Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?

[Guest]

Here's a silly question:

What ORAL TRADITION are we specifically talking about? What SPECIFIC examples of ORAL TRADITION are you referring too that is not ALSO recorded in the Written Word? And can you provide proof that it has only been based down ORALLY and not recorded in Scripture?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Guest]

Scripture alone plus the unacknowledged hermenuetic.

Scripture alone has never been 'alone' but has always been accompanied with reason, tradition and experience as part of the Protestant hermenuetic. The real question is to what DEGREE are they authoritative for the Protestant hermenuetic? To illustrate this I have asked: How authoritative is the Westminster Confession of faith for Presbyterians? The same goes for other confessions of faith, theological writings etc. Failure to establish the 'DEGREE' to which these sources are authoritative, in the interpretation of scripture, only prolongs the agony of the current debate.

So one more time:

To what degree are reason, tradition, and experience authoritiative in the Protestant hermenuetic?

My own observation about fellow Protestants leads me to answer: to a large degree.

That "degree" would only matter to the extent that the confession of faith is not based on Scripture.

Ultimately the Westminister Confession of Faith is grounded in Scripture. The problem with the RCC is that they hold TRADITION (which might or might not be grounded in Scripture) just as IMPORTANT as Scripture.

 

[mondar]

OK, oh well, I still think this deserves another thread, but lets rock and roll on canonicity and any other subject under the sun in the same thread that you feel the need to throw in. I do recognize one problem, there is no chance to exegete any scriptures here. Now off to the philosophy concerning what James White calls the "golden index."

First, what IS Scripture and WHO determines what it is?

Even the very question has presuppositions hanging out all over. If I wrote a book, who would determine that I wrote it? Obviously I would know if I wrote a book. Who determines what scripture is? God, the ultimate author decided.

Since you say there is only ONE infallible source of God's Word, we would expect to find an infallible "table of contents". Maybe a "book of Mormon" or the "Koran", where God personally handed a bound book to a man. We don't see that in Christianity. Thus, the sole infallible source is non-existent because we don't know what IS inspired Scriptures to begin with. How are you going to trust fallible men to determine an infallbile table of contents? Special pleading will not get your answer. The answer, of course, is that God left another source of truth (1 Tim 3:15) that would guide men to this answer.

This is a perfect example of the Church replacing truth or being over truth. In your statement, the Church is not a pillar and foundation of truth, but a final judge of truth. The scripture is truth because the source of the scripture is God, not because the Church said it is scripture. The church is merely to take the infallible scriptures and teach it to be the pillar and foundation of truth. There is no infallible teachers here, but just regular, hard work, exegetical, teaching.

And finally, the second problem that you ignore is WHOSE interpretation of the infallible book is correct? It is fairly obvious that Protestantism is based on self-interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately, this has been the main cause of disunity among Christians. God established a Church to MAINTAIN unity. There would be ONE authoritative body given the power to bind and loosen, to interpret God's Word. Once there are many, infallible Scriptures get run over roughshod because INDIVIDUALS are not infallible. What is the point of an infallible book if NO ONE can know WHO is interpreting correctly????

This completely misses so many things that I dont hardly know where to begin. So many presuppositions are in your traditions it is amazing.

First, let just think about the differences of interpretation among Catholics. Eastern Catholics differ in several respects. The differences were so great that after 1000 years there was a mutual excommunication over the iconoclastic controversy. They still do not agree on the infallibility of the Pope when he claims to speak ex cathedra. They do not regard all the same councils, and have differing interpretation in several respects. Within Catholicism, differences of interpretation are as great as within protestantism. The Augustinian order of monks preserved a higher view of the sovereignty of God then other orders. Actually, the differences are greatest between the eccumentical Catholics and the old order Trent Catholics. This "all Catholics believe the same thing" is a total fairy tale. I recently read about Jerry Matatics saying that the last several popes are not valid and the last several popes are heretics. The Catholic Church of the Babylonian Captivity is wonderful example of unity. All sorts of popes and Catholic Churches excommunicating each other. Not having sola scriptura keeps the catholic church united? Yeah right! LOL.

Many protestant Church will combine for different meetings and different purposes. They might meet in different buildings, but they are often very united. Even more united then many RCC Churches of different national backgrounds. Actually the protestants that reject sola scriptura and the protestants that accept it are more divided then the churches that accept sola scriptura.

It is a huge presupposition that the only real unity is found in bowing down to Rome and its false claims of authority.

WHAT is Scriptures?
WHOSE interpretation do we follow when two people contradict?

The one that is exegetically correct, according to the grammar, context, and syntax.

WHERE does the Scriptures say that oral teachings are now enscriptured?[/size][/b][/quote]
2Thes 2:5

[quote]I have not addressed several other issues, such as OTHER sources of infallible teachers used to perfect the Christian for all good works (Eph 4:11-13).  This in itself denies the "sole" of sola scriptura.[/quote]  Yeah, you said this before, and I already answered it.  There are no infallible teachers, only gifted teachers who will help the saints grow.  Protestants have gifted teachers.

[quote]
Really, you have done nothing but assume and presume, denying what the Bible teaches.  Sola Scriptura is a farce and is self-refuted by the very work that it tries to defend.  It is an illogical teaching that merely causes disunity among Christians.  A little bit of common sense proves the whole idea is built upon sand and a wish.[/quote]
Blah Blah Blah

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
I dont know if I want to waist much more time. I should continue, but I am tired of typing (believe it or not). Well, this is enough for post 2. Maybe I will do the last part later, not sure.

A waist is a terrible thing to time. Does that mean you won’t be answering my questions... again? Maybe you missed my post. It’s toward the end of page 13. I can repost it here if you like. :-D

 

[francisdesales]

The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God.


I trust that you agree.

Of course I don't agree - where does the Bible say that? I have already shown where there is another infallible and inspired source of God's Word, one that PRECEDED the writing of Sacred Scriptures. Now, can you show me where the Scriptures say that this initial source of inspiration given to the apostles no longer exists and is now found ONLY in Scriptures? That is your claim. However, reading the Bible doesn't give me any indication that God abandoned the Church and included EVERYTHING taught by the apostles in a series of INDEPENDENT letters without external cohesion.

Isn't that the whole point of this thread?

 

[francisdesales]

OK, oh well, I still think this deserves another thread, but lets rock and roll on canonicity and any other subject under the sun in the same thread that you feel the need to throw in. I do recognize one problem, there is no chance to exegete any scriptures here. Now off to the philosophy concerning what James White calls the "golden index."

Blah blah blah...

This is a perfect example of the Church replacing truth or being over truth. In your statement, the Church is not a pillar and foundation of truth, but a final judge of truth. The scripture is truth because the source of the scripture is God, not because the Church said it is scripture. The church is merely to take the infallible scriptures and teach it to be the pillar and foundation of truth. There is no infallible teachers here, but just regular, hard work, exegetical, teaching.

You made such a big deal about the word "inspiration". Well, I meet you on your turf and refute you yet again. You claim it means "infallible", something given by God to man to ensure His teachings. Clearly, the bible is not the ONLY "inspired" teacher of man. I have given you alternative sources, the Apostles themselves. And this continues, as Paul says to Timothy...

I am appointed [a] preacher and [an] apostle and [a] teacher of the Gentiles. For which cause I also suffer these things; nevertheless, I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and charity which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good deposit committed [unto thee] by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us. 2 Timothy 1:12-14

Clearly, we have ANOTHER source of inspiration, infallibility, as I have already laid out. The Apostles and those who are duly appointed to continue to pass on the faith... "KEEP THE GOOD DEPOSIT" Doesn't quite sound like "write it in a book and pass it out, they'll figure it out for themselves", does it...

We have already discussed 2 Thes 2:5. It is sad that you keep refering to it, since it is foolishness to think that THIS verse tells us that Paul means EVERYTHING he EVER said is now "enscriptured", when clearly, Paul is merely talking about the parousia, and merely REMINDING them that he said SOMETHING. Does he clearly lay it out in the following verses? No.

Please try to interpret the Scriptures in context and don't bring your traditions into what the inspired word of God says. Your traditions are not infallible, nor does Paul EVER mention them.

Got to go.

 

[Guest]

The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God.


I trust that you agree.

Of course I don't agree - where does the Bible say that? I have already shown where there is another infallible and inspired source of God's Word, one that PRECEDED the writing of Sacred Scriptures. Now, can you show me where the Scriptures say that this initial source of inspiration given to the apostles no longer exists and is now found ONLY in Scriptures? That is your claim. However, reading the Bible doesn't give me any indication that God abandoned the Church and included EVERYTHING taught by the apostles in a series of INDEPENDENT letters without external cohesion.

Isn't that the whole point of this thread?

Then why are you here francis? If you cannot agree with the SoF here, are you here merely to cause dissention?

 

[Guest]

Clearly, we have ANOTHER source of inspiration, infallibility, as I have already laid out. The Apostles and those who are duly appointed to continue to pass on the faith... "KEEP THE GOOD DEPOSIT" Doesn't quite sound like "write it in a book and pass it out, they'll figure it out for themselves", does it...

What is this other "source of inspiration"? Clearly you are not suggesting, though it sounds like you are, that there is another source of inspiration besides the Holy Spirit? Is this why your Pope kissed the Koran?

We have already discussed 2 Thes 2:5. It is sad that you keep refering to it, since it is foolishness to think that THIS verse tells us that Paul means EVERYTHING he EVER said is now "enscriptured", when clearly, Paul is merely talking about the parousia, and merely REMINDING them that he said SOMETHING. Does he clearly lay it out in the following verses? No.

Please try to interpret the Scriptures in context and don't bring your traditions into what the inspired word of God says. Your traditions are not infallible, nor does Paul EVER mention them.

Got to go.

Perhaps then you will be able to answer this question I asked earlier:

Here's a silly question:

What ORAL TRADITION are we specifically talking about? What SPECIFIC examples of ORAL TRADITION are you referring too that is not ALSO recorded in the Written Word? And can you provide proof that it has only been based down ORALLY and not recorded in Scripture?

 

[francisdesales]

What is this other "source of inspiration"? Clearly you are not suggesting, though it sounds like you are, that there is another source of inspiration besides the Holy Spirit? Is this why your Pope kissed the Koran?

Why do you try to bring up a false dichotomy? The Magesterium is infallible BECAUSE of the Holy Spirit, just as Paul wrote to Timothy. What Catholic ever said that there is another source of inspiration BESIDES the Spirit???

What ORAL TRADITION are we specifically talking about? What SPECIFIC examples of ORAL TRADITION are you referring too that is not ALSO recorded in the Written Word? And can you provide proof that it has only been based down ORALLY and not recorded in Scripture?

How about WHAT is Scriptures?
How about whether Christ meant that He was to be taken literally that one must eat His flesh to have eternal life?
How about the fact that baptism is necessary for salvation?
How about that God consists of three persons but yet, is one?

Oh, I could go on and on, but you get the message. Interpreting the Scriptures THEMSELVES is based on oral tradition.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Then why are you here francis? If you cannot agree with the SoF here, are you here merely to cause dissention?

How lame. Is that the tactics you choose to use to shut me up? Bring up the "SoF"? Afraid that the "SoF" cannot stand on its own merit?

Why am I here? To point out that sola scriptura is nonsense and is not found in the bible. I don't do this to convert you, but to present an argument that shows the idea false. No doubt, there are open-minded readers out there who are not so enamoured with the sacred cow of sola scriptura that they may take into consideration BOTH points of view and determine that you cannot defend sola scriptura without ignoring common sense. Perhaps many people have not heard the arguments AGAINST sola scriptura and will see that it is a bankrupt and faulty concept that leads to Christian disunity.

 

[Guest]

Why do you try to bring up a false dichotomy? The Magesterium is infallible BECAUSE of the Holy Spirit, just as Paul wrote to Timothy. What Catholic ever said that there is another source of inspiration BESIDES the Spirit???

You did francis when you state, and I quote:

Clearly, we have ANOTHER source of inspiration, infallibility, as I have already laid out.

I would like to know what this ANOTHER source of inspiriation, infallibility is!

How about WHAT is Scriptures?
How about whether Christ meant that He was to be taken literally that one must eat His flesh to have eternal life?
How about the fact that baptism is necessary for salvation?
How about that God consists of three persons but yet, is one?

Oh, I could go on and on, but you get the message. Interpreting the Scriptures THEMSELVES is based on oral tradition.

Regards

francis - none of those things are based solely on Oral Tradition! All those are dealt with in Scripture. Again I ask - What doctrine solely rests on Oral Tradition?

 

[Guest]

Then why are you here francis? If you cannot agree with the SoF here, are you here merely to cause dissention?

How lame. Is that the tactics you choose to use to shut me up? Bring up the "SoF"? Afraid that the "SoF" cannot stand on its own merit?

Why am I here? To point out that sola scriptura is nonsense and is not found in the bible. I don't do this to convert you, but to present an argument that shows the idea false. No doubt, there are open-minded readers out there who are not so enamoured with the sacred cow of sola scriptura that they may take into consideration BOTH points of view and determine that you cannot defend sola scriptura without ignoring common sense. Perhaps many people have not heard the arguments AGAINST sola scriptura and will see that it is a bankrupt and faulty concept that leads to Christian disunity.

Francis - as a Mod here, I expect people to be able to agree with the ToS and the SoF. If you cannot agree with them, then I am left to wonder why they are here - what is their motive.

I do not go around Roman Catholic forums to cause dissention among the brethren.

Francis, by pointing out the SoF I was not attempting to "win an arguement" - but rather have you seek self-evaulation on your motives for being here.

Valid arguements have been presented to show that the Bible is the final authority on all matters dealing with the Christian faith. Just because you fail to recognize it - that does not make it "bankrupt".

It appears that Catholics have a big chip on their shoulder ever since the Reformation - though the Reformation was not the first time that "sola scriptura" was put forward.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis - as a Mod here, I expect people to be able to agree with the ToS and the SoF. If you cannot agree with them, then I am left to wonder why they are here - what is their motive.

I do not agree with Sola Scriptura. This is not a teaching found in Scriptures, so I do not feel there is a problem with me alerting people to this fact. You take umbrage NOT because it is "against the SoF", but because you are finding that sola scriptura is not defensible on its own merit. Thus, the new strategy. You rest a major tenet of your faith on one verse with an interpretation that ELSEWHERE, other verses refute it. By twisting the words of "sufficient", you try to make it go beyond what it is actually saying. Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures.

I do not go around Roman Catholic forums to cause dissention among the brethren.

It is my opinion that you do. Unless, of course, Catholics are not your brethren, only your small community of like-minded worshippers. Then, if that is your definition of "brethren", then perhaps you are correct. No doubt, Protestants of your community wouldn't be bothered by your posts on Catholic threads.

Francis, by pointing out the SoF I was not attempting to "win an arguement" - but rather have you seek self-evaulation on your motives for being here.

My motives are to show that Sola Scriptura is a false teaching. It is not Scriptural and cannot even hold up to common sense. It attempts to do away with what Christ established - a Church that would infallibly interpret the infallible Scriptures. Take away ONE of them, and you take away what the Apostles were charged to spread to the rest of the world. IF you propose to seek the truth, you would open your mind to my arguments and discover that they make sense. IF God established an infallible book without an infallible teaching authority, then we are truly sheep without a flock...

NO ONE can EVER know what IS TRUTH in this situation that you live under.

What are YOUR motives for silencing me? Is your sacred cow not able to defend itself?

Valid arguements have been presented to show that the Bible is the final authority on all matters dealing with the Christian faith. Just because you fail to recognize it - that does not make it "bankrupt".

Valid arguments? Ridiculous. I refute that even ONE valid argument has been presented that I have not subsequently proven false. YOU are not the judge of what is a valid argument. If I am able to refute an argument because of a false premise, that destroys your "valid argument" idea. A valid argument DOES NOT EXIST when there is a false premise, or one based on a faulty or illogical premise...

You have not presented any "valid arguments" that withstand the test of logic.

In one thing, you are correct - neither of us is going to convince the other. I don't worry about convincing you. I refute your arguments for the sake of those who read these posts with an open mind, Catholic or Protestant, and listen to their conscience and common sense. I am certain that your arguments do not stand up to that yardstick. Once I point out your false premises, other people of good will can make their own judgments and either remain following a concept based on false premises, or search for another possible premise that stands up to logical scrutiny.

Frankly, alone, it is YOU with the big chip, and don't realize it.

Why? Because if one looks at the threads, it is YOU and people such as yourself who constantly feel the need to attack Catholics and their beliefs. Daily, I am forced to defend the reason why I have hope in Christ and what the Church teaches about Him. With the exception of Sola Scriptura, I don't attack your beliefs. Now look how you complain when I do!

And I am supposed to joyfully accept your attacks on the Eucharist, apostolic succession, celibacy, use of statues, Mary, ad nauseum? Boo hoo, Alone...

What is very interesting, in my opinion, is why I even bother to respond to you. I don't owe you any explanation, nor is your interpretation of Scriptures authoritative for anyone but yourself. Catholic dogma and doctrine can be found in Scriptures. Whether you agree with our interpretation or not is inconsequential. YOU are not the "yardstick" by which all doctrine is to be judged. Even one verse of Scripture can have multiple meanings to people of different minds. Ever consider Protestantism and why there are so many denominations?

Sorry to deflate your self-esteem, but I don't owe you any explanation for why I believe what I do. I have explained Catholic beliefs to others so that others may correctly understand what we believe, and make an informed decision on Catholicism. You have already shown that this is against your best interest by some of your postings of Church history. If you think these motives are not good enough for "your" bulletin board, then perhaps you should re-evalute why YOU are moderating to begin with.

I will continue to express the truth as I see it until you can prove me wrong. I accept that people can have different interpretations. But I tire of "my interpretation is the only correct one - thus, Catholics are wrong". By realizing that people CAN have different interpretations, it will follow that God left behind an authoritative body to lead the flocks onto truth. Perhaps that denial prevents you from seeing the bankruptcy of sola scriptura.

 

[golfjack]

What God left behind for us to believe in Him is very simple. His inspired Word and the Holy Spirit. What happened after the Apostles died is anyone's guess. Catholic's have their traditions. I have the Word of God that will not come back void. We all know how word of mouth goes. It starts good, and then in the end it is all distorted. Paul knew there was going to be false teachers and false apostles. Oh well, you have your men, and I have God as my authority.


May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Guest]

Francis - let's get a couple of things straight here, shall we?

I consider anyone my brethren who having been convicted of their sin by The Holy Spirit, recognize that Jesus Christ is the way unto their salvation. As such they have received baptism into the Body of Christ, they have been adopted as heirs into the family of God.

As it states in Acts, the brethren continued in fellowship, devoted themselves to prayer, ate meals together, and were of like-mind.

I consider anyone who has been "born from above" as my brethren.

Secondly, you have claimed and not answered, that "clearly, we have ANOTHER source of inspiration, infallibility." Please - provide evidence of this "other source".

Thirdly - you attack the authority of Scripture based on "oral tradition" that you have yet to define and/or provide examples of Oral Tradition that is not found in Scripture. I would contend that the "oral tradition" has been codified into the Written Word.

Fourthy - it appears that you are on a personal crusade to demean those who believe in the authority of Scripture. IN fact you have stated as much twice. Most heresies and false teachings come from those who first downplay the authority of Scripture, and contend that either a) they themselves are infalliable or b) represent a "body" that is "infalliable".

Fifthly - I have not attempted to "silence" you. Rather, I merely drew your attention to the SoF of this forum so that you understand where this forum is coming from. I have not used it as a way to "win" an arguement. I am not here to "win arguements" - rather, I am here to fellowship with like-minded brethren.

Sixthly - I do not visit other RCC forums to stir up dissention. In fact, I have never visited a RCC forum. I know I do not agree with their theology or their beliefs, so why would I want to go there? My presence would merely cause strife.

Seventhly - I will never be able to prove you wrong in matters of faith - that is the role of the Holy Spirit. Stop trying to win arguements, and perhaps you will see where I am coming from, because clearly you are clouded by your desire to disprove and win arguements.

Because of Him!

 

[francisdesales]

As it states in Acts, the brethren continued in fellowship, devoted themselves to prayer, ate meals together, and were of like-mind.

You are like-minded with WHOM? Another wonderful thing about Protestantism is that there are MANY such unlike-minded communities. And again, you ignore what I wrote about what Jesus said. That is not surprising, because I have found that most Protestants prefer to quote Paul rather than Jesus.

That's OK. I don't care, really. I am just pointing out the facts.

I consider anyone who has been "born from above" as my brethren.

Jesus didn't make that connection. The classic example is His story about the Good Samaritan and "who is my neighbor"; it never mentions "only those born from above". Again, you are merely creating another inclusive community, erecting walls, just as the Jews did with their Law. Are you any different than the Judaizers?

Secondly, you have claimed and not answered, that "clearly, we have ANOTHER source of inspiration, infallibility." Please - provide evidence of this "other source".

LOL! Trying to turn the tables on me, aren't you? You think I'm a rookie at this? This thread CLEARLY states "Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority". I ONLY have to prove that the Bible is NOT the only infallible rule of faith. I don't have to go into detail and discuss it. It is obvious from Scriptures that the APOSTLES were ANOTHER source of inspiration. I don't need to repeat what I wrote to Mondar again. You make the false premise that nowhere else does the Bible mention another inspired or God-guided source. Then, to try to throw smoke and mirrors into the equation, you focus on "sufficient" without looking at the big picture. Now, if the Apostles were infallible in their teaching of Christ because of the Spirit, it follows that we have another source besides the Bible.

The death knell of sola scriptura comes from this understanding and the fact that NOWHERE does the bible or the apostles mention that their oral teachings are "enscriptured". That is clearly a tradition of men, invented during the Protestant Reformation. Can you point to ONE Church Father that believed that ALL of the Apostles infallible teachings were encapsulated within the bible? NOPE... Thus, sola scriptura is self-refuting. The Bible ITSELF says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

THAT IS YOUR OTHER SOURCE OF INFALLIBLE TEACHING, MY FRIEND.

Thirdly - you attack the authority of Scripture based on "oral tradition" that you have yet to define and/or provide examples of Oral Tradition that is not found in Scripture. I would contend that the "oral tradition" has been codified into the Written Word.

See above. I don't have to "define" oral tradition or what it encompasses. Its mere existence proves that sola scriptura is false. The contents of oral tradition is not important at this time. However, we can start with one simple one to satisfy your curiosity.

WHAT IS SCRIPTURE?

You think that is kind of important? WITHOUT that simple little oral tradition, you wouldn't HAVE a Bible that you could say is infallible.

Fourthy - it appears that you are on a personal crusade to demean those who believe in the authority of Scripture.

Wrong. I and the Church believe in the authority of the Bible. I believe in its inerrancy and inspiration. I do not accept your worship of it above and beyond an infallible teacher guided by God. God doesn't guide a book. The living Church, God guides. It is YOU on a personal crusade to demean God's living Spirit that lives within the Church. For example:

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make [them] the members of a harlot? In no wise. What? know ye not that he who is joined to the harlot is one body [with her]? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Any [other] sin that a man does is outside the body, but he that commits fornication sins against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit [who is] in you, whom ye have of God, and that ye are not your own? 1 Cor 3:15-19

The Spirit lives within the community of believers, the Church. It is you who is trying to squelch the Spirit by denying the place of the Church within God's revelation. You say 'bible alone', when clearly, we have another source of infallibility. Or is the Spirit not infallible?

Fifthly - I have not attempted to "silence" you. Rather, I merely drew your attention to the SoF of this forum so that you understand where this forum is coming from. I have not used it as a way to "win" an arguement. I am not here to "win arguements" - rather, I am here to fellowship with like-minded brethren.

I disagree with your interpretation of the SoF. I do not think it is defending sola scriptura, but the notion that the Bible should be instrumental in one's faith and beliefs. If sola scriptura is so obvious and self-explanatory, so self-evident, than we wouldn't be having this discussion, because if it made sense, I wouldn't bother with it.

Sixthly - I do not visit other RCC forums to stir up dissention. In fact, I have never visited a RCC forum. I know I do not agree with their theology or their beliefs, so why would I want to go there? My presence would merely cause strife.

You are the most active Protestant on the "RCC" sub-forum on this board. What are you talking about? Ask yourself why are you so active there?

Seventhly - I will never be able to prove you wrong in matters of faith - that is the role of the Holy Spirit. Stop trying to win arguements, and perhaps you will see where I am coming from, because clearly you are clouded by your desire to disprove and win arguements.

I have already said this to you.

Don't take it personally. I am not attacking you. I disagree with many of your Protestant view of Scriptures. Do you really think God left us to fight over the ONLY thing that was infallible? What is the point, really, to having an infallible book if people cannot agree on what it teaches?

And what in God's name IS this "infallible book" referred to in 2 Timothy 3? You prove too much, because it speaks of the OLD TESTAMENT. Thus, your special pleading merely removes the New Testament... In your desperate plea to hold to your own interpretations, you throw the baby out with the bath water. Good job. Christian unity is destroyed while non-Christians laugh that we can't agree on hardly anything... Was that God's Will in inspiring written teachings?

 

[Guest]

You are like-minded with WHOM? Another wonderful thing about Protestantism is that there are MANY such unlike-minded communities. And again, you ignore what I wrote about what Jesus said. That is not surprising, because I have found that most Protestants prefer to quote Paul rather than Jesus.

That's OK. I don't care, really. I am just pointing out the facts.

I do not know what you are referring too in regards to what you "wrote about what Jesus said". You previous post had no quotes from Jesus. However, I believe Jesus did say:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

"I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness."

Jesus didn't make that connection. The classic example is His story about the Good Samaritan and "who is my neighbor"; it never mentions "only those born from above". Again, you are merely creating another inclusive community, erecting walls, just as the Jews did with their Law. Are you any different than the Judaizers?

Gee... I don't know: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God." Guess you need to tell Jesus about the walls He is building?!? Even even goes on to say:

"so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall no perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Is He building more walls? You better tell Him to tear them down, francis.

LOL! Trying to turn the tables on me, aren't you? You think I'm a rookie at this? This thread CLEARLY states "Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority". I ONLY have to prove that the Bible is NOT the only infallible rule of faith. I don't have to go into detail and discuss it. It is obvious from Scriptures that the APOSTLES were ANOTHER source of inspiration. I don't need to repeat what I wrote to Mondar again. You make the false premise that nowhere else does the Bible mention another inspired or God-guided source. Then, to try to throw smoke and mirrors into the equation, you focus on "sufficient" without looking at the big picture. Now, if the Apostles were infallible in their teaching of Christ because of the Spirit, it follows that we have another source besides the Bible.

The death knell of sola scriptura comes from this understanding and the fact that NOWHERE does the bible or the apostles mention that their oral teachings are "enscriptured". That is clearly a tradition of men, invented during the Protestant Reformation. Can you point to ONE Church Father that believed that ALL of the Apostles infallible teachings were encapsulated within the bible? NOPE... Thus, sola scriptura is self-refuting. The Bible ITSELF says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

THAT IS YOUR OTHER SOURCE OF INFALLIBLE TEACHING, MY FRIEND.

Here is a classic example of the problem Francis - I am not trying to win a debate. I am not trying to show my arguements are better than your arguements. Seriously, get over yourself and your arguements. Make this into some trial, if you will. It has been pointed out by others, that you have a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura means. You create a false defition and then attack it. Fine. Have fun with it. Does it prove something?


[quote[
See above. I don't have to "define" oral tradition or what it encompasses. Its mere existence proves that sola scriptura is false. The contents of oral tradition is not important at this time. However, we can start with one simple one to satisfy your curiosity.

WHAT IS SCRIPTURE?

You think that is kind of important? WITHOUT that simple little oral tradition, you wouldn't HAVE a Bible that you could say is infallible. [/quote]

Nobody is trying to discount Oral Tradition. The question is now that God has compiled Oral Tradition into the Scriptures, does Oral Tradition still exist? If so, what is it - or more imporantly what doctrines are being taught solely on the basis of Oral Tradition that are not codified in the Scriptures?

You do not want to answer, because you realize that it puts a hole into your arguement.

Wrong. I and the Church believe in the authority of the Bible. I believe in its inerrancy and inspiration. I do not accept your worship of it above and beyond an infallible teacher guided by God. God doesn't guide a book. The living Church, God guides. It is YOU on a personal crusade to demean God's living Spirit that lives within the Church. For example:

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make [them] the members of a harlot? In no wise. What? know ye not that he who is joined to the harlot is one body [with her]? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Any [other] sin that a man does is outside the body, but he that commits fornication sins against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit [who is] in you, whom ye have of God, and that ye are not your own? 1 Cor 3:15-19

What are you even quoting? 1 Cor 3:15-19 states: "If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; bu he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Do not you know what you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness"

What are you referring too?

I disagree with your interpretation of the SoF. I do not think it is defending sola scriptura, but the notion that the Bible should be instrumental in one's faith and beliefs. If sola scriptura is so obvious and self-explanatory, so self-evident, than we wouldn't be having this discussion, because if it made sense, I wouldn't bother with it.

Gee.. should this surprise me, that you want to disagree with the SoF? Perhaps you should reread 1 Cor 3:18 that you alluded but terrible misquoted. I did not realize that sola scriptura needed to have YOUR approval to be believed.

You are the most active Protestant on the "RCC" sub-forum on this board. What are you talking about? Ask yourself why are you so active there?

The RCC is a sub-forum at 123 ChristianForums.net I was referring to RCC forums elsewhere - not associated with this message board here.

And what in God's name IS this "infallible book" referred to in 2 Timothy 3? You prove too much, because it speaks of the OLD TESTAMENT. Thus, your special pleading merely removes the New Testament... In your desperate plea to hold to your own interpretations, you throw the baby out with the bath water. Good job. Christian unity is destroyed while non-Christians laugh that we can't agree on hardly anything... Was that God's Will in inspiring written teachings?

Francis - I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. You have made it clear that you wish merely to teardown. God uses any instruments necessary to accomplish His will. God inspired many men and women to record God's Word in written form. God used men and women in His church to compile those written works. God has perserved His Word over time. The Scripture is infalliable because it is God-breathed. That is the only true infalliable source - the Holy Spirit.

 

[stranger]

Scripture alone plus the unacknowledged hermenuetic.

Scripture alone has never been 'alone' but has always been accompanied with reason, tradition and experience as part of the Protestant hermenuetic. The real question is to what DEGREE are they authoritative for the Protestant hermenuetic? To illustrate this I have asked: How authoritative is the Westminster Confession of faith for Presbyterians? The same goes for other confessions of faith, theological writings etc. Failure to establish the 'DEGREE' to which these sources are authoritative, in the interpretation of scripture, only prolongs the agony of the current debate.

So one more time:

To what degree are reason, tradition, and experience authoritiative in the Protestant hermenuetic?

My own observation about fellow Protestants leads me to answer: to a large degree.

That "degree" would only matter to the extent that the confession of faith is not based on Scripture.

Ultimately the Westminister Confession of Faith is grounded in Scripture. The problem with the RCC is that they hold TRADITION (which might or might not be grounded in Scripture) just as IMPORTANT as Scripture.

aLoneVoice,

How do you determine that portions of the Westminster Confession of faith are not scriptural against their (the Westminster divines) determination that it is scriptural? What claims can you make that they can't or already haven't?

If you believe that the Westminster Confession of faith is not authoritative try throwing it out a Presbyterian church and see what happens. My reasoning is simple - if the Westminster standard was not authoritative Presbyterians could be thrown out or put aside with impunity. Clearly this is not the case for them nor for many other Protestant denominations.

 

[Guest]

aLoneVoice,

How do you determine that portions of the Westminster Confession of faith are not scriptural against their (the Westminster divines) determination that it is scriptural? What claims can you make that they can't or already haven't?

If you believe that the Westminster Confession of faith is not authoritative try throwing it out a Presbyterian church and see what happens. My reasoning is simple - if the Westminster standard was not authoritative Presbyterians could be thrown out or put aside with impunity. Clearly this is not the case for them nor for many other Protestant denominations.

I am probably a bad one to answer this, first I am not Presbyterian, and two I do not agree with a creedial faith.

However, I do not know of anyone that would suggest that an creed is as authoritative as Scripture. Do you have an example of someone suggesting just that? Ancedotal evidence aside.

 

[francisdesales]

I do not know what you are referring too in regards to what you "wrote about what Jesus said". You previous post had no quotes from Jesus. However, I believe Jesus did say:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

Yes, I agree. But does that mean that a person has to be familiar with Jesus of Nazareth, or is it OK if a person follows the commandments of Christ, the Law written in their hearts and may not know the earthly facts about Christ. What is necessary to be saved? Doing the will of the Father. This can only happen if one abides in Christ. Thus, if the pagan follows the unwritten law in their heart, it is because JESUS and His Spirit abides in that person. NO ONE can do good without Christ abiding in a person. It follows then that a person who follows the Way, even though he is not aware of the historical Christ, is in Christ, as Romans 2 discusses.

Or are you intent on condemning billions of people who were born before Christ, or lived on the wrong side of the Atlantic Ocean until the 1500's?

Gee... I don't know: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God." Guess you need to tell Jesus about the walls He is building?!?

Jesus is not building walls. He gives ALL men the free will choice to follow His Law and gives ALL men the grace to do so. MAN chooses NOT to follow Him. Salvation is available to all men, since Christ died for all men. Christ is not building walls, He is offering to enable men to join Him in the Kingdom. That includes Muslims, those people whom you say CANNOT be saved. It is you who attempts to build the wall, not Christ.

Here is a classic example of the problem Francis - I am not trying to win a debate. I am not trying to show my arguements are better than your arguements. Seriously, get over yourself and your arguements. Make this into some trial, if you will. It has been pointed out by others, that you have a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura means. You create a false defition and then attack it. Fine. Have fun with it. Does it prove something?

That is terrible. Hide behind my "lack of knowledge of what Sola Scriptura is" so you can dodge all the attacks against it. By constantly making this claim, you show your lack of wanting to seek the truth on this question. Here is what I believe Sola Scriptura is:

Sola Scriptura is the belief that the ONLY source of infallible knowledge or information that God has given man is found in the Scriptures. While other sources are good and reasonable and can help man to interpret Scriptures, the Bible ALONE is the ultimate authority, since it alone is infallible.

Is this correct? I want to learn the truth about sola scriptura, so please let me know if this is incorrect.

Nobody is trying to discount Oral Tradition. The question is now that God has compiled Oral Tradition into the Scriptures, does Oral Tradition still exist?

Alone, you are going to have to show that "oral tradition", whatever that might mean, is NOW been eliminated with the writing of Scriptures. Unless EVERY oral tradition is now written in Sacred Scriptures, there remains ANOTHER infallible source of information that the Apostles gave the Church. We do agree that the Apostles taught an infallible teaching, both oral and written, correct? It is YOUR claim that the Bible is NOW the only infallible source of the Apostlic teachings. UNLESS you can prove that the oral traditions of the apostles were written down IN THE BIBLE, then your theory is dead. There would be another infallible and inspired source of information. Sola scriptura would be refuted.

Now, if you can try to dissassociate yourself from sola scriptura and judge it based on its own merits, you won't become so upset when I question its validity. You are equating my attacks on a theory with your person. I am merely trying to point out that the bible does not consider ITSELF the sole infallible authority. This refutes sola scriptura. It is a logical argument, not a personal attack against you. If you desire to seek the truth, you will open yourself to the possibility that you may be wrong in following this theory.

If so, what is it - or more imporantly what doctrines are being taught solely on the basis of Oral Tradition that are not codified in the Scriptures?

It doesn't matter at this point WHICH dogmas or doctrines are taught solely on the basis of oral tradition. Its existence is sufficient to prove sola scriptura wrong. I have already given you an example. The table of contents of the bible is based on apostolic tradition. It is NOT inspired, but based on the decision of the OTHER source of authority that is NOT in opposition to the bible, the Church. Unless you can show me in the Bible writing WHERE this "table of contents" is listed, then sola scriptura is a worthless theory. What is the point of making a theoretical statement that "the bible is the only infallible source of Christian doctrine" when we cannot even know WHAT IS the Scriptures?

You do not want to answer, because you realize that it puts a hole into your arguement.

I have answered again and again. Where in the Bible can we find the Table of Contents? Is it in 2 Peter? Jude? Revelation? Please answer.

I did not realize that sola scriptura needed to have YOUR approval to be believed.

If it is shown to be logically false, then you are believing a fantasy. If, after this is shown, you can believe anything you want, but that merely shows that you are not interested in truth. Thus, your subsequent attacks on the Catholic Church can cease and desist, since you would be a hypocrite if you attacked something. Take care to look to the splinter in your own eye.

The RCC is a sub-forum at 123 ChristianForums.net I was referring to RCC forums elsewhere - not associated with this message board here.

I wasn't when I first brought it up. I cannot say anything about the other forums that you habitate, only this one. So how could I be talking about that??? Please...

You stir the pot more than any other Protestant within the "RCC forum". Why? Oh, yea, because you do not want to bring about disunity within the Body. How silly of me... :P

Francis - I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. You have made it clear that you wish merely to teardown. God uses any instruments necessary to accomplish His will. God inspired many men and women to record God's Word in written form. God used men and women in His church to compile those written works. God has perserved His Word over time. The Scripture is infalliable because it is God-breathed. That is the only true infalliable source - the Holy Spirit.

I am only tearing down what cannot stand on its own. If Sola Scriptura was defensible and built upon rock, I would submit to the idea. I submit myself to the idea that the Church is an infallible source of our faith because it is found within the Scriptures and has been taught for 2000 years. Thus, I submit to something outside of myself. I submit to something that sometimes, I do not initially agree with. I have shown myself willing to submit myself to something other than myself. You choose not to, although sola scriptura is built upon sand, makes no sense, and is not found within the Scriptures. Two Timothy 3 proves TOO much, since it refers to the Old Testament, so you really can't use that to prove anything.

God has preserved His Word - both the teachings given orally and in written form.
Where does the Bible say that God no longer preserves the oral teachings?
Where does the Bible say that IT now contains ALL of the oral teachings?

All of your beliefs on this subject are based on false presumptions. Logically speaking, false premises lead to false arguments.

On this, we do agree, the Holy Spirit is the "true infallible source". And as I have already said, the Church is where He dwells. Christ promised this Church that the Spirit would indwell within her for all time. This is found in the Scriptures. It is the Church, not the Scriptures, that are the pillar and foundation of the truth - said by the BIBLE... Please consider what the Bible itself says about the Church. Then, you may recognize what God's Word ACTUALLY says.

Regards