Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

[follower of Christ]

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

And *I* know the bible is from God because I TRUST GOD, not man.
The Jews were a corrupt little bunch...and God STILL managed to PROTECT His law by THEIR hands.
So please...MAN is NOT the one who did the work here...and the corrupt 'church' has no claims to glory for what GOD did Himself thru them.

Clearly, the Christian community believed that Paul's Gospel, both orally and written, was infallible.

And AGAIN..at THAT TIME they did NOT HAVE any WRITTEN NEW testament.
They had a few letters....and Paul even TELLS them to read the letters then EXCHANGE them with other churches...

Col 4:16 And when this letter is read before you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you also read the letter of Laodicea.

And Paul told them to read his letters to ALL of the brethren...

1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the holy brothers.

Paul DIDNT know what his letters would BECOME...he DID know that they were INSTRUCTION from God to His church...

His writings were termed "Scriptures". Note carefully the text "they that are unlearned wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction".

yeah...that might be one yous should take a bit more seriously, quite frankly

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

Nice try there gent ;)
Peter ONLY SAYS that some pervert the word...Peter does NOT SAY that I have to go to this magisterium in order to UNDERSTAND Pauls writings.
Dont even go there.

 

[francisdesales]

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

I certainly do not agree with some of Benoni's beliefs. But that doesn't make him always wrong. On SS, we agree. The point is that it doesn't take a Catholic to note the fallacy of SS...

Uh..yeah...they accepted Pauls words as being inspired....I think we covered this already.

And yet, you tell me there is no NT Bible, so sola scriptura is exempt from its own dictates???

Make up your mind, already. Were there writings seen as Scriptures or not during the first century that we NOW call the NT?

And those WRITINGS were gathered into what we call the NEW testament for instruction to the church.

But nowhere is this implied, neither in the Bible OR in extra-biblical historical writings, that the Christians of the day took your ridiculous point of view.

IF the Christians of 100 AD thought that the bible/scriptures/writings of Paul swallowed his oral teachings, encompassing everything he SAID, then they would have mentioned that. They would NOT have had all these "oral traditions" such as prayers for the dead or Marian devotions or the sacrifice of the Mass, all clearly stated by Christians of the same community as Paul wrote to...

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

Goodie for you. I'd be embarrassed to state that, given your unfamiliarity with it...

The Jews who ADDED their own godless tradition and were chastised for it....sound familiar ?

Yea, sola scriptura, nowhere found, that moves people from part of God's Word. Yep..

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

*I* am discussing the NEW testament writings and you KNOW it.

The earliest Christians recognized that ALL of Paul's teachings were from God. His writings, thus, would be and were considered Scriptural. NOR does Paul correct the lack of a sola scriptura notion in any of his writings. Your argument is pitiful. By convention, a doctrine should at least follow its own dictates. It fails miserably and is found wanting, just as your defense of it. Your defense is just sophistry. The overall scheme of the Bible does not support any magical invention of SS. It supports access to God's Word through the Gospel, which IS NOT entirely stated in the written Scriptures that even NOW, we call the Bible.

 

[follower of Christ]

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

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

Yea, sounds familiar to YOUR boasts...

HERE is what the man of God does, since you seem unaware of the Scriptures themselves...[/quote]
That MIGHT be even remotely relevant *IF* I were against Gods prophets ;)
Anything else ? ;)

"FoC", I give you permission.

Get back to the topic.

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

YOU are the one calling names here, friend....

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

Please.
Its easy enough to see that you dont.

Newbie, about the dumbest thing to do on these forums is to pretend you actually are well-versed and studied in the Scriptures when you prove over and over that you are not.

Then refute something.

.. No one cares how many hours you CLAIM to have studied Scriptures. You still got them wrong...

So you claim yet have yet to actually prove.

What I find hilarious is that you even remotely seem to believe that there is some resolution to this debate.
Any one who actually understood the facts of the issue would know that this is a stalemate before it even began.
I just enjoy seeing you ramble on, quite frankly..

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

Time for a little copy/paste, I see

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

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

You are foisting extra-biblical traditions upon me

Now THAT is hilarious.
If it were up to the CC we'd ALL be bowing to Mary and confessing to priests....isnt that right ?
Can ya SHOW me that support anytime this century ?

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

One of us is, for certain

 

[francisdesales]

Peter ONLY SAYS that some pervert the word...Peter does NOT SAY that I have to go to this magisterium in order to UNDERSTAND Pauls writings.
Dont even go there.

As usual, the point sails right over your head.

The point is that the Bible alone is not good enough. I do not need to "prove" that you must come to the "Magesterium". This is yet another fine SCRIPTURAL example on how SS fails.

Even people who CLAIM to read the Bible 600 times.

I provide Scriptures to prove my point, you go off topic, make logical fallacies, such as begging the question, and brag about how smart you are...

Yea, you're done, alright. You are no longer defending sola scriptura, but running in circles. I have not seen a Scriptural verse from you on SS, and that pretty much sums up your defense - sans the Word of God.

 

[follower of Christ]

I certainly do not agree with some of Benoni's beliefs.

You sure ?

But that doesn't make him always wrong. On SS, we agree. The point is that it doesn't take a Catholic to note the fallacy of SS...

Im sure it doesnt.
And Im sure that catholics arent the only ones doing a lot of UNscriptural things...

And yet, you tell me there is no NT Bible, so sola scriptura is exempt from its own dictates???

What Ive said is, since you missed it the first 800 times, is that your demand on the text is laughable.
Tho Im certain you dont grasp that fact at this point....
Again....MANY of the LETTERS Paul wrote didnt even contain the ENTIRE gospel...and canon did not yet exist as such...so in WHICH LETTER do you claim Paul should have written 'THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINE" when at that point in time there WAS NO NT BIBLE ????

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

Make up your mind, already. Were there writings seen as Scriptures or not during the first century that we NOW call the NT?

Dont even pay attention, do you ? No wonder we cant get anywhere.
The LETTERS existed...they werent gathered into canon for what ?...another 3 centuries or so ;)
Paul had no NEW testament BIBLE. Nor did the church have a complete NT for quite some time.
WHEN PAUL WROTE the letters is the ONLY issue here.
WHEN PAUL WROTE the LETTERS that BECAME the NEW testament Bible he had NO IDEA what those writings would BECOME as PAUL seemingly believed that Jesus MIGHT RETURN in HIS lifetime.
Paul had NO IDEA that CENTURIES later a NEW testament would be formed from those individual LETTERS..so there was NO REASON for Paul to say 'The BIBLE (NEW testament)" is anything...

So you are putting UNREASONABLE DEMANDS on the texts....sinking in yet ?
whew....

 

[follower of Christ]

But nowhere is this implied,
neither in the Bible OR in extra-biblical historical writings, that the Christians of the day took your ridiculous point of view.

IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE !
Good grief. My nephew can understand this...

IF the Christians of 100 AD thought that the bible/scriptures/writings of Paul swallowed his oral teachings, encompassing everything he SAID, then they would have mentioned that.

And there would have BEEN "ORAL" teachings AT LEAST UNTIL the point where EVERYONE HAD A BIBLE !

Before the PRINTING PRESS was invented in the 1400's we STILL WOULD HAVE HAD A LOT of people who did NOT HAVE a bible and who were getting the gospel thru ORAL communication.
That is why the church was HANDWRITING the letters to the best of their ability...they WANTED THE WRITTEN word of God even before it could be massed produced on a press.

They would NOT have had all these "oral traditions" such as prayers for the dead or Marian devotions or the sacrifice of the Mass, all clearly stated by Christians of the same community as Paul wrote to...

Yeah...we would...Paul foretold of wolves coming in even from among ourselves teaching heresies in the church.

Goodie for you. I'd be embarrassed to state that, given your unfamiliarity with it...

Hope this makes ya feel better

Yea, sola scriptura, nowhere found, that moves people from part of God's Word. Yep..

ridiculous...]

The earliest Christians recognized that ALL of Paul's teachings were from God. His writings, thus, would be and were considered Scriptural.

hmmm..yeah..O...K....

NOR does Paul correct the lack of a sola scriptura notion in any of his writings.

Irrelevant for reasons stated above and in about 20 posts thus far.

Your argument is pitiful.

By convention, a doctrine should at least follow its own dictates.

I know youd like to make this sound like a reasonable argument, but it isnt
I dont have a single ink pen in this house that says 'Ink pen' on it.
By your amazingly illogical reasoning NONE of these ink pens IS an ink pen because it doesnt SAY its an ink pen.
Guess I should stop trying to write with them....

 

[follower of Christ]

The point is that the Bible alone is not good enough.

Yes, we know already about your view of the failings of Gods word.

I do not need to "prove" that you must come to the "Magesterium". This is yet another fine SCRIPTURAL example on how SS fails.

Yeah....that makes a lot of sense.

Even people who CLAIM to read the Bible 600 times.

;)
See *I* spend MY time in GODS word...not in those of dozens of early church 'fathers' who couldnt seem to get their acts together and agree on much of anything.

I provide Scriptures to prove my point, you go off topic,

You provided scriptures that you believe proved your point, for certain.

-irrelevance snipped-

 

[follower of Christ]

The eunuch was a humble man and realized he needed help, guidance. We all do.

And I NEVER said anything about not getting together with other christians to discuss what GODS WORD SAYS and MEANS....did I ?

*I* ACTUALLY said that The Bible is THE FINAL AUTHORITY in matters of doctrine and contains all instruction for salvation and obedience to God.

I did NOT say that we dont sometimes need to get together with other believers to get a broader feel for the texts.
That does NOT mean that we have authority to create UNscriptural traditions or REJECT that Gods word IS the final authority for doctrine...

 

[follower of Christ]

MODERATORS.
Please be sure to see that *I* am not the one who is calling names here and provoking this situation.
Im trying to be as lighthearted as possible, but FD here is resorting to derogatory names and flaming to provoke me again.

 

[follower of Christ]

Do we have any Scriptures that tell us that we are to remove ourselves from the Community of believers and interpret Scriptures on are own?

And again you are misrepresenting MY posts and MY views.
I NEVER said a THING about seperating from our brethren.
What *I* said was The Bible is THE FINAL AUTHORITY in matters of doctrine and contains all instruction for salvation and obedience to God.

I have NEVER said a word about removing ourselves from the assembly.
I hope you have something better than this distraction...

Are we told that only written teachings are or WILL be operative? No. Thus, the entire thesis of sola scriptura is built upon sand. It has no scriptural support - and reading the Bible clearly points that out.

Please
This argument has been refuted for the nonsense it is.
You make unreasonable, illogical demands on the texts then think youve gotten somewhere.

 

[follower of Christ]

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

That become obvious about a dozen pages back...

Where exactly do you get sola scriptura from, then, if you admit it is not in the Bible that we NOW have???

FAith in GOD that He has done with His NEW testament what He did with His OLD testament.... something that Paul shows in the NEW testament that was probably never actually expressed in the OLD

Thanks for continuing to supply fertilizer for sola scriptura's grave...

Feel better ?

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

So you keep saying and have yet to do...

Clearly, you are uninformed on Christ's warning against tradition. HE HIMSELF practised "extra-biblical" traditions, as well.

Chapter and verse please.
Youve made these claims of support before, but we've yet to see anything.

And AGAIN, I have NEVER condemned traditions.
I have CLEARLY STATED that you can do anything you want YOURSELF....it is when you PREACH to OTHERS that THEY MUST partake of these 'extra biblical' traditions that you find yourself to be in error....

You want to dance around and cluck like a chicken in prayer, be my guest....dont pass it off on me as gospel tho....


Getting it yet ?

(assuming you have EVER read this...)

Youre a real laugh

 

[follower of Christ]

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

Which only makes it even worse.
GODS WORD is NOT at fault tho....HIS WORD isnt what FAILED here, even if you believe it to be the case.
His WORD shows us a COMPLETE gospel and ALL that is NECESSARY for salvation and obedience to Him.

Salvation is VERY simple. Believe in God and His only begotten Son, repent and live the life as we're called to do.
Live the life by firstly loving God with all our hearts and minds..and secondly loving our neighbor as ourselves.

There isnt much beyond that that is NECESSARY for SALVATION.
And WHEN we LOVE OTHERS as we SHOULD, we are going to treat them AS we should....ie we dont kill, steal, bear false witness, commit adultery, covet, etc, etc, etc.

YOU make this complicated...not Gods word.
ALL that is necessary for salvation and obedience to God IS CONTAINED within the pages of the book we call the Bible.

You and I can do this ten thousand more times, gent, and nothing is going to change. I promise you that.
Its your call...I have all the time in the world.....Im disabled permanently so I have nothing better to do much of the day .

.


.

 

[Free]

Seeing as how there are 19 pages with nothing new and the utter lack of a Christlike attitude, it would probably be best to agree to disagree and call it day.

 

[francisdesales]

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

Which only makes it even worse.
GODS WORD is NOT at fault tho....HIS WORD isnt what FAILED here, even if you believe it to be the case.

The problem is not God's Word, (as you yet again sputter and stumble around without a clue) but that God's Word is NOT encapsulated in Scriptures, like you falsely believe. God's Word is found in the oral and written teachings of the Apostles, which INCLUDES proper Scripture interpretation, demonstrated by Philip to the Egyptian. Isn't that clear? Isn't it clear, yet again, that you do not even comprehend my point of view, after so many posts? Perhaps you might actually read them and think about them and stop merely cutting and pasting posts from last week...

And who ever said anything about salvation??? We are talking about whether the Bible alone contains ALL of the Word of God as taught by the Apostles, not what is necessary to be saved! To be saved, I just need to love! A person doesn't even need to ever have heard of the New Testament to be or have been "saved". Another worthless argument.

His WORD shows us a COMPLETE gospel and ALL that is NECESSARY for salvation and obedience to Him.

His Word as taught by Jesus and the Apostles, which is NOT the Bible alone. Nor was it ever intended to be God's COMPLETE Word.

You and I can do this ten thousand more times, gent, and nothing is going to change. I promise you that.
Its your call...I have all the time in the world.....Im disabled permanently so I have nothing better to do much of the day .

Well, that is too bad, I'm sorry to hear that you have all that time but choose not to understand my point of view and continue to attack strawmen of your own making. Even Jesus concluded that the Pharisees were not going to see the light...

I think I have given you ample opportunity to defend, from the Bible alone, your viewpoint. I have been very patient, but I don't see anything forthcoming that will change the view that the Bible alone is NOT the sole source of our faith, and this idea is extra-Scriptural deviation from the ACTUAL WRITINGS found in the bible itself. Your last 10 pages of posts have been devoid of any Scriptural references and they rely mainly on logical fallacies of attacking the messenger, red herrings, cutting and pasting past refuted posts, and begging the question. NEVER MIND PROVING sola scriptura is biblical. IT just is!!!



Christian practice of the first two centuries clearly show that sola scriptura is a farce, since it was not practised. IF that was Paul's intent, surely the first Christians would have done it. Since they didn't it is not worthy of being called part of our faith, and thus, we wholeheartedly reject this fallacy.

I DO have better things to do, and seeing that you are not about to bring up any Scriptural support to explain your extra-biblical tradition that no one held to (despite all that time on your hands), I think it is high time I end this with you.

Respond all you want, I have you on my ignore list now...

:amen

 

[follower of Christ]

Seeing as how there are 19 pages with nothing new and the utter lack of a Christlike attitude, it would probably be best to agree to disagree and call it day.

Agreed.
I dont see FD being willing to do so, however...

 

[follower of Christ]

The problem is not God's Word,

Correct...its NOT any failing OR shortcoming with Gods word. His word is COMPLETE and ALL that is REQUIRED for salvation and obedience is contained within those pages.

but that God's Word is NOT encapsulated in Scriptures, like you falsely believe.

NOTHING not spoken of in His word is REQUIRED for salvation.

God's Word is found in the oral and written teachings of the Apostles, which INCLUDES proper Scripture interpretation, demonstrated by Philip to the Egyptian.

Oral teachings as they WERE presented that we now see in the WRITTEN accounts recorded for His church.

Isn't that clear? Isn't it clear, yet again, that you do not even comprehend my point of view, after so many posts?

Comprehending and AGREEING arent the same.
I understand your fallacy...and know that it IS fallacy.

Perhaps you might actually read them and think about them and stop merely cutting and pasting posts from last week...

I'll cut and paste my response for every instance where you've repeated your assertions again.
Im not wearing myself out for your amusement by having to REtype the same response over and again.

And who ever said anything about salvation???

THAT is what *I* have been discussing here....READ MUCH ?

Gods word is the FINAL AUTHORITY in matters of DOCTRINE....in the TEACHINGS of the GOSPEL FOR SALVATION and OBEDIENCE to God
In case you missed it, I couldnt care less about ANY area of church 'teaching' that is not directly relevant to SALVATION and OBEDIENCE...
*I* am ONLY interested in the NECESSARY elements OF salvation and obedience...which the BIBLE is quite exhaustive with. NO other text is necessary for these elementary requirements of salvation or obedience to God...regardless of what you or the RCC wishes to believe.