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

[Guest]

So, let me get this straight. Your arugement in regards to Oral Tradition is:

God is still perserving it, but I do not have to tell you what is being perserved?

And who is suggesting that the Table of Contents is inspiried, infalliable or apart of Oral Tradition?

Do you know how the letter's of Paul are arraigned in the NT? By length of letter. Hardly some inspired Oral Tradition.

I believe that there are those within the RCC who are a part of the brethren - I do not necessarily believe that the RCC, just because it is the RCC, is apart of the brethren. Same goes with any church. There are those who attend church, but are not members of the brethren.

Francis - please quote me where I said: "those people whom you say CANNOT be saved." When did I say that a Muslim "cannot be saved'?

I am tired of your false accusations.

 

[francisdesales]

So, let me get this straight. Your arugement in regards to Oral Tradition is:

God is still perserving it, but I do not have to tell you what is being perserved?

Detailing it is not necessary to disprove sola scriptura. This is just an attempt to change the subject. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that the bible and IT ALONE is the sole infallible teaching that we have. Until you can prove that the Bible "enscriptured" ALL of the oral tradition that Paul talked about in 2 Thess 2:15 and elsewhere, you are basing your argument on a false premise.

And who is suggesting that the Table of Contents is inspiried, infalliable or apart of Oral Tradition?

What is Scriptures that is inspired? What is the point of "sola scriptura" if we don't know what IS the Scriptures that are inspired in the first place? Is it the Koran? How about the Hindu "Scriptures"? Is it the Jewish Old Testament ALONE? ALL of these ALSO claims to be "inspired by God". The New Testament does not claim for itself inspiration as a whole.

You see, this is one of the MANY problems with sola scriptura. What is the point of something being infallible if we don't know what IT IS???

Do you know who the letter's of Paul are arraigned in the NT? By length of letter. Hardly some inspired Oral Tradition.

Huh? What's that? Isn't there more to the New Testament than Paul's epistles?

I believe that there are those within the RCC who are a part of the brethren - I do not necessarily believe that the RCC, just because it is the RCC, is apart of the brethren. Same goes with any church. There are those who attend church, but are not members of the brethren.

I agree with that, as well. So does the Church. It doesn't teach that EVERY visible member is of the "elect". Do you recall the parable of the weeds and the wheat? The Church teaches that SHE presents the fullness of the Truth that God has made available. Those who become members of her visible community, however, are not guaranteed salvation. Salvation is more than merely "proclaiming that Jesus is Lord". Doing the will of the Father will save. God desires that ALL men be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth. When I see Truth, I submit myself to it, because I believe that is God's will. I will try to do the Father's will, with His graces.

Francis - please quote me where I said: "those people whom you say CANNOT be saved." When did I say that a Muslim "cannot be saved'?

I am tired of your false accusations.

Yes, you tire of it... Yet, you constantly do it regarding the Catholic Church by presenting your constant barrage of straw man arguments... As I said before, YOU are the most active Protestant on the "RCC sub-forum" here. Read your own posts and the attitude behind them... Who is stirring disunity?

Now, to your question.

You wrote the following: "There is no such thing as a Muslim "brethren". Muslims are not members of God's family." on Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:09 pm

Then, you wrote: Muslims are brethren in humanity, but they are not Brothers spiritually - they follow a false god, and a false prophet." on Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:04 pm

It is common knowledge among every Christian that I know that only those of God's family will be saved. Only those in Christ, our spiritual brothers, will inherit the Kingdom. Thus, I immediately quoted you Jesus' words on Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:07 pm:

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brothers? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brothers! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in the heavens, the same is my brother and sister and mother.Mat 12:48-50

Why did I quote from here, Alone? Because JESUS defines whom our brother is differently than you do. Jesus doesn't make your distinction of religious affiliation, but merely, DOING THE WILL OF THE FATHER.

By you saying that "Muslims are not our brothers (which you further clarify as "spiritual brothers"), you are saying that no Muslim can be saved. Only those whom are our brothers spiritually can be saved.

There is no false accusation. It naturally follows that you do not believe that "a Muslim can be saved" by your own selection of words. If you have re-thought your theology and your explanation of it, you may retract your words.

But don't accuse me of "false accusation". I am not in the business of following you around just to spite you and slander you. I am merely correcting your words, since some people may take to them.

 

[Guest]

Francis - first, let me point out that I needed to correct a typo in regards to the NT. I meant to saw "how" not "who".

In order to show that all of Oral Tradition has been escripted into the Word, one merely has to see if there is still Oral Tradition being taught that is not found in the Scriptures. Surely, this should not be hard to find out. I am not looking to win an arguement Francis - merely to seek the truth.

That is why I was asking YOU the question. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you would know of Oral Tradition that is still being taught that is independent of Scripture. Sorry, if I was mistaken - but it appears to me that you are trying to dodge the question by claiming who has or who doesn't have a burden of proof. I did not realize that I was on trial or that Sola Scriptura was on trial here.

I am sorry, but I will not entertain the notion that there are other inspired works, especially since the teachings of the Koran, the Gita, and others do not agree with the Holy Bible. There is ONE God who has revealed Himself through the Old and New Testament - the other gods of other religions are false. Perhaps you believe in multiple roads - I do not.

I have pointed out numerous times that only those who are born from above, can do the will of the Father. I have pointed out numerous times from Christ's words and Paul's words that one must BELIEVE first, and it is through that BELIEF that one is saved. It appears we disagree on how one is saved. I believe it is by faith and that good works are manifested from that faith. Obvisously you disagree, however, I never said that a Muslim CANNOT become saved - all they need to do is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ - at which point they are no longer a follower of Islam, but are a Christian.

 

[mondar]

So, let me get this straight. Your arugement in regards to Oral Tradition is:

God is still perserving it, but I do not have to tell you what is being perserved?

Detailing it is not necessary to disprove sola scriptura. This is just an attempt to change the subject. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that the bible and IT ALONE is the sole infallible teaching that we have. Until you can prove that the Bible "enscriptured" ALL of the oral tradition that Paul talked about in 2 Thess 2:15 and elsewhere, you are basing your argument on a false premise.

aLoneVoice, good point. If the RCC has all this oral tradition, why dont they give it to us all at once. The Jews did this when the delivered their oral law in the Talmud and Mishna. The obvious reason the RCC does not simply tell us all their oral tradition is because they make it up as they go.

And who is suggesting that the Table of Contents is inspiried, infalliable or apart of Oral Tradition?

What is Scriptures that is inspired? What is the point of "sola scriptura" if we don't know what IS the Scriptures that are inspired in the first place? Is it the Koran? How about the Hindu "Scriptures"? Is it the Jewish Old Testament ALONE? ALL of these ALSO claims to be "inspired by God". The New Testament does not claim for itself inspiration as a whole.

You see, this is one of the MANY problems with sola scriptura. What is the point of something being infallible if we don't know what IT IS???

aLoneVoice, again a good point. You are absolutely correct that no divine table of contents are needed to demonstrate that scriptures have their source in God and are infallible.

A good illustration might be your posts on this BB. Do we need to know how many posts you made to know if one of your posts has its "source in alonevoice?" We need no table of contents of our posts to know if you wrote your last post. The issue of how many posts you made is different then the authority of your posts.

Others assume that we cannot know scripture as infallible unless we have a divine golden index of all books to be included. Then neither can we know if you wrote your last post unless we have information on how many posts you made. (unfortuntately for this illustration your number of posts is listed)

Do you know who the letter's of Paul are arraigned in the NT? By length of letter. Hardly some inspired Oral Tradition.

Huh? What's that? Isn't there more to the New Testament than Paul's epistles?

francis, you missed alones whole point. He did make a typo. "who" should be "how." His point is that if an index of scriptures is divine, what about the order of epistles. Its another good point. Actually it is an exellent point.

Think about it. The ECF are supposed to pass down this divine tradition. When you read the ECFs of the first 6 centuries, none of them has the same list of books as Rome had at Trent. How in the world can an infallible list of books be passed down from Bishop to Bishop when the all disagree with Rome? It seems the ECFs were totally unaware that they should be passing down an inspired list of books. Not only this, but as you say, many had different orders to the lists also.

Please excuse the sarcasm, but oral tradition being passed down through the ECFs is a bad joke.

 

[francisdesales]

In order to show that all of Oral Tradition has been escripted into the Word, one merely has to see if there is still Oral Tradition being taught that is not found in the Scriptures. Surely, this should not be hard to find out. I am not looking to win an arguement Francis - merely to seek the truth.

That is why I was asking YOU the question. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you would know of Oral Tradition that is still being taught that is independent of Scripture. Sorry, if I was mistaken - but it appears to me that you are trying to dodge the question by claiming who has or who doesn't have a burden of proof. I did not realize that I was on trial or that Sola Scriptura was on trial here.

I didn't say YOU PERSONALLY were on trial. YOU have chosen to defend sola scriptura! It is up to you to provide the defense of sola scriptura.

I am not dodging ANY question. I have already given you one example of oral tradition. Because I am such a nice guy, I'll give you another - infant baptism. Show me where that is explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures. Yet, the Church Fathers say it is an apostolic teaching... It was believed even by Martin Luther himself, although he HIMSELF admitted there was no scriptural warrant... He believed it because it was Apostolic Tradition.

You still have not responded to a very common sense question: What IS Scriptures?

Sola Scriptura is a waste of an idea if we cannot know what Scriptures ARE!!!

This has nothing to do with you or I personally, with Protesantism or Catholicism, or whatever you think this conversation is about. To me, it is a search for truth. It is clear to me that you CANNOT defend Sola Scriptura. It is upheld as a tradition of men that is not defensible by the very thing that it purports to follow - the Bible. How ironic...

Here is a summary of the failure of sola scriptura...

Oral traditions were taught by the first Christians AFTER the Bible was written.

There is no indication that ALL oral traditions were 'enscriptured", or that they EVER would be.

The bible itself says that there is another infallible authority, the Church.

What is Scriptures?

Who inteprets this infallible work?

The very verse that "defends" sola scriptura throws out the New Testament!

And on and on. These questions MUST be answered if one HONESTLY holds to sola scriptura. Refusal to answer them is being intellectually dishonest with oneself. It is holding on to a tradition of men, a tradition that is refuted by the Bible ITSELF. Thus, it is a self-refuting idea, a concept that is worthy of the dust bins of history.

It is one of THE primary reasons why Christianity REMAINS in disunity.

Further discussion about the topic of this thread is pointless, since you have decided you cannot defend "the Bible is the sole infallible authority" and feel the need to change the subject.

If you have anything further to add about your defense of sola scriptura, please present it. Otherwise, let the honest and unbiased reader decide whether sola scriptura is worthy of belief.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Francis - There is no indication from the Scripture or from the early church that infant baptism was practiced.

I disagree with those who claim infant baptism is a Scriptural doctrine.

Rather than "yelling" - how about you actually provide evidence of your statements.

Tell you what - why don't you pick ONE Oral Tradition that you believe is still being taught that is not enscripted anywhere in Scripture. Mind you, you will need to prove that it was "Oral Tradition" alone.

 

[Devekut]

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?

This is a false premise. Due to the fact that Sacred Tradition can not contradict scripture, and in most cases, lies as an implicit assumption behind scripture, it is possible to have all Tradition implicity in scripture without scripture being the sole authority on the matter.

I think it is moot to discuss in terms of "final authority". Final authority implies that Scripture and Tradition come into conflict and that one of them is more authoratative than the other. They are "two streams from the same fountain".

It is Sacred Tradition which regards the New Testament as "God-breathed scripture" in the way that the letter to Timothy regarded the Old Testament. Since the New Testament originally consisted of independent works and letters, it was not considered a cohesive and unitive work without tradition.

In some way the entire debate is strange because much of scripture itself is a result of oral tradition. The gospels were first circulated orally, the tales of Jesus' teachings and actions and the way that these tales were formulated were passed from communities as oral traditions. The Birth narratives are obvious oral traditions written down at a later time then the essentials found in Mark. Different communities (and each gospel author reflected the views of a community) produced different gospels according to their different emphasis, their different traditions.

 

[Guest]

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?

This is a false premise. Due to the fact that Sacred Tradition can not contradict scripture, and in most cases, lies as an implicit assumption behind scripture, it is possible to have all Tradition implicity in scripture without scripture being the sole authority on the matter.

I think it is moot to discuss in terms of "final authority". Final authority implies that Scripture and Tradition come into conflict and that one of them is more authoratative than the other. They are "two streams from the same fountain".

It is Sacred Tradition which regards the New Testament as "God-breathed scripture" in the way that the letter to Timothy regarded the Old Testament. Since the New Testament originally consisted of independent works and letters, it was not considered a cohesive and unitive work without tradition.

In some way the entire debate is strange because much of scripture itself is a result of oral tradition. The gospels were first circulated orally, the tales of Jesus' teachings and actions and the way that these tales were formulated were passed from communities as oral traditions. The Birth narratives are obvious oral traditions written down at a later time then the essentials found in Mark. Different communities (and each gospel author reflected the views of a community) produced different gospels according to their different emphasis, their different traditions.

Nobody is denying Oral Tradition - it is brought up, to borrow a phrase that francis like's to use, as a false dicthomy in an attempt to disprove sola-scriptura.

The question is though - is there any Oral Tradition that REMAINS? In other words, any ORAL Tradition that has not been codified?

2 Timothy can refer to the NT as well. God operates outside of our time - therefore, I believe it to be all possible that God wrote something down at point A knowing full well that at some point in time (for our frame of reference) it would include point B.

 

[Devekut]

But oral tradition does disprove sola scriptura. Scripture is not the final authority on matters of faith, it is of equal authority with sacred tradition. Tradition and scripture inter-penetrate one another. For this reason tradition will look to scripture and the explication of scripture will rely on tradition. We really should not place them as binaries.

 

[Guest]

But oral tradition does disprove sola scriptura. Scripture is not the final authority on matters of faith, it is of equal authority with sacred tradition. Tradition and scripture inter-penetrate one another. For this reason tradition will look to scripture and the explication of scripture will rely on tradition. We really should not place them as binaries.

Where is there evidence that oral tradition still exists for the basis of teaching sound doctrine?

Sola Scriptura does not erase that oral tradition once existed - where is the evidence that oral tradition hasn't been codified?

 

[Devekut]

Oral Tradition is codified- its callde Dogma, which includes the authoratative interpretation of scripture.

Tradition is needed, it is held, to properly understand scripture. This is why Catholics interpret John 6 in terms of the Real Presence but Protestants do not. Apostolic Tradition tells us how to interpret that passage in an even more specific sense than what is present. This is not to say that John 6 does not teach the Real Presence, only that we can make most sense of that passage only under the light of Apostolic Tradition. Tradition does not impose something that is not there. Tradition brings to a more complete understanding what is already present in the text.

 

[Guest]

Oral Tradition is codified- its callde Dogma, which includes the authoratative interpretation of scripture.

Tradition is needed, it is held, to properly understand scripture. This is why Catholics interpret John 6 in terms of the Real Presence but Protestants do not. Apostolic Tradition tells us how to interpret that passage in an even more specific sense than what is present. This is not to say that John 6 does not teach the Real Presence, only that we can make most sense of that passage only under the light of Apostolic Tradition. Tradition does not impose something that is not there. Tradition brings to a more complete understanding what is already present in the text.

So - the teachings of the RCC have never changed?

 

[Devekut]

Well, that's not neccessarily so.

Things that can change might. Things that can not never will.

Obviously the greatest example of change is the Second Vatican Council, which summarize well the idea of change in the Church:

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy declares its objective as:

"to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those instiutions which are subject to change"

Somethings are subject to change, others are not.

 

[Guest]

Ok - So this "Dogma" - is there any teaching within the "dogma" that isn't also found in Scripture?

 

[stranger]

aLoneVoice wrote:

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.

A creed or confession of faith does not have to be as authoritative as scripture. That is not my argument. I have simply asked: to what degree is a confession of faith authoritative? Similarly, to what degree is reason authoritative in the Protestant hermenuetic? To what degree is tradition or experience authoritative? Presbyterianism was an example only, it could have been Church of England, Lutheran (if they are counted as Protestant), Baptist or any other Protestant denomination.

Now if it is granted that something other than scripture alone is authoritative then it stands to reason that scripture alone is not the sole source of authority in matters of faith and doctrine for the Protestant.

ALonevoice, please answer this question:

Am I right in thinking that you are aware of this?

 

[Guest]

aLoneVoice wrote:

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.

A creed or confession of faith does not have to be as authoritative as scripture. That is not my argument. I have simply asked: to what degree is a confession of faith authoritative? Similarly, to what degree is reason authoritative in the Protestant hermenuetic? To what degree is tradition or experience authoritative? Presbyterianism was an example only, it could have been Church of England, Lutheran (if they are counted as Protestant), Baptist or any other Protestant denomination.

Now if it is granted that something other than scripture alone is authoritative then it stands to reason that scripture alone is not the sole source of authority in matters of faith and doctrine for the Protestant.

ALonevoice, please answer this question:

Am I right in thinking that you are aware of this?

A creed is not authoritative, it might play a role - but that hardly makes in authoritative. As you might be aware, I agree with the Anabaptist "movement" - there are no creeds.

 

[mondar]

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?

This is a false premise. Due to the fact that Sacred Tradition can not contradict scripture, and in most cases, lies as an implicit assumption behind scripture, it is possible to have all Tradition implicity in scripture without scripture being the sole authority on the matter.

I think it is moot to discuss in terms of "final authority". Final authority implies that Scripture and Tradition come into conflict and that one of them is more authoratative than the other. They are "two streams from the same fountain".

It is Sacred Tradition which regards the New Testament as "God-breathed scripture" in the way that the letter to Timothy regarded the Old Testament. Since the New Testament originally consisted of independent works and letters, it was not considered a cohesive and unitive work without tradition.

In some way the entire debate is strange because much of scripture itself is a result of oral tradition. The gospels were first circulated orally, the tales of Jesus' teachings and actions and the way that these tales were formulated were passed from communities as oral traditions. The Birth narratives are obvious oral traditions written down at a later time then the essentials found in Mark. Different communities (and each gospel author reflected the views of a community) produced different gospels according to their different emphasis, their different traditions.

We have been all through this in the thread already. We who believe in sola scriptura do not deny apostolic authority and oral teaching. We deny that this oral teaching has been authoritatively passed down. I previously gave an illustration of the impossible failure of oral tradition. Do you know how many of the Early Church Fathers ----ECFS---- had the same list of books that they thought was scripture was the same as Trent? Hint--->none, 0, ziltch. You honestly believe that the oral tradition of the apocrapha was passed down from Bishop to Bishop or Pope to Pope? I believe even Pope Gregory had a list that was not like Trent, but more like the protestant list.

If the ECFs passed down oral tradition, it was against the written statements of those same ECFs.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis - There is no indication from the Scripture or from the early church that infant baptism was practiced.

Our conversations are finished. I have said enough about this silly "sola scriptura" concept. It is the tool of the devil, separating Christians from the unity intended by Christ. I have posted enough to show it is built upon sand. I have already provided you with two oral traditions. If you cannot accept them, sorry.

Frankly, your knowledge of Church history is pretty pathetic. I saw the evidence of that first in your idea that the Church was called "catholic" first with Pope Leo. My signature is a constant reminder of your "knowledge". You continue to show your ignorance on this subject, as well.

There are plenty of indications that infant baptism was practiced. Origen and Tertullian both write about it and Irenaeus alludes to it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that these men were making this all up, but were reporting what was common practice in the Church. Even Martin Luther accepted this non-Scriptural warrant as a legitimate practice of the Church from the very beginning. If you cannot accept that, I have nothing further to add.

After some prayerful consideration, I have decided that I have answered enough of your comments and that further conversation with you is pointless.

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2 Tim 2:23-25

In my conscience, I feel that I have done enough to ... [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 1 Peter 3:15.

As such, I will not be answering your questions anymore. All you are doing is trying to tear apart the Church. I will not be part of that.

 

[Guest]

Ignatius uses the term "catholic" - to mean universal.

Leo used the term Catholic to refer to the Roman Catholic church.

Sorry - there is a difference.

 

[unred typo]

Mondar! You're back. I know it's been a while, but my last replies to you got buried. i know this thread has taken a turn from what we were discussing but you left a couple questions unanswered. Let me just repost them here:

quote by Mondar:

Unred, one of the problems in this thread is that you have probably not ever read anything at all on "sola scriptura." If you did read a book or a paper on the subject, I suspect you did not understand what you were reading. The reason I am saying this is that you seem to be trying to define the issue that "sola scriptura" means that the bible is the only authority. While some writers might talk like that, I dont think any professional theologian would suggest that "sola scriptura" teaches that the bible is the "only" authority. Now they might, and do say that "sola scriptura" is the only infallible authority that is sufficient to equip the man of God.

Let me say it this way. There are several key concepts in the definition. The definition is inseparable. You cannot divide up the definition and attack parts of the definition, you must take it as a whole. The key parts are as follows:
"Infallible" ---- This comes from the word "theopneustos." If the scripture is the product of the mind of a sovereign God, then to say that the scripture has errors, or is fallible in any way, would be to attribute lies to God. A proper concept of inspiration is to see God as responsible for all that was written.
"Sufficient" --- This comes from two words in verse 17. alonevoice understands this and has quoted part of verse 17 which focuses on this part of the definition. Notice how he focuses on the words: "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." If the scriptures all by themselves are "adequate," what else is needed? If anything else is needed, then the claim of 2 Tim 3:17 is not true. How can Paul claim that the scriptures are "adaquate" or "complete" (artios) if something else must be present for God to speak. (Of course just because God speaks, that does not mean that we will listen). To make the point of sufficiency clear Paul adds a second term, "thoroughly equipped."
"alone" "sola" The concept of infallibility and sufficiency is found with reference to the scriptures alone. Now the word "alone" does not occur in the text, but the claim is made because there is nothing else other then the scriptures that the bible asserts is both "infallible" and "sufficient." These claims are made in the bible for the scriptures alone. To disprove this part of the definition, you must show that there is a 2nd infallible and sufficient source of authority for today. Merely pointing out that the word "alone" does not occur in this passage is totally and absolutely meaningless. It is a shallow trick that only the simpleminded would even pay attention to. Why do you think the word "theopneustos" occurs with reference to only the scriptures?

I hope this somehow helps you to understand what is being said when the term "sola scriptura" is used.

Now the reason I bring up the definition once again is because of the way you defined "sola scriptura" to mean that the bible is a "sole authority." "Sola scrptura" claims it is a sole infallible authority, but it does not claim to be a sole authority. Protestants have teachers, pastors, ministers, and all sorts of authorities. We do not consider them "theopneustos" or inspired, or infallible. We go home and disagree with our own ministers at Sunday dinner. If the ministers get together and make a "confession of faith," we believe we can say "the bible does not teach that!" Why do we behave these ways? We believe that there are many authorities, but only one infallible authority that is sufficient.

Unred, if you had read this entire thread, and understood what is going on, you would see that the difference of opinion has to do with "do we have one infallible authority, or do with have several infallible authorities such as the scriptures and tradition. The reason I am complaining that you are off topic is that I have you on the one side taking away from the authority of the scriptures, and francisdesales adding to the authority of the scriptures with his church tradition. They are really two separate issues, two separate thoughts, two separate things to deal with. Tell me unred, are you willing to accept the church councils (such as trent), and the decrees of the Pope when he speaks "ex Cathedra," and all the traditions of Rome as also infallible and "theopnuestos?" The two issues (adding to the scriptures or taking away from the scriptures) are two very different theologies, and two different issues. Since you and francisdesales are doing two totally separate things, the issues deserve two separate threads. Unfortunately, I think this is lost upon both of you. Heh, oh well.

Excuse me? You obviously have forgotten or never read the OP of this thread, since you only joined it on page 5. I, on the other hand, have been on this thread since day uno. Guess what? According to your own strict formula for deciding quality of topic adherence, you’re off topic. The thread is not about what “sola scriptura†really means.

Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?
by Corinthian on Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:39 pm
Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

You see, Corinthian asked the same specific question that I asked you and you refuse to answer because you claim I don’t understand the nature of “sola scripturaâ€Â. Let me ask another question dealing with your answer to the “issue on this thread,†if you so kindly will allow it. Where does the Bible claim that it, (the Bible, specifically, not the inspired scripture that Timothy had in his hands,) is the equivalent of the “theopnuestos†that you claim that Paul calls ‘infallible’ in 2 Tim 3:17?

quote by Mondar:
Tell me unred, are you willing to accept the church councils (such as trent), and the decrees of the Pope when he speaks "ex Cathedra," and all the traditions of Rome as also infallible and "theopnuestos?" The two issues (adding to the scriptures or taking away from the scriptures) are two very different theologies, and two different issues.

Since you are the sole infallible judge of what is relevant to this thread, I’ll answer that. I am not willing to accept the church councils and the decrees of Rome. I understand they are the reason we have a truncated version of the scripture that is available for us to read in the Bible. So you tell me, if Timothy had all the scriptures available to him and they were “both ‘infallible’ and ‘sufficient’ †as you claim, why would an abbreviated version be as “sufficient†and why would an additional New Testament be “infallible� Arn’t you yourself ‘accepting the church councils and the decrees of Rome’ when you accept that some books were set aside as not infallible and therefore not included in the Bible?

Joe and I are not joined at the head. Yes, we are not dealing with the exact same issues here. He approaches it from the RCC stance and I am not, nor have I ever been, Catholic. However, they are both relevant to the OP in regards to your interpretation of 2 Timothy. I don't think that the definition of "sola scriptura" is the issue at all. I do understand, as does Joe, I’m sure, that "sola scriptura" doesn’t mean that scripture is the only source of authority but the only “infallible†authority. So what. The OP isn’t about infallible scriptural authority but about the Bible‘s claims. It does afford you an credible diversion from the point you are avoiding though. Viva La Chutzpah!

Waiting your reply... :-D