We do online Bible studies research and interpretations through forum discussions like this too. Nothing unbiblical about all these practices as they do not contradict scriptures in any way but only aids in our understanding of scriptures.

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.

I’m not denying this either. I absolutely agree with you and that’s why we have pastors to preach to us and Bible teachings of the gospel. What I was trying to say is that EVERYTHING one NEEDS for salvation is found in scriptures which traditions of teachings impart to us. Again nothing unbiblical about this practice. That’s what pastors and teachers are for. The Bible itself exhorts it.

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!

For obvious reasons which I’ve stated earlier – that the Bible was NOT in existence at THAT time. During Biblical times, armed with only the Old Testament, the Apostles had no choice but to appeal to oral traditions, which they translated into written scriptures in Acts 15.

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.

The teachings and traditions of the Church CANNOT be elevated above scriptures. God’s Word - Scriptures got to be accorded supremacy and superiority over traditions. Implied scriptural connection is not good enough because as I’ve said earlier, whatever traditions that are CERTAIN and MUST be practiced would have been CLEARLY written as Scriptures by the apostles. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception was introduced in 1854 due to Marian apparitions, while Papal Infallibility was introduced later in 1870, both of which hold no scriptural support at all.

Furthermore, to correct you, the Bible does NOT warn against "unbiblical traditions", sister. It warns against traditions that lead men and women from God.

You mean there are biblical traditions that can lead men and women away from God. Like what? I only know of unbiblical traditions will lead men and women away from God. As a matter of fact, the Bible does have something clear to say about this in James 4:17 – “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.â€Â, and this entire passage of James 4 is specifically referring to church traditions and practices !

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.

How do you know that it brings one closer to God? How exactly do you determine that ?

There is NO verse that tells us that we can ONLY come to God via means described EXPLICITLY in Scriptures.

Of course there is !!! … Look at the 1st and 2nd Commandments of God in Exodus 20 for starters. 1st Commandment – No other Gods ; 2nd Commandment – “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…â€Â

Jesus' warnings against traditions were vs. those that attempted to CIRCUMVENT the commands of God.

Which is what the Catholic Church is doing, eg. venerating and praying to Mary and some Catholics even bowing down to her.

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.

I disagree. Sola Scriptura is NOT about circumventing all traditions, only what does NOT conform with scriptures and goes against God’s Word.

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

I assume you are referring to 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.â€Â

Did you see the word that I highlighted there ? –-- “ passed on †…. That’s past tense.

When was 2 Thessalonians written by Paul? --- in about 51AD.

So what oral “word of mouth†traditions is Paul talking about? –- obviously those practiced BEFORE 51AD.

Does the Roman Catholic Church know for sure what are these oral traditions that could have been practiced prior to 51AD that were never duly recorded down in writing ? And besides, how did this particular scripture got to be used to justify all FUTURE new traditions introduced by the church, when it specifically ONLY refers to teachings Paul “passed†on (past tense) ? Special interpretation by the church ?

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.

Are you saying that the New Testament in NOT scripture? And that it is not God-breathed ?? Would you only believe it to be so only IF a Church father tells you?

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 only fully Biblical but is exactly what God’s Word is all about. As I’ve explained above, it’s Catholic traditions that are anti-biblical, going against God’s Word, which is why I will continue to expose them what they are – traditions of men leading people away from the Gospel fully given by God.


.

 

[follower of Christ]

Sola Scriptura is indeed against "traditions" that are not explicitly laid out in the Scriptures.

no, it is against YOUR churches 'traditions'....it ISNT against a single thing in scripture especially given the MEANING of the word which is nothing but a 'transmission' or 'precept' which could even be the gospel and ITS precepts minus your churches additions that do NOT appear in the text ANYWHERE in the NT. (bowing to idols, penance, confession to priests, etc).

 

[follower of Christ]

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

So then your claim now is that the NEW testament ISNT holy 'scripture' ?
if so, what does your church think of that view since she put the whole thing together ?

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.

Fallacious'
PAUL states VERY clearly that HIS instruction is GODS commandment....ie the NEW testament letters and instruction are the SAME level of 'scripture'' as ANY OT passage is.
That is fact.

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".

And HOW did Paul transmit in many cases, friend ?
By LETTER. And those LETTERS have become to the church what the prophets were to the old covenant Jew...GODS HOLY WORD !
Your brethren 1700 years ago understood this fact,that is why they treated the NEW testament 'scriptures' with such care.

I would advise that you reflect on this, sister.

ditto.

I do not condone ANTI-BIBLICAL teachings, and sola scriptura is an anti-biblical teaching,

Sorry but your wrong.
The ADDED 'traditions' of bowing to idols, penance and confession to priests are what are 'anti-bibilical' friend...as we can find them NOWHERE in the New testament.

 

[follower of Christ]

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

now this is a really nice attempt at deflection, but IM sorry but your point HAS to be that there is something OTHER Than the bible here. Otherwise WHAT is your point at all ?

MY point is that SCRIPTURE...ie the BIBLE ...is the FINAL authority in matters of doctrine.

Firstly one has to wonder just why you have such a hard time with that statement. Its not that complicated and we arent making any claims about scripture being anything that its not....but you seem to get really bent out of shape every time I say that the Bible is the FINAL authority in matters of DOCTRINE.
Why is that ?
Isnt the Bible GODS instruction, whether you believe it complete or not ?
Even if something ISNT covered therein, in the matters that ARE covered the BIBLE has the LAST word. Do you disagree ?

If so, then your argument is with God.
If not, then I have to assume that you ARE simply following me around trying to start a conflict as you dont disagree with me to begin with.

So which is it ?

 

[follower of Christ]

Sola scriptura is not God’s Word. It is a translation;

uh......yeah.....

SS is a concept, Benoni....it is an idea that the Bible IS the authority where doctrine is concerned and that the bible ALONE can be used for discerning doctrine as it has been provided by God to His people.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

SS does not typically allow for ADDED 'tradition'....at least in any way that is becomes compulsory....ie if you wanted to dance like a chicken when you pray, the bible is silent on the matter..have at it....but dont try to teach it AS doctrine to anyone else as the scriptures do not teach as much. Keep it between yourself and God.

SS is critical to our faith as if we do not adhere to scripture FOR doctrine, but go outside of it, then we end up with all sorts of godless nonsense 'tradition' that has nothing to do with salvation or our faith.

 

[francisdesales]

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

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

.

Rather than reply to all of your assundry run-arounds, I'll just re-post this and you can give me your attempt to answer from there...

It {sola scriptura} 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...

You have not responded to this, except the non-biblical fluff, a presumption from a non-authority that "these traditions...are likely to simply be the SAME things we see in God's Word.

:crazy

THAT'S THE BASIS OF YOUR "SOLID" FOUNDATION????

:biglol

As usual, begging the question.

The more I talk to you, the more I see the core of your faith is based upon circular argument and begging the question. That is beyond denial and proven by your responses to my questions.

Thus, FoC must say, paraphrasing, "Don't talk to me about what the Word of God actually says, I already have made up my mind what He meant to say..."

As you said, merely SAYING "these are likely the SAME things..." is meaningless and presumptuous. You have absolutely no basis to make such wild leaps of faith, except that you already hold that idea of ss, so you must defend it by such unsubstantiated jello-minded fluff...

Begging the question, all over again...

Get back with me when you got something substantial to defend your non-biblical tradition of men that disobeys GOD'S WORD! The ACTUAL WRITING, not YOUR presumptions and wishful thinking...

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

To REPOST....


Read my post above, friend.
By YOUR absurd logic ANY 'tradition' that any godless, perverted man wanted to ADD would BE 'tradition' at some point...sorry but that isnt how this works.
These 'traditions' Paul spoke of BEFORE the NT even existed CANNOT BE SHOWN as being ANYTHING not mentioned specifically in scripture.

The word 'tradition' in your pet verse there is:

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.
That could be ANYTHING relating to the gospel...or the GOSPEL ITSELF...that had been conveyed to the Thessalonians by word OR by letter.

YOU are the ones ADDING to the intent of this little verse that DOESNT say what you seem to claim..

nd 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.

Not ignoring a thing on this end.
YOU are simply ADDING and TWISTING what your pet verse there ACTUALLY says.

The rest of that post of yours was pretty much irrelevant given whats been presented here...

.

 

[follower of Christ]

Rather than reply to all of your assundry run-arounds,

ie facts that you have no manner of refuting...

It {sola scriptura} 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.

Fallacious nonsense.
Again...

By YOUR absurd logic ANY 'tradition' that any godless, perverted man wanted to ADD would BE 'tradition' at some point...sorry but that isnt how this works.
These 'traditions' Paul spoke of BEFORE the NT even existed CANNOT BE SHOWN as being ANYTHING not mentioned specifically in scripture.

The word 'tradition' in your pet verse there is:

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.
That could be ANYTHING relating to the gospel...or the GOSPEL ITSELF...that had been conveyed to the Thessalonians by word OR by letter.
YOU are the ones ADDING to the intent of this little verse that DOESNT say what you seem to claim..

You have not responded to this, except the non-biblical fluff,

Yeah...I have...apparently you dont read.

That is beyond denial and proven by your responses to my questions.

Please...that you dont take time to READ doesnt mean no one responded to your fallacy.

Thus, FoC must say, paraphrasing, "Don't talk to me about what the Word of God actually says, I already have made up my mind what He meant to say..."

uh...yeah....duh
Read my signature I quoted just for you, FD.

As you said, merely SAYING "these are likely the SAME things..." is meaningless and presumptuous. You have absolutely no basis to make such wild leaps of faith, except that you already hold that idea of ss, so you must defend it by such unsubstantiated jello-minded fluff...

OH please.
The ONLY difference between you and I is that *I* dont take some one elses instruction as to waht to believe (magisterium).
*I* know *I* can study Gods word for MYSELF and see what it teaches without being TOLD what it is supposed to mean.

Begging the question, all over again...

(rollseyes)

Get back with me when you got something substantial to defend your non-biblical tradition of men that disobeys GOD'S WORD! The ACTUAL WRITING, not YOUR presumptions and wishful thinking...

Regards

Get back to us when you find confessoin to priests, penance and bowing to godless idols of men in the NT....

 

[follower of Christ]

Francisdales..

*I* am going to watch the personal comments.
If YOU cannot do the same this time *I* will be the one going to moderation.
Are we clear ?

 

[francisdesales]

While it’s true that Sola Scriptura allows private interpretation, nobody said ONLY private interpretation is allowed. Private interpretation means that every Christian is encouraged to study the Bible on our own...

First, thanks for your responses.

I personally have no problems with private interpretation. We OUGHT to read the Scriptures. However, as the Bible clearly points out, men have been set over us, given the task of handing down the faith unadultered. Thus, when we read the Bible, we are to not read it in a vacuum, but taking into account how the Spirit has inspired PAST readers of the same Scriptures. We are a Church, a community. And the underlying concept of sola scriptura FOSTERS dissent as people argue about what John 6:51 means, etc... The Church has been given the power to bind and loosen, and this certainly also refers to proper interpretation of Scriptures when two or more people disagree. Christ said "take it to the Church" during such disagreements. The one who refuses to accept this ruling is cast out.

So I fully agree that we are to read the Scriptures, meditate on them and use them as examples to how our walk should go. But on matters of doctrine, there cannot be multiple beliefs. Paul said the church has ONE FAITH, not "whatever you feel like believing". From the very beginning, the Church has had a "rule of faith", and this is a measurement by which we read the Scriptures by. Thus, we believe in the Trinity, for example.

I absolutely agree with you and that’s why we have pastors to preach to us and Bible teachings of the gospel. What I was trying to say is that EVERYTHING one NEEDS for salvation is found in scriptures which traditions of teachings impart to us. Again nothing unbiblical about this practice. That’s what pastors and teachers are for. The Bible itself exhorts it.

AH. And that is not the formal definition of sola scriptura, as now you have another source of authority giving you his interpretation - which may or may not jive with the Apostolic teachings. Yes, the Scriptures are A source, but not the only source, as a pastor, giving his take, can easily influence one's interpretation of Sacred Scriptures. This is not a "catholic v protestant" issue, as Luther became quite frustrated with the numerous "rules of faith" based upon each pastor preaching his own version of the Gospel... We know that all these men claim to use the "one source", the Bible, but in reality, the pastor HIMSELF is a source, as sitting two pastors together to relate the Gospel often brings two dichotomous relationships.

The Bible itself tells us that it is the Church that is tasked with passing on the tradition given to it. There is no command to write a "bible" for future generations, Tina. A living Church, indwelled by the Spirit, passes on this gospel unadultered, interpreting the Word of God in the face of new questions that appear to Christians - like cloning.

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".

For obvious reasons which I’ve stated earlier – that the Bible was NOT in existence at THAT time. During Biblical times, armed with only the Old Testament, the Apostles had no choice but to appeal to oral traditions, which they translated into written scriptures in Acts 15.

I see. Quite convenient that extra-biblical practices were accepted, but now, the expiration date of such things has been reached???

That ignores the very REASON of EXISTENCE for sola scriptura! The fact is AT THAT TIME, no Christian successfully suggested what sola scripturists deeply desire. And there WAS a Bible at the time! The Old Testament clearly stated that men must be circumcised. In 50 AD, the Apostles say otherwise, based upon the authority they claimed for themselves, given by God through Jesus Christ. The early Christians believed them, as they do regarding the men who have authority to speak today on pertinent questions of the faith.

Where in the Bible do we find a command or even a SUGGESTION that this has changed??? Which verse tells us that "once a bible is written, forget all the tradition stuff". Why are you foisting upon me a tradition not found in Scriptures???

It is a HUGE ERROR to presume that Scriptures "swallow" tradition. It is human invention based on absolutely no basis but "I said so".

Nowhere does the Bible even suggest such a thing - IT is a tradition of Protesantism, since we cannot find it for 1500 years of Church history. That is quite a significant problem with sola scripturists. They beg the question, presuming that the Bible was MEANT to "cover all the bases". Even during it writing, it didn't cover all possible contingencies.

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

The teachings and traditions of the Church CANNOT be elevated above scriptures.

We don't. Doctrines are always dependent upon an implied sense of reading the Scriptures and Sacred Traditions passed down before. The Church is not "above" Scriptures, as BOTH share in the same source, God Himself. God breathed into the Scriptures and God indwells the Church...

Implied scriptural connection is not good enough because as I’ve said earlier, whatever traditions that are CERTAIN and MUST be practiced would have been CLEARLY written as Scriptures by the apostles. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception was introduced in 1854 due to Marian apparitions, while Papal Infallibility was introduced later in 1870, both of which hold no scriptural support at all.

I will respectfully disagree that these doctrines "have no scriptural support at all". There is a Scriptural support for both, and tons of words have been written on the subject.

You mean there are biblical traditions that can lead men and women away from God. Like what?

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

I only know of unbiblical traditions will lead men and women away from God. As a matter of fact, the Bible does have something clear to say about this in James 4:17 – “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.â€Â, and this entire passage of James 4 is specifically referring to church traditions and practices !

It refers to NOT following Church traditions and practices, namely, helping the poor of the community! In addition, sadly, people can twist the words of the Bible and make them say what they want, LEADING PEOPLE AWAY from God. This is beyond refute, as we both agree cults exist that twist the Word of God - we will leave them unnamed - knowing they exist.

How do you know that it brings one closer to God? How exactly do you determine that ?

That's a good question. But knowing who God is and what He has revealed, believing what has been told about Him, places us in a better mindset of obedience and humility, which is what God desires us to become, His humble and obedient servant.

There is NO verse that tells us that we can ONLY come to God via means described EXPLICITLY in Scriptures.

Of course there is !!! … Look at the 1st and 2nd Commandments of God in Exodus 20 for starters. 1st Commandment – No other Gods ; 2nd Commandment – “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…â€Â[/quote]

Does this mean that only Jews before the Word became incarnate are possibly in heaven? EVERYONE before Moses gave the commandments are in hell, since they were not given these Scriptural commandments?

My point is that the Bible is not a "complete" work. Jesus Christ is THE complete work of God.

It is through HIM that we go to God, and the Bible, useful (as it calls itself) as it is, is not NECESSARY in the absolute sense.

I disagree. Sola Scriptura is NOT about circumventing all traditions, only what does NOT conform with scriptures and goes against God’s Word.

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

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

Tina, read Numbers 16 and ask yourself WHY God slew those who rose up against those who refused to obey Moses and those He had charged with leading His people. Isn't sola scriptura in the same mold as these rebels? They, too, wanted to decide for themselves what God meant or intended.

Does the Roman Catholic Church know for sure what are these oral traditions that could have been practiced prior to 51AD that were never duly recorded down in writing ? And besides, how did this particular scripture got to be used to justify all FUTURE new traditions introduced by the church, when it specifically ONLY refers to teachings Paul “passed†on (past tense) ? Special interpretation by the church ?

It is not a matter of listing these "oral traditions", that ends up making the faith a laundry list of things to do before you get to heaven. The point is that Paul and those whom he (and the Spirit) appoints are to be trusted to pass on the faith as taught. The manner of transmission of the Gospel is not absolutely critical, the message is. Part of that message is HOW we read the Sacred Scriptures, HOW we read Paul. As you know, we can read and emphasize Paul in different ways, changing the faith "ONCE GIVEN". Thus, we rely on an apostolic succession put in place by the Spirit to transmit the truths we are to know.

Are you saying that the New Testament in NOT scripture? And that it is not God-breathed ?? Would you only believe it to be so only IF a Church father tells you?

No, I am not saying that! Why is it when someone disagrees with sola scriptura, they see it as some attack upon the veracity of Sacred Scriptures??? The New Testament is the Word of God because the Church TELLS me it is the Word of God. Not because it is self-authenticating. Philemon, for example, why is THAT Scriptures, based upon internal evidence??? Because the Church says so. I certainly believe that the Church's proclamation that the NT is Sacred Writ.

Sola Scriptura is not only fully Biblical but is exactly what God’s Word is all about.

You have yet to prove that, nor have you explained where the Bible tells us that oral teachings are abrogated. Nowhere do we find a command to listen to ONLY written words given to Christians. It is clearly NOT "fully biblical". It is literally ANTI-biblical. Sola Scriptura tells us we MUST find something in the Scriptures - when we do not find a word about removing oral teachings.

As I’ve explained above, it’s Catholic traditions that are anti-biblical, going against God’s Word, which is why I will continue to expose them what they are – traditions of men leading people away from the Gospel fully given by God.

Now those are your presumptions based upon your lack of understanding of the Catholic faith. I have pointed out how sola scriptura is anti-biblical. Stick to the topic, Tina. From Scripture alone, defend sola scriptura. You cannot, thus you must attack the messenger - an off topic subject (and not allowed on this forum, by the way)

Please excuse my lengthy reply. Feel free to respond only to part of this, although I do ask that you not forget about the Scriptural WARRANT to obey ALL teachings given to us, not just the written ones.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdales..

*I* am going to watch the personal comments.
If YOU cannot do the same this time *I* will be the one going to moderation.
Are we clear ?

It would be nice if you were able to police yourself somewhat. Read your posts to me and Benoni (who is NOT Catholic) and in the spirit of fair play, consider that you are the one in need of moderating.

If you feel the need to turn yourself in to the moderators, I give you permission. I do believe I have been even-handed and am it is you with the provoking responses which I have largely ignored... Read my posts to Tina and her's to me. No childish comments there. Just two adults discussing disagreements.

Thus, you can stop trying to treat me like a child with your inane threats... I am a grown man. Do what you feel is right. I'm not worried.

Now, I glanced at your answers, and have yet to find a reasonable response to several statements. You just merely are blowing smoke and mirrors. Thus, I am not going to directly respond to them. I will await valid responses to these:

1. You are not even addressing WHY I bring up Eph 4. You can continue to refute a point I never made, that's fine with me, but I think others will see you are dodging a truthful answer. Talk about non-sequitar.
2. You have not found a suitable response to 2 Thes 2:15 and why YOU disobey a COMMAND from God. Paul clearly said he preaches the Word of God, you agree. Thus, follow God's commands and accept ALL teachings given to us to hold and believe. Trying to change the meaning of command to precept just isn't cutting the mustard, since YOU said the Bible is entirely the Word of God, COMMANDS, you said.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

It would be nice if you were able to police yourself somewhat. Read your posts to me and Benoni (who is NOT Catholic) and in the spirit of fair play, consider that you are the one in need of moderating.

I suggest you do the same.
My issue with you has less to do with your being catholic and more to do with your fallacies.
I have many catholic friends and acquaintances who are nowhere near as obnoxious in pushing error on me as many catholics online seem to be.
But then, your stated purpose here seems to be just that....
"Teaching Catholicism, either on internet or at RCIA"
I dont want to be taught catholicism and you can rest assured that MOST of the protestant membership here and elsewhere doesnt WANT to be either. Yet here we are.

Now, I glanced at your answers, and have yet to find a reasonable response to several statements.

Who gets to define 'reasonable' here...you ?

You just merely are blowing smoke and mirrors.

PUHlease.
99.999% of your posts are strawmen and red herrings with an occasional non-sequitur to even out the mix.

Thus, I am not going to directly respond to them.

Obviously..;)

1. You are not even addressing WHY I bring up Eph 4. You can continue to refute a point I never made, that's fine with me, but I think others will see you are dodging a truthful answer. Talk about non-sequitar.

I dont care WHY you bring it up.
What I care about is WHAT is SAID in the passage itself....nothing you seem to believe is contained therein....nothing that would show that the NT is not the FINAL authority in matters of doctrine.

2. You have not found a suitable response to 2 Thes 2:15 and why YOU disobey a COMMAND from God.

(bigrollseyessmileyinsertedhere).
Read my response to this yet again....Ive even added it to the study for your convenience...

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:zyla3n5a]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.
Its is absolutely unsafe to assume that something such as penance, confession to priests rather than God, or bowing to idols of men and women long dead could even remotely be implied in this small passage since those concepts are nowhere to be found in the scriptures canonized by the very men who taught those 'traditions'.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... f=30&p=588
[/quote:zyla3n5a]

we done here ?



.

 

[follower of Christ]

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 me 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.
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'.

 

[follower of Christ]

Please dont miss this post, FD.
Since Im playing the game and responding to the same questions over and again at your request, Id appreciate some reciprocation on your part.

trying to change the meaning of command to precept just isn't cutting the mustard, since YOU said the Bible is entirely the Word of God, COMMANDS, you said.

Regards

Ill make this easy for you...and please dont play any semantics games or pull any acrobatics here.

FOC: "Gods word is the FINAL written authority in matters of Christian doctrine"

Now, without your non-sequiturs, red herrings, strawmen or other deflections, please explain to the assembly here exactly WHAT SOURCE YOU are claiming is THE final authority ABOVE Gods word where Christian doctrine is concerned.



.

 

[follower of Christ]

Please excuse my lengthy reply. Feel free to respond only to part of this, although I do ask that you not forget about the Scriptural WARRANT to obey ALL teachings given to us, not just the written ones.

And you have yet to PROVE that anything that was taught by word of mouth in the beginning BY Christs CHOSEN apostles doesnt actually appear now in written form in the scriptures.
We find it VERY odd that no mention is made of VERY critical catholic doctrine such as penance and confession to priests in the very bible THEY were used to bring together.

Thus, we rely on an apostolic succession put in place by the Spirit to transmit the truths we are to know.

And in this apostolic succession, is it your claim that EVERY successor of Peter has ALWAYS agreed with the next successor and ALL of the previous ones in matters of doctrine or any other ?
Careful with your response. Im a hereti....er separated brethren. ;)

And since these successors of Peter (supposedly) WERENT in agreement on some very huge details, how is it that ANYTHING they professed can be trusted ?

You have yet to prove that, nor have you explained where the Bible tells us that oral teachings are abrogated. Nowhere do we find a command to listen to ONLY written words given to Christians. It is clearly NOT "fully biblical". It is literally ANTI-biblical. Sola Scriptura tells us we MUST find something in the Scriptures - when we do not find a word about removing oral teachings.

again...

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:1cge3cht]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.
Its is absolutely unsafe to assume that something such as penance, confession to priests rather than God, or bowing to idols of men and women long dead could even remotely be implied in this small passage since those concepts are nowhere to be found in the scriptures canonized by the very men who taught those 'traditions'.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... f=30&p=588
[/quote:1cge3cht]

 

[follower of Christ]

I see. Quite convenient that extra-biblical practices were accepted, but now, the expiration date of such things has been reached???

Dont you see how ABSURD this statement IS ?
There was NO BIBLE TO even GO BY at THAT TIME when Paul WROTE his letters that BECAME the New Testament .
Most EVERYTHING they did and taught was 'extra biblical' when there was NO NT BIBLE yet in EXISTENCE to determine doctrine from, FD.

And NOTHING can be shown to PROVE that ANYTHING not specifically mentioned in scripture was intended by the writer...ie you cannot prove that penance or confession to priests, 'veneration' of saints, etc, was actually taught by Paul and Christs CHOSEN apostles.
That they all entirely fail to even mention these 'critical' areas of doctrine is quite telling. They should at least be present in Romans somewhere seeing the depth that letter goes in to.

Goodness....

I will respectfully disagree that these doctrines "have no scriptural support at all". There is a Scriptural support for both, and tons of words have been written on the subject.

Ok. I'll bite.

WITHOUT citing a single source OTHER than scripture, since your claim is apparently that there is indeed scriptural support for these, evidence your case for Marian Theology, papal 'ex cathedra' infallibility, penance for sin, confession to priests, and bowing to idols/venerating saints FROM scripture......annnnnnnd GO.

And tell ya what. To be entirely fair I'll even accept the Apocrypha if it suits your needs and *IF* it actually SAYS what you claim it SAYS....
Hows that for being open minded
,

 

[Tina]

^

While it’s true that Sola Scriptura allows private interpretation, nobody said ONLY private interpretation is allowed. Private interpretation means that every Christian is encouraged to study the Bible on our own...

First, thanks for your responses.

I personally have no problems with private interpretation. We OUGHT to read the Scriptures. However, as the Bible clearly points out, men have been set over us, given the task of handing down the faith unadultered. Thus, when we read the Bible, we are to not read it in a vacuum, but taking into account how the Spirit has inspired PAST readers of the same Scriptures. We are a Church, a community. And the underlying concept of sola scriptura FOSTERS dissent as people argue about what John 6:51 means, etc... The Church has been given the power to bind and loosen, and this certainly also refers to proper interpretation of Scriptures when two or more people disagree. Christ said "take it to the Church" during such disagreements. The one who refuses to accept this ruling is cast out. So I fully agree that we are to read the Scriptures, meditate on them and use them as examples to how our walk should go. But on matters of doctrine, there cannot be multiple beliefs. Paul said the church has ONE FAITH, not "whatever you feel like believing". From the very beginning, the Church has had a "rule of faith", and this is a measurement by which we read the Scriptures by. Thus, we believe in the Trinity, for example.

While I agree with most of what you said here, there’s something else that deserves clarification at this point. The records need to be set straight.

Sola Scriptura is NOT the root cause of dissent and denominations amongst Christians, NEVER. Fallible men and fallible interpretations are the root causes. If only all men were infallible like God, there would be no dissent nor denominations. However, do understand that denominations are not necessarily a bad thing either. Denominations is not something that God opposes. Here why.

Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:39 parted ways due to difference of opinions with regards to some logistics and personal issues, but it did not mean that they became rivals.

Neither Paul nor Barnabas appeared to have been acting out of self-interest or self-will. Neither Paul nor Barnabas sought to make this a biblical issue in which one was right and the other was wrong. Both Paul and Barnabas seem to be acting in accordance with their own spiritual gifts. The separation of Paul and Barnabas was a cooperative action not a competitive one.

Neither Paul nor Barnabas later needed to repent of any wrongdoing in the matter. Paul would later say that Mark was profitable to his own ministry - 2 Tim. 4:9. Barnabas was reminded that one must not only consider the individual but the cause. Paul learned a lesson in choosing to lay hands too quickly on a person especially not yet proven - 1 Tim. 3:10; 5:22.

One of the strongest gifts of Barnabas was his gift of encouragement - Acts 4:36. Barnabas sought Paul to ministry with him in Antioch - Acts 11:25-26. Mark needed Barnabas’ gift of encouragement more than Paul did. The strong difference of opinion was one means by which God could separate two inseparable friends, brothers and servants.

The gospel we believe and the faith we hold are common one to another. Paul and Barnabas had different gifts, perspectives, callings but they remained one in the faith and in the bonds of love. Their parting was a division, but not a divorce.


In the story of Luke 9, we see the disciples of Jesus not only squabbling over petty matters and being regularly chided by Jesus for being of “little faith,†but we find them not understanding parables until Jesus privately explained them. What seems almost incomprehensibly ignorant of them, however, is that Jesus kept telling them he would suffer and rise from the dead and it kept going straight over their heads. This is not only hinted at in every Gospel, it is specifically highlighted not just once but twice in the one Gospel.

Luke 9:22
And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.â€Â

A week or so later, Jesus said :

Luke 9:44-45
“Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.†But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

Nine chapters later, Jesus was still teaching them about his suffering and their understanding was still abysmal :

Luke 18:31-34
Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.†The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.


In the Book of Luke alone, this is the seventh time Jesus had spoken of his future suffering. No doubt part of their difficulty was not realizing that Jesus this time was speaking very literally. Their inability to understand, however, is very significant to us today because if even these chosen men of God could miss spiritual truth, so can we !!


These accounts clearly illustrate man’s natural tendency to misunderstand God’s Word and disagree. While Sola Scriptura opponents have often attempted to use Christian denominations as a flawed excuse to disprove the veracity of Sola Scriptura, God certainly appears to have no problems with diversity because He knew from the beginning that His people are imperfect. That the Holy Spirit leads believers to different Christian denominations of diverse doctrinal emphasis and expertise in no way points to contradictions of the Bible nor failure of Sola Scriptura.

I absolutely agree with you and that’s why we have pastors to preach to us and Bible teachings of the gospel. What I was trying to say is that EVERYTHING one NEEDS for salvation is found in scriptures which traditions of teachings impart to us. Again nothing unbiblical about this practice. That’s what pastors and teachers are for. The Bible itself exhorts it.

AH. And that is not the formal definition of sola scriptura, as now you have another source of authority giving you his interpretation - which may or may not jive with the Apostolic teachings.

What is your idea of the formal definition of Sola Scriptura ?
Looks like you still don’t quite understand what Sola Scriptura is REALLY all about, even with my detailed explanation given before.

The other source of authority we are using to interpret scripture for us is all part and parcel of Sola Scriptura. Private interpretation means not only every Christian is encouraged to read the Bible on our own, but according to what the Bible itself says, we also come together to study the Bible as a group with the help of pastors and teachers. Private interpretation means we do NOT look to ONLY ONE high authority like the Church or the Pope to interpret everything for us because that would be dangerous, for the Church / Pope may be using his own subjective interpretation himself even though he may be interpreting scriptures with the help of church leaders.

The Bible itself tells us that it is the Church that is tasked with passing on the tradition given to it. There is no command to write a "bible" for future generations, Tina. A living Church, indwelled by the Spirit, passes on this gospel unadultered, interpreting the Word of God in the face of new questions that appear to Christians - like cloning.

While the Catholics seem to think that they are the “One True Churchâ€Â, the real definition of “Church†is simply “a body or family of believersâ€Â. It’s in the Bible.

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".

For obvious reasons which I’ve stated earlier – that the Bible was NOT in existence at THAT time. During Biblical times, armed with only the Old Testament, the Apostles had no choice but to appeal to oral traditions, which they translated into written scriptures in Acts 15.

I see. Quite convenient that extra-biblical practices were accepted, but now, the expiration date of such things has been reached???

Traditions and practices were based on appeal to the Old Testament and hearsay during that time. Those that are redundant have been clearly stated in 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.

.

 

[Tina]

^

That ignores the very REASON of EXISTENCE for sola scriptura! The fact is AT THAT TIME, no Christian successfully suggested what sola scripturists deeply desire. And there WAS a Bible at the time! The Old Testament clearly stated that men must be circumcised. In 50 AD, the Apostles say otherwise, based upon the authority they claimed for themselves, given by God through Jesus Christ. The early Christians believed them, as they do regarding the men who have authority to speak today on pertinent questions of the faith.

Where in the Bible do we find a command or even a SUGGESTION that this has changed??? Which verse tells us that "once a bible is written, forget all the tradition stuff". Why are you foisting upon me a tradition not found in Scriptures???

Galatians 2:1-3
Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.

Galatians 5:2-6
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Galatians 6:12-16
Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

1 Corinthians 7:17-19
Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

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. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Philippians 3:2-3
Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh .

There you have it – plenty of scriptures that speak volume about circumcision being a thing of the past, that being saved from our sins is received through faith in Christ to save us from our sins, and it is this act of turning from our sin and self-righteousness and turning instead to reliance upon Christ’s finished work on the cross that makes us “circumcised of heart †-- the works of the flesh accomplish nothing.

It is a HUGE ERROR to presume that Scriptures "swallow" tradition. It is human invention based on absolutely no basis but "I said so".

Nowhere does the Bible even suggest such a thing - IT is a tradition of Protesantism, since we cannot find it for 1500 years of Church history.

The original canons of the Bible and the New Testament especially were only settled in the 4th century. Till then, traditions were upheld by the Catholic Church. Protestantism only evolved in the 16th century, and by then the KJV Bible was already available. If authentic oral traditions had already been recorded down as scriptures, why would the Protestants still have to appeal to some outside extra-biblical and unbiblical traditions ? Especially since Luther noted how such traditions were leading to abusive practices by the church, which God certainly did not inspire !

That is quite a significant problem with sola scripturists. They beg the question, presuming that the Bible was MEANT to "cover all the bases".

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

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

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

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

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

Implied scriptural connection is not good enough because as I’ve said earlier, whatever traditions that are CERTAIN and MUST be practiced would have been CLEARLY written as Scriptures by the apostles. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception was introduced in 1854 due to Marian apparitions, while Papal Infallibility was introduced later in 1870, both of which hold no scriptural support at all.

I will respectfully disagree that these doctrines "have no scriptural support at all". There is a Scriptural support for both, and tons of words have been written on the subject.

There is absolutely NO scriptural support for both, only scant INFERENCES based on circumstantial evidence. And the extra-biblical material called “Catechism†is a man-made book.

You mean there are biblical traditions that can lead men and women away from God. Like what?

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

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

Secondly, Sola Scriptura can never lead people away from God, only man-made traditions do.

I only know of unbiblical traditions will lead men and women away from God. As a matter of fact, the Bible does have something clear to say about this in James 4:17 – “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.â€Â, and this entire passage of James 4 is specifically referring to church traditions and practices !

It refers to NOT following Church traditions and practices, namely, helping the poor of the community! In addition, sadly, people can twist the words of the Bible and make them say what they want, LEADING PEOPLE AWAY from God. This is beyond refute, as we both agree cults exist that twist the Word of God - we will leave them unnamed - knowing they exist.

Yes, this is a perfect example of what happens when people REJECT Sola Scriptura and embrace man-made traditions – cults begin to emerge.

There is NO verse that tells us that we can ONLY come to God via means described EXPLICITLY in Scriptures.

Of course there is !!! … Look at the 1st and 2nd Commandments of God in Exodus 20 for starters. 1st Commandment – No other Gods ; 2nd Commandment – “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…â€Â

Does this mean that only Jews before the Word became incarnate are possibly in heaven? EVERYONE before Moses gave the commandments are in hell, since they were not given these Scriptural commandments?

This is your speculation, but the Bible says in Deuteronomy 29:29 – “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.â€Â

Do you even agree with the 10 Commandments ?

I disagree. Sola Scriptura is NOT about circumventing all traditions, only what does NOT conform with scriptures and goes against God’s Word.

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

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

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

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

Tina, read Numbers 16 and ask yourself WHY God slew those who rose up against those who refused to obey Moses and those He had charged with leading His people. Isn't sola scriptura in the same mold as these rebels? They, too, wanted to decide for themselves what God meant or intended.

During Moses’ time, there was NO Old Testament much less the New Testament. God was literally close to the people and spoke through audible voice, burning bush, moving cloud, angels and even a talking donkey! How many of us today have witnessed God in these ways instructing us what to do ??

I’m guessing that no Protestant today have rebelled against God that way because I haven’t heard of any news that God slew those who did – hence we thank God and Martin Luther for Sola Scriptura that is keeping us on the right track !

Does the Roman Catholic Church know for sure what are these oral traditions that could have been practiced prior to 51AD that were never duly recorded down in writing ? And besides, how did this particular scripture got to be used to justify all FUTURE new traditions introduced by the church, when it specifically ONLY refers to teachings Paul “passed†on (past tense) ? Special interpretation by the church ?

It is not a matter of listing these "oral traditions", that ends up making the faith a laundry list of things to do before you get to heaven. The point is that Paul and those whom he (and the Spirit) appoints are to be trusted to pass on the faith as taught. The manner of transmission of the Gospel is not absolutely critical, the message is. Part of that message is HOW we read the Sacred Scriptures, HOW we read Paul. As you know, we can read and emphasize Paul in different ways, changing the faith "ONCE GIVEN". Thus, we rely on an apostolic succession put in place by the Spirit to transmit the truths we are to know.

Apostolic succession put in place by the Spirit ? If you are referring to Matthew 16:19 to justify that, well, it doesn’t at all !. Apostolic succession is yet another unbiblical tradition introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. But according to history (which I’ve already checked), not all the 265 popes that were supposed to have succeeded Peter came from unbroken succession. Some seized power through fraud and bribery. Apostolic succession put in place by the Spirit ? !!

Sola Scriptura is not only fully Biblical but is exactly what God’s Word is all about.

You have yet to prove that, nor have you explained where the Bible tells us that oral teachings are abrogated. Nowhere do we find a command to listen to ONLY written words given to Christians. It is clearly NOT "fully biblical". It is literally ANTI-biblical. Sola Scriptura tells us we MUST find something in the Scriptures - when we do not find a word about removing oral teachings.

It is of course anti-biblical to the Catholics because you got to listen to your pope and follow man-made traditions.

As I’ve explained above, it’s Catholic traditions that are anti-biblical, going against God’s Word, which is why I will continue to expose them what they are – traditions of men leading people away from the Gospel fully given by God.

Now those are your presumptions based upon your lack of understanding of the Catholic faith. I have pointed out how sola scriptura is anti-biblical. Stick to the topic, Tina. From Scripture alone, defend sola scriptura.

I have already done that, and it’s up to the OP to accept it. I cannot shove my beliefs down anyone’s throats who does not have an open mind to understand the truths. If you insist that Sola Scriptura is anti-biblical, it’s not because I haven’t defended its biblical truths, but because you refuse to believe.



.

 

[francisdesales]

1. You are not even addressing WHY I bring up Eph 4. You can continue to refute a point I never made, that's fine with me, but I think others will see you are dodging a truthful answer. Talk about non-sequitar.

I dont care WHY you bring it up. What I care about is WHAT is SAID in the passage itself....nothing you seem to believe is contained therein....nothing that would show that the NT is not the FINAL authority in matters of doctrine..

Then why are you bothering to speak with me if you don't care why I bring up a particular verse to make my point? Isn't that the ordinary way of debating, bringing up supporting verses and explaining the point of view? Apparently, you didn't get the memo on how to have a discussion as an adult when two people disagree. It seems evident to me that you only care about hearing yourself preach, rather than hearing the other person's point of view. Your answer "I don't care why you bring it up" speaks volumes.

2. You have not found a suitable response to 2 Thes 2:15 and why YOU disobey a COMMAND from God.

Read my response to this yet again....Ive even added it to the study for your convenience...

I read it and found it laughably short-sighted. Perhaps you should think before you make your statements, because you will not be happy from what follows, if we listen to "the world according to FoC"

You attempt to say that "traditions" is a precept. Very well. Then apparently, the decision to follow WRITTEN "precepts" is also subject to the individual's decision.

You can't have it both ways, FoC. The sentence does not make a distinction between "oral" and "written". Paul says BOTH. Follow BOTH. Not just the written, but the oral, as well He doesn't say "follow the written as a Law or Command from God and follow the oral until I write a Bible." Nor does he imply any distinction betweeen the two.

NOWHERE does Paul make such a distinction in the transmission of his teaching. If it comes from Paul, whether by morse code, smoke signals, sign language, pig latin, spoken or written language, it doesn't matter. That is a tradition of men that attaches importance to the "written" while demoting other means of transmitting the Gospel.

Now, if you decide to change the meaning of Scriptures and say "traditions" is equal to "precepts that I am free to decide to follow or not", then it equally applies to BOTH oral and written.

Again, sola scriptura fails. Not only that, your ranting and raving makes it quite obvious how desperate you are to defend a foundation built upon sand.

Let me know, SUCCINCTLY, if you actually find some support for your point of view. I don't have time for the childish games.

Regards