Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[francisdesales]

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.

No, SS (I will refer to sola scriptura as SS from now on, if that is acceptable to you) is not, but it is a tool that the devil uses to lead men to question and doubt the Gospel transmitted by men established by God (if you believe the Sacred Scripture's accounts). I believe we are in agreement that proud men are the root cause of dissension.

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.

I believe there parting was over disagreements in how to proceed to evangelize, NOT the message of the Gospel. Your example is not one of "dissension", which Paul ALWAYS chastizes in the Scriptures. He NEVER, as far as I know, suggests that dissension is a "good thing". There is ONE faith, and deviation was STRONGLY chastized, because it drew the "infant Christians" away from the ONE faith. Surely, you have gotten that message from the Scriptures, esp. the more recently written letters.

With that said (that I disagree that dissension is a good thing), I would like to qualify that by stating that dissension WITHIN the Church is behind reform within the Church. If everyone slavishly followed every priest or nun who came up with personal teaching and suggested it was Church teaching, using their authority to press home an agenda, then we'd have serious problems. The Holy Spirit does act through the voice of the Church to reform, and the Church is always reforming itself until it is presented spotless as the Bride of Christ. The PROBLEM, Tina, is when reform become DEFORM. Dissension. There is a fine line between discussion that led up to the decision in Acts 15 and the Judaizers who then slandered Paul to CONTINUE their differing point of view, AFTER the Holy Spirit and Council had ruled. Same today. AFTER the Holy Spirit and Council has defined our faith, differences of opinion are done... Separation from the Community of God is NEVER displayed in Scriptures as a good thing.

In other words, we are encouraged to challenge when we hear something that doesn't sound right. When the Church speaks definitively, however, we are to comply as if God Himself is telling us "this is how it is". "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us". There is no more room for "differences of opinion". Further obstinate behavior, dissension, is sinful - as Paul states (even stating they will NOT enter the Kingdom of heaven). That is the proper useage of reform, NOT leaving the church to start another. That is pride, quite simply. That is not trusting that the pillar and foundation of the Truth is found in the Church.

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...

... 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.

We both know that God does not act in obvious ways, nor does He necessarily show His "disapproval" in a manner that we would clealry understand. Good men suffer and evil men seem to be rewarded throughout their lives. Thus, I don't think we can say "God has no problems with diversity". God certainly ACCEPTS diversity, but you are not suggesting diversity, but rebellion. To me, diversity is accepting people for who they happen to be. For example, people of color, people of different cultures, people of different gender. God accepts all of them, Greek or Jew, slave or freeman, etc. But this does NOT suggest that God accepts rebellion, a refusal to obey Him, or a rejection of what HE has revealed through the Apostles.

For those whom the Gospel has not been preached to, God will judge based upon their "diversity". For those who reject the Gospel, hearing it and thinking "God will accept me if I do it my way", they will themselves be rejected. Clearly, Jesus gives this message in His battles with the Pharisees. If God accepted "diversity in belief" as you suggest, where I PERSONALLY pick and choose what to believe, then Jesus would not have been so adamant against the interpretations and practices of the Pharisees. Nor would Paul have been so adamant to battle the Judaizers who were preaching a false gospel. If it was a "live and let live attitude" that appealed to God, He didn't tell us that in the Sacred Scriptures. It is my opinion, Tina, that this comes from our culture - relativism - not from Scriptures.

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.

Sola Scriptura says there is only one authority, sacred Scriptures. We are bound by only the Bible. I don't find that concept in the Bible itself, Tina.

First of all, WE are the Church. Not just the bishops. The bishops speak the mind of the Community at Council. And they have been given the power to bind and loosen. But the mind of the Church is partly spoken through theologians and other lay members throughout the universal Church. Some of the greatest minds of the Church were not even bishops, such as St. Aquinas. I see this as a struggle between "doing it my way" or "obeying those whom God has placed over me". It certainly is the struggle of man - do it God's way or my way. Isn't that the question faced by mankind, from Adam to now???

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.

You are mistaken that Catholics think "we are the one true Church", as if that excludes all non-Catholics from the Church. I can tell you this unequivocably, because I am involved in a ministry that brings people into the Catholic Church and we do NOT "re-baptize" our separated brothers again. Baptism is the door into the Church, and anyone validly baptized and does not formally revoke their membership is part of the Church. Catholicism presents the FULLNESS of the faith, but that does not mean other Christians have NOTHING from God or are not PART of the Church. Vatican 2 made that crystal clear what we have always believed - we recognize God's Spirit works outside of the VISIBLE community of the Catholic Church and that these brothers, while separated from the Eucharistic table, share in many of our works and beliefs.

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.

Many were NOT based upon appeals to Sacred Scriptures. The Pharisees went beyond the letter of the Law and demanded others observe these traditions. Traditions were practiced by Christ Himself, thus, they are not bad in of themselves. The problem is when they separate us from God, such as Korban. Clearly, some reflection on this will enable you to understand the difference between a tradition, such as the rosary, that brings us closer to God, and a tradition of men, like usury, a corrupted practice of the Middle Ages that brought bad bishops into power. The later tradition, happily, was rejected by the Church.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

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?

Obviously I cant stop you from bringing up what you choose to and trying to push whatever fallacious point you wish to attempt.
That doesnt mean I have to care WHY you are or that Im going to sit back and agree.

Isn't that the ordinary way of debating, bringing up supporting verses and explaining the point of view?

Im sorry, did I say I was debating you ?
My purpose in every discussion is to expose, not debate.

Apparently, you didn't get the memo on how to have a discussion as an adult when two people disagree.

Apparently you mistook my motivation.

It seems evident to me that you only care about hearing yourself preach,

Can you get back to the topic now ?

rather than hearing the other person's point of view. Your answer "I don't care why you bring it up" speaks volumes.

Please
Try this with someone whom it may actually do something.
That I dont care has nothing to do with YOU PROVING your views. You havent and you cant.

I read it and found it laughably short-sighted.

Who gets to define 'short-sighted' here...you ?

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"

Ah...maybe a moderator is going to be necessary.
Back to the topic please....

 

[follower of Christ]

You attempt to say that "traditions" is a precept.

And it CANNOT be proven that anything NOT mentioned in the writings that BECAME the NT was practiced by the church as being necessary for salvation.
We all do things a bit differently....even catholics over the years. Those 'traditions' arent required for salvation and that is why no mention would be necessary in scripture about them...

Very well. Then apparently, the decision to follow WRITTEN "precepts" is also subject to the individual's decision.

If you say so...

You can't have it both ways, FoC.

Please :nag

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.

And AGAIN the writings that BECAME THE NEW TESTAMENT HAD NOT YET BEEN FINISHED !
The letter in question that you contains your pet passage is a VERY short letter.
It is VERY unlikely that ANY church at THAT time had been given the ENTIRE gospel in any written form.
Look at the letters to the Ephesians and others that are VERY short...these letters dont even have much of the BASICS, let alone go into all the detail that letters such as Romans do.

So OF COURSE the Ephesians, Colossians and Thessalonians HAD TO HAVE RECIEVED THE REST OF the data concerning the GOSPEL that WASNT mentioned in the LETTERS to them by word of mouth...ie ORAL TRADITION (precepts, transmission)...this isnt that complicated, FD....even if you wish it were.

TODAY, however, ALL of these letters have been collected for us so we can ALL see the WHOLE picture by the WRITTEN word.
I dont just have the SHORT letters to the Thessalonians with your pet verse...I have the collective writings of Paul and the other that GOD brought together thru sinful men so that *I* can know ALL of the details necessary for salvation.

You can keep repeating this over and again and the answer will remain the SAME every time....

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.

See above in red...

Again, sola scriptura fails.

Here we go again with the non-sequitur nonsense.
PROVE your former assertions THEN bring your conclusions to bear.

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

Only in your own mind, FD.
I realize its impossible, but if you could step outside of your own thinking for second youd see that your fallacy IS being shown for what it is here...even if you dont see it or accept it.

Let me know, SUCCINCTLY, if you actually find some support for your point of view.

Yeah. I do...and I just explained it in 30 posts or so.

You have NO support for a list of catholic practices that Ive listed a few times now and you have yet to show actual scriptural support for.
ALL you have is one little word that DOESNT actually show what you want to believe it does...again, as explained above.

The RCC can make any claim she wants, but she CANNOT prove that these 'traditions' mentioned in this VERY short book was meant to express ANY 'precept' NOT mentioned in OTHER writings such as Romans and Hebrews that went into very great detail.
WHEN you can PROVE that more than that was meant, then feel free to present your support.
Till then youre wasting your time and ours...

I don't have time for the childish games.

Great...see ya around then

 

[francisdesales]

Galatians 2:1-3
Galatians 5:2-6
Galatians 6:12-16
1 Corinthians 7:17-19
Colossians 2:8-12
Philippians 3:2-3

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.

Tina, these were all written AFTER the decision made as related in Acts 15!!! ;)

The Apostles and the Holy Spirit had already found it "good" to put aside this command of the past. All of your verses merely tell us "after the fact" explanations of WHY the Apostles made an extra-biblical decision. MORE IMPORTANTLY, note, the Apostles EXPECTED that they be heeded, despite the Judaizers looking for a verse, as you do today...

The Church's authority in action... An infallible source, given by God to the apostles to bind and loosen the community. And Christians were expected to OBEY. This is a fine example of how the Church was not or EVER "SS", until the rebellion of "Korah 2", Mr. Luther, came onto the scene.

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.

They continue to be "upheld", Tina. There is no "cutoff date" of Apostolic Tradition.

Protestantism only evolved in the 16th century, and by then the KJV Bible was already available.

The KJV bible was written AFTER Protestantism began.

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 ?

The entire Church has accepted, for 1500 years, that the Church itself was an authority, based upon the warrants found in Scriptures themselves, as well as the witness the Church provided throughout the centuries. There was no need to "write down" everything, as if this was a court of law. The Church is a living entity, the Bible is not.

Again, you have a mistaken idea of what the Bible is. It is not a theological treatise that covers all Christian subjects. The Bible was originally disconnected and individual letters written to particular communities requiring help on some aspects of the faith. They were used by Church leaders to keep people on the right track. There are many subjects not directly addressed, such as the Triune God, or the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. These are examples of Apostolic Tradition, a particular WAY of reading Scriptures.

Give yourself some time on these threads, Tina, and you will see the effect of jettisoning Sacred Tradition. You will be amazed on how many people do not believe in the Trinity or have strange ideas on who Jesus was. VERY important items of the Christian faith, twisted by "personal interpretation". Let the Church do its job of preaching the Good News unadultered.

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.

Because you have been relatively cordial, I'll do it again in a bit more detail, and hopefully, you'll understand.

First, where does the Bible say "all that is needed"? Here is what is says...

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. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

It says USEFUL. PROFITABLE. WHERE does it say "all that is needed for salvation"? FASTING is useful. PRAYER is useful. Reading the Bible is useful. Giving ALMS is useful. But nowhere does the Bible say "all that is needed".

You suggest that the Bible is the ONLY thing needed for salvation, and you are quite wrong. I will explain it in two ways.

1. First, bad interpretation. If I may, I will use the same exact example I used before...

If I say "the sky is blue", does that mean it is the ONLY thing that is blue? If the Bible is profitable, does that mean it is the ONLY thing that is profitable in instruction or perfecting the saints???

2. The Bible gives us ANOTHER example of perfecting the saints that does not include the Bible. This makes "ONLY" a false teaching.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:11-13

The apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers are ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints. This makes sola scriptura EXPLICITLY DENIED BY SACRED WRIT!!!!

If another means of perfecting the saints exists, then sola scriptura ends up in the dustbin of history along with other logical fallacies and false gospels and "good intentions" that deny God's Word.

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

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

Even AFTER it was completed, it doesn't cover all contingencies. If it did, everyone would be in perfect agreement over the Trinity...

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 ?

Where did I say that? I am quoting Scriptures. And we do not call ourselves "the Roman Catholic Church". No official document issuing from Rome calls itself the "Roman Catholic Church". The term stems from the Anglicans and their invention of the branch theory from the 1600's. We do not use that term. We call ourselves "Catholic", and including all Catholics, whether they are Latin, Byzantine, or Syrian (and there are dozens of others who are Catholic but not Roman).

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.

You have yet to show me ONE verse that states that the Bible is the sole source of our faith or that the Bible has ALL I NEED to be a good Christian. It is useful, it is profitable, but so is giving to the poor.

It is a tradition of men because the Church has never believed it, it is not found anywhere for 1500 years until "Korah 2", and moves people AWAY from part of God's revealed Word. It is man-made because the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth, has not taught it. Not only not taught it, but has taught something different. Thus, it is an invention of men in rebellion.

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.

Can't have it both ways, sister. According to your logic, written traditions don't apply anymore, either. Paul makes NO DISTINCTION AT ALL between the means of transmission. He says "both oral and written". Thus, if oral traditions are no longer in effect (because he used the past tense), then anything WRITTEN after 51 AD is to be ignored, as well. You have just tossed 2/3 of the NT away with that logic. :gah

Furthermore, to point out your mistake, the Pastorals show Paul giving Timothy and Titus (and no doubt, other leaders) the task of passing on the Gospel UNADULTERED, reminding them of the promise and gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of TRUTH. Are you saying that Paul didn't believe that the Spirit would keep the promise to guide and guard the deposit of the faith given to the next generation, and the next, and so forth???

No, your logic fails here, Tina. The "new traditions" that are at issue is SS, since we don't find Paul teaching them. Nor does he write them down. And by examing the Church history, we don't find anyone teaching them, either. We can safely assume it was not an oral tradition (that the future bible would abrogate oral tradition in the future).

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

Yes, they provide a wonderful example of disunity and discord, thanks for the example... Does it match up with the unity presented in the Scriptures???

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

Try to stay on topic, please. Whether something is a "man-made tradition" is your opinion, one which we are not allowed to explore here, since this forum doesn't allow Catholic-in-particular discussions. Trust me, I have no problem defending and accepting the faith given to me by the Lord through the Catholic Church. However, to maintain peace (the older hands will understand!), I will defer.

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.

Tina, I believe I have answered all of your claims, and that the logic of my arguments stand on their own merit. I don't even need to be a Catholic to shoot down SS, because I can provide simple logical arguments, like your misuse of the words used in 2 Tim 3 (somehow making "useful" into "the only thing necessary"). Or your misuse of 2 Thes 2:15 (your logic suggests we do away with ANYTHING given to us after 51 AD)

Your defense of SS, while I respect your attempts, is futile. It is like me defending the Popes of the Renaissance era. It is a hopeless proposition, and in the end, I (and you with SS) conclude that it is BEYOND defensible. Clearly, there is no defense, and I just accept that there were bad popes. SS is a tradition of men, and because it rests on sand, is indefensible, when Scriptures are actually READ with an open mind. I will keep you in my prayers that you, too, will come to realize the indefensibility of your position and how it breeds dissension among the flock (which the Bible says leads to being outcast from the Kingdom)

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

No, SS (I will refer to sola scriptura as SS from now on, if that is acceptable to you) is not, but it is a tool that the devil uses to lead men to question and doubt the Gospel transmitted by men established by God (if you believe the Sacred Scripture's accounts).

Balderdash...
Sticking to the WRITTEN foundation is what helps keep the truth intact. That some have added to and distorted is has no effect on Christs TRUE church.

Sola Scriptura says there is only one authority, sacred Scriptures.

And again, are you claiming that Gods inspired word that YOUR own people canonized is NOT the FINAL authority ?
I see youve managed to dodge pretty much EVERY question Ive asked of you directly, FD...THAT is very telling.

We are bound by only the Bible. I don't find that concept in the Bible itself, Tina.

Oh brother....this nonsense again.
So if the bible doesnt SAY 'Im the bible' then it certainly isnt the bible by your reasoning

You are mistaken that Catholics think "we are the one true Church", as if that excludes all non-Catholics from the Church. I can tell you this unequivocably, because I am involved in a ministry that brings people into the Catholic Church and we do NOT "re-baptize" our separated brothers again.

Is it Seperated Brothers now ?
Oh...cool...last I had heard protestants had been declared Heretics by some Pope long ago.
Guess the CC NEVER changes her views....eh ?

And that she DOES shows that SS is VERY crucial to the church.

Baptism is the door into the Church, and anyone validly baptized and does not formally revoke their membership is part of the Church. Catholicism presents the FULLNESS of the faith, but that does not mean other Christians have NOTHING from God or are not PART of the Church. Vatican 2 made that crystal clear what we have always believed - we recognize God's Spirit works outside of the VISIBLE community of the Catholic Church and that these brothers, while separated from the Eucharistic table, share in many of our works and beliefs.

Vatican 2 eh ?
And what was the view of protestants some time before ?

Many were NOT based upon appeals to Sacred Scriptures.

Meaningless considering that WHILE Paul and the others wrote and for a LONG time after, there existed NO collective works called the 'Bible'.
MOST folks HAD To go by what they had learned ORALLY from those who were sent out to PREACH the gospel....ie by WORD OF MOUTH....ORAL TRADITION (precepts, transmissions).

The Gospel itself would BE 'tradition' by the precise MEANING of the word...and it would be an ORAL tradition to those who had NOT RECEIVED any letters explaining it all but who had ONLY heard it by word of mouth.
Is any of this getting thru to you, FD ?

A few centuries later men were used by God to collect His inspired letters together and bring about a WRITTEN form of these 'traditions' (PRECEPTS) so that there was a rock solid foundation in writing that would be a guide to the church for doctrine.

The Pharisees went beyond the letter of the Law and demanded others observe these traditions. Traditions were practiced by Christ Himself, thus, they are not bad in of themselves.

And by ALL means, practice any unscriptural tradition you choose, just dont try to pass it off as gospel onto us....

The problem is when they separate us from God, such as Korban. Clearly, some reflection on this will enable you to understand the difference between a tradition, such as the rosary, that brings us closer to God,

The rosary isnt necessary to be closer to God.
If ya need it or want it, fine...just dont push it on those of us who dont need it ourselves

 

[francisdesales]

I'm sorry, did I say I was debating you ?

My purpose in every discussion is to expose, not debate.

Thanks for exposing yourself for what you are...

A person attempting to defend SS must, by convention, debate those who disagree with the premise. It is apparent that you are merely interested in trolling and provoking people on this forum. You want to defend sola scriputra, but when someone provides a disagreement with Scriptures, you "don't care".

I think I don't need to go into detail what that makes you and what sort of contribution to the Christian walk of others you provide.

I again give you permission to call the moderator. Perhaps he might be able to give you some unbiased thoughts on your methods.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

They continue to be "upheld", Tina. There is no "cutoff date" of Apostolic Tradition.

Correct.
and you have YET to prove that ANY 'tradition' (precept, transmission) taught by Paul and other NT writers are not presented in the collective writings of the New Testament.

Ill say it AGAIN that its VERY peculiar that NOT ONE mention is made by ANY NT writer about these teachings...

-penance for sin
-confession to priests rather than God
-

The KJV bible was written AFTER Protestantism began.

Irrelevant.
The KJV translators used other ENGLISH bibles to help with translation.
Many men DIED bringing us our english bibles...

The entire Church has accepted, for 1500 years, that the Church itself was an authority,

Youre leaving out the fact that many DID buck the 'authority' of your church, friend.
And will you please explain to the readers what two things might happen to anyone who dared defy the CAtholic Church way back when ?
Shall we post some history here ?

 

[francisdesales]

The RCC can make any claim she wants, but she CANNOT prove that these 'traditions' mentioned in this VERY short book was meant to express ANY 'precept' NOT mentioned in OTHER writings such as Romans and Hebrews that went into very great detail.
WHEN you can PROVE that more than that was meant, then feel free to present your support.
Till then youre wasting your time and ours...

As usual, more off-topic provocation that has NOTHING to do with the fallacy of SS... Does this thread have anything to do with the "RCC"? I thought it was about whether sola scriptura was Scriptural or not.

But of course, red herring is on the menu when FoC writes. That is his mode of operation, and not only with me. Take the focus off the subject when you cannot answer the critics (or choose not to, because you don't care about anyone else's opinion)... Ask Benoni, a non-catholic, what he thinks about FoC's methods.

Great...see ya around then

Well, since you are leaving, now I can have an adult conversation with Tina without your harassing exposure of yourself.

 

[follower of Christ]

hanks for exposing yourself for what you are...

please...Ive said time and again on this forum and EVERY other that I post on that I am NOT here to debate or change anyones mind.
My goal is to EXPOSE...and most of the time that appears to be debate, but my motivations arent the same as yours as I dont like to waste my time trying to change YOUR views which wont be...
Instead showing your error to the READER is the intent.

Ive never tried to hide that fact and admit it often. Apparently you managed to miss my frequent admissions to the fact...

A person attempting to defend SS must, by convention, debate those who disagree with the premise.

Read the above.

It is apparent that you are merely interested in trolling and provoking people on this forum.

Please...
That Im not interested in trying to debate you into changing your mind because its a waste of energy is irrelevant.
Youve presented your case, Ive responded.
As far as the rules go for the forum we are fine.

You want to defend sola scriputra, but when someone provides a disagreement with Scriptures, you "don't care".

I said I didnt care why YOU were posting the passage...and THEN I proceeded to respond to your fallacious assertions....ie I 'debated' the point.

is this all you have now, FD ?
Have the facts failed you so miserably that you need to distract with this personal assault ?
Shall I call in a moderator to get you back on topic ?

I think I don't need to go into detail what that makes you and what sort of contribution to the Christian walk of others you provide.

I again give you permission to call the moderator. Perhaps he might be able to give you some unbiased thoughts on your methods.

Regards

My method has been what is called 'debate'.
The ONLY difference is my motivation....I wont waste my time trying to change YOUR mind. That would lead to frustration on my part and if you were hoping that that would be the case then I submit that you THOUGHT that once I realized taht you werent changing your mind that Id give up. ;)

Since Im NOT trying to debate you or change your mind, but instead 'debate' you to expose your error tothe READER here, I can do that effectively and NOT have to get frustrated when you DONT change your mind.

See how logical that is ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

As usual, more off-topic provocation that has NOTHING to do with the fallacy of SS... Does this thread have anything to do with the "RCC"? I thought it was about whether sola scriptura was Scriptural or not.

Oh please.
Tell us then, FD....WHAT ORAL TRADITION are YOU discussing here in this thread ?
We ALL know that you are catholic and that you are hinting at oral tradition PRACTICED by your church.
That *I* am the one to mention it directly is irrelevant.

But of course, red herring is on the menu when FoC writes. That is his mode of operation, and not only with me. Take the focus off the subject when you cannot answer the critics (or choose not to, because you don't care about anyone else's opinion)... Ask Benoni, a non-catholic, what he thinks about FoC's methods.

you can stop with this falsehood any time you feel to....we ALL know that Ive answered EVERYthing youve presented to me and then also a lot of your views presented to another member here.

Can YOU defend your views on oral tradition or not, FD ?
If not, just admit it and move along...its not worth wasting another day here.

Well, since you are leaving, now I can have an adult conversation with Tina without your harassing exposure of yourself.

I think we both know that Im not going anywhere.

 

[francisdesales]

Ill say it AGAIN that its VERY peculiar that NOT ONE mention is made by ANY NT writer about these teachings...

-penance for sin
-confession to priests rather than God

I'll say it again, stay on topic and stop trying to make this a "Catholic" discussion. It has nothing to do with Catholicism, but whether sola scriptura is biblical or not. Stop trying to highjack this thread.

The KJV bible was written AFTER Protestantism began.

Irrelevant.
The KJV translators used other ENGLISH bibles to help with translation.
Many men DIED bringing us our english bibles...

Why are you trying to provoke me? It is relevant because the statement made by Tina is incorrect. YOUR statement is irrelevant, because the KJV WAS INDEED written well after the reformation began. That is simple historical fact, and says nothing about whether I think the KJV is an acceptable translation - I happen to cite it quite often.

The entire Church has accepted, for 1500 years, that the Church itself was an authority,

Youre leaving out the fact that many DID buck the 'authority' of your church, friend.

Please refer to my conversation with Tina on this subject. I don't feel like typing it twice so soon.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

I'll say it again, stay on topic and stop trying to make this a "Catholic" discussion.

Sorry gent, but there is no CC bashing going on...stop playing martyr here.
YOU ARE discussing oral tradition and that would include those practiced by your church.
That I ask for you to show SUPPORT for these 'oral traditions' is HARDLY 'bashing' the church.

It has nothing to do with Catholicism, but whether sola scriptura is biblical or not. Stop trying to highjack this thread.

Then YOU do NOT mention ORAL TRADITION again in THIS SS thread....
WHEN you use ORAL TRADITION for your argument then YOU are opening that door for me....



.

 

[francisdesales]

That Im not interested in trying to debate you into changing your mind because its a waste of energy is irrelevant.
Youve presented your case, Ive responded.

We see how you have responded and I have also admitted you have exposed yourself. The writing is on the wall, so to speak.

I will await your verses that show sola scriptura is scriptural, OR any argument that denies the logic of what I have presented. I will attempt to be patient with your provocations, but I would not rely on that too long... But if that is beyond you, I'll just speak with Tina.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

Why are you trying to provoke me?

No one is provoking you, FD.
You came into a thread that is NEVER a good idea for protestants and catholics to discuss and we ALL know this fact.
I am giving the REST of the story here so that the READERS understand the larger picture.

Please refer to my conversation with Tina on this subject. I don't feel like typing it twice so soon.

Regards

Your statement made it sound as tho there were some unanimous agreement about church authority for all those centuries...and MY point was that YOUR point was fallacious.
The Eastern Orthodox didnt agree with the claims of church authority...and neither did many others who became protestants.

You made your claims, I 'debated' them...nothing more

 

[follower of Christ]

We see how you have responded

with precision.

and I have also admitted you have exposed yourself.

YOU admitted that I exposed MYSELF....hmm.
Im sure that made sense to you, but Im having trouble with it.

I will await your verses that show sola scriptura is scriptural,

I'll await your verses that say that its not ....ones that SAY what you claim they say and that ANYTHING not mentioned in scripture is necessary for salvation ;)

OR any argument that denies the logic of what I have presented.

read the thread friend...its all in there.

 

[francisdesales]

I'll say it again, stay on topic and stop trying to make this a "Catholic" discussion.

Sorry gent, but there is no CC bashing going on...stop playing martyr here.

Martyr? Your new here. Maybe you just don't know this. But I have no problems defending my faith. Just go take a look at the subforum that used to exist on the Catholic Church. I am merely trying to keep this on topic by steering you clear of what the MODERATORS consider inappropriate discussion.

Citing Scriptures that speak about oral tradition to be held IS NOT an excuse to highjack the thread. Further such postings will bring the moderators, I have no doubt.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

Martyr? Your new here.

New here ?
I think we both know thats blatantly false. ;)

follower of Christ
Christian Forum Pro

Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004

been here about a year and a half longer than you have, apparently.

Maybe you just don't know this. But I have no problems defending my faith. Just go take a look at the subforum that used to exist on the Catholic Church. I am merely trying to keep this on topic by steering you clear of what the MODERATORS consider inappropriate discussion.

Then stop talking about Oral Tradition in this SOLA SCRIPTURA thread.
When you bring oral tradition up it leaves us having to EXAMINE and DEBATE that issue, which inevitably means discussing the oral 'traditions' (precepts/transmissions) themselves to see if they in any way are even hinted at in the scriptures to begin with.

You SAY you want to debate the matter, then conveniently you call foul when anyone tries to a bring evidence to bear that exposes your fallacy.

Citing Scriptures that speak about oral tradition to be held IS NOT an excuse to highjack the thread. Further such postings will bring the moderators, I have no doubt.

Regards

And EXPLORING the claims ABOUT what these traditions are and *IF* they fit into the gospel ARENT highjacking the thread either.

Im not an idiot, FD...I can SEE that you are simply trying to control this discussion and THAT is why you are getting bent out of shape with me..because Im not following your game plan.

 

[Rick W]

Discussion is about scripture not about each other. I don't mind some personal interaction but please show some respect even though there is disagreement.
:yes

<nudge>

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I will admit, being a new Christian, I had to look this term up and read up a bit and even now maybe I should not participate in this discussion. However, since I am here to learn and debate and not to "EXPOSE" ;) I wish to throw some of my thoughts out there.

After reading most of this thread and researching this issue a bit I think it boils down to one question. Is it alright to have traditions within a faith group derived from something other than the bible? If not, are there traditions in some faith groups that contradict the OT / NT. If it is acceptable to have traditions not based on scripture what are those examples and what do folks think about these traditions and their value to the "church"?

I am a little torn on this one but will admit that is due to my newness to Christianity. I will throw out there that I grew up Catholic until the age of about 11 or 12 but had a falling out with my faith for over 20 years until this year. Just to give some perspective on where I am coming from.

 

[follower of Christ]

Is it alright to have traditions within a faith group derived from something other than the bible?

Absolutely AS LONG AS it does not conflict with Gods word and AS LONG AS you do not teach it as biblical doctrine or push it as *required* to anyone else.

My mentors have their own 'tradition' that they have in their church 'families' and they arent the same, nor do my wife and I do the same sorts of things.
Its all good, we all are different and worship God in our own way in our own unique relationship with Him.

If not, are there traditions in some faith groups that contradict the OT / NT.

Yes. there are.
Some groups firstly teach these traditions/precepts as being *required* where Gods word doesnt.
And in some cases they are in DIRECT conflict with Gods whole word.
Not to 'bash' anyones church, but bowing before images is forbidden in scripture...and Christs sacrifice, not penance, pays the price for mans sin. Confession is to Christ/God, not man...Christ ALONE is 'redeemer' for our sins, He doesnt share that with anyone else, including His earthly mother.
So in each of these cases where mans 'tradition' is found to be in conflict with scripture, it very seriously needs to be questioned, 'exposed' and should cease on the part of those partaking of it.

This doesnt just apply to catholics, EO or other non-protestant 'traditions'.
Things like handling snakes and other things NOT commanded in scripture should not be taught as being *required* either.

we can have our own traditions, if we wish, but if they conflict with scripture then they should stop.

If it is acceptable to have traditions not based on scripture what are those examples and what do folks think about these traditions and their value to the "church"?

Well, what about Easter and Christmas ?
Some say these started in paganism, but we Christians have turned these days around into something WE use to worship our Lord in.
These 'traditions' arent necessarly taught in Gods word as far as having to follow them, but most of the church does. And if they are observed in the right state of heart they are very 'godly' even if not required.

I am a little torn on this one but will admit that is due to my newness to Christianity. I will throw out there that I grew up Catholic until the age of about 11 or 12 but had a falling out with my faith for over 20 years until this year. Just to give some perspective on where I am coming from.

Regrettably Catholic 'tradition' often becomes the focal point of these SS threads and others such as the church authority topic.
I love my catholic brothers and sisters very much, and I believe that most of them are born again believers and are heaven bound, but I will not sit back and be told that I have to observe these unscriptural traditions to be born again or be saved myself as I know better.