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

[Guest]

Have I ever said that Jasher wasn't? I just have not read a convincing arguement from you.

You’re waiting for a convincing argument from me before you check out what early Christians believed to be God’s word? ....wow....

You are the one that believes it is - I figured it would be easy for you to provide evidence.

Guess I was mistaken.

 

[mondar]

The point I am making in refering to 2 Thessalonians is that Paul says that BOTH oral and written teachings are to be followed. The word "AND" in that phrase is key. Paul doesn't say that oral teachings are abrogated now that Scripture has been written. Paul NEVER says that. IF what you are saying is true, Paul would have said ONLY written traditions were now effective.

This totally misses the point of what I said. I said that oral tradition (verbal teaching of the apostles) was identical in content to the epistolary form. You somehow get out of those words that I was saying that there is no oral form of apostolic teaching. Why do you do this? I know why----your tradition tells you that protestants who believe sola scriptura deny oral teaching totally. Again, you must cling to your traditions so firmly that you will be unable to read my statements for what they actually say. Why? Your tradition tells you what I am saying, you dont need to actually go to the bother of reading my words.

In 2 Thes 2:15, it does not affirm that traditions passed down in Rome are to be followed. It merely says that Pauls oral teaching is to be followed. I mentioned that verse 5 makes it clear that the theological content of Pauls oral teaching is also contained in written form. Well, I know you must think that this cannot be true because your tradition tells you that Romes traditions must be read into this text. You have the advantage that you do not need to discuss the grammar, syntax, or context of the verse, you need merely recite Romes tradition that says this verse is about the passing down of the many added traditions of Rome.

There is no passing down in this context of the many traditions of Rome. Paul is merely saying hold fast to what I said because its the same thing as I wrote (vs 5).
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Paul could not deny his oral teaching. If he did this, he would have to stop all his teaching. I am not saying that the moment written tradition appears, the oral teachings of the apostles cease. Nevertheless, when all the apostles died, there was no one left with the HS inspired memories to teach what they heard our Lord say with their own ears.

Now if you think about this...
(which you cannot do because your tradition tells you that I am saying something different)
...and then you think about 2 Tim 3:16 and the instructions of Paul to Timothy... This was the perfect place for Paul to tell Timothy to depend upon written and oral traditions. It was an ideal place for this to be said because the context is about false teachings and false teachers. Oral tradition is where the church went astray. The written word of God is what Paul claims is theopneustos. I know you claim that all sorts of things are theopneustos. At least you say they are, but then you do not show the word "theopneustos" in the bible anywhere, you merely make the assertion that it is there.

My position is easily defeated. All you have to do is find the word "theopneustos" with the word tradition or Church, and quote the verse. Of course you will not quote the verse and word in the verse where this happens, you will merely recite your tradition that it is there and will never show the verse and actual word "inspired" or "God breathed."

Gotta go

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice
You are the one that believes it is - I figured it would be easy for you to provide evidence.

Guess I was mistaken.

You’re mistaken that I care enough to prove it to you. I personally believe the Bible and I believe Jasher as far as it is profitable to inform us of the history of events between God and mankind and the nature and principles of God. For me, infallibility is not essential and if there are mistakes, they are minor misunderstandings that don’t necessarily have to be corrected to have enough knowledge of God to be sufficient to live by and gain eternal life.

I have a problem with putting a book or a physical establishment in place of God, even if it is a church that was started by God himself. The tabernacle was established by God and when Jesus died, it’s separation keeping us out of the holy of holies was torn apart and then a few years later, the entire temple was destroyed and the priests killed or scattered.

If we are to be the children of Abraham by faith, why do we need a book to follow or a tabernacle to attend? We are children of God by faith in the person and teachings of his son. He removed the ritualistic aspect of belief by reducing the entire law to ‘love God and one another.’ Even the ritual baptism of believers is an obedience to show the world of our identification with Christ’s death and confidence of our future resurrection, not to physically remove our sin. The Lord’s supper is a remembrance of him, not the actual receiving of him. Everything we can be in Christ can be done without a building or a book, even a very good book.

 

[Guest]

quote by aLoneVoice
You are the one that believes it is - I figured it would be easy for you to provide evidence.

Guess I was mistaken.

You’re mistaken that I care enough to prove it to you. I personally believe the Bible and I believe Jasher as far as it is profitable to inform us of the history of events between God and mankind and the nature and principles of God. For me, infallibility is not essential and if there are mistakes, they are minor misunderstandings that don’t necessarily have to be corrected to have enough knowledge of God to be sufficient to live by and gain eternal life.

I have a problem with putting a book or a physical establishment in place of God, even if it is a church that was started by God himself. The tabernacle was established by God and when Jesus died, it’s separation keeping us out of the holy of holies was torn apart and then a few years later, the entire temple was destroyed and the priests killed or scattered.

If we are to be the children of Abraham by faith, why do we need a book to follow or a tabernacle to attend? We are children of God by faith in the person and teachings of his son. He removed the ritualistic aspect of belief by reducing the entire law to ‘love God and one another.’ Even the ritual baptism of believers is an obedience to show the world of our identification with Christ’s death and confidence of our future resurrection, not to physically remove our sin. The Lord’s supper is a remembrance of him, not the actual receiving of him. Everything we can be in Christ can be done without a building or a book, even a very good book.

Funny on two accounts:

1) I never said that you "cared" - just figured that you "could".

2) All the things that you recite in the last paragraph - are found in the Bible. Without an infalliable book - how are you able to say anything in your last paragraph?

 

[francisdesales]

OK, let's look at this defense of sola scriptura provided by Mondar so far...

First, the red herrings. Now, the smoke screens and faulty premises. What is ironic is that after making the statement that "Protestants don't follow Sola Scriptura", you break your own maxim. You construct a house upon sand by conjuring out of the air presumptions that are NOWHERE found in the Bible. Because your premises are faulty, the conclusion is faulty.

First of all, the smoke screens. This topic is on "the bible is the sole authority". Not the Virgin Mary's assumption, not apostolic succession. Please try to stick to that topic.

Now, let's look at your faulty assumptions, presumptions that cannot be drawn from Scriptures. Naturally, this in of itself violates "sola scriptura" and further proves the ironic point you earlier made - that Protestants (including yourself) do not actually adhere to it.

It is true that in Acts 15 you have the apostles making judgements on what doctrine is to be practiced and believed. It is also true that this was before any of the epistles were written. Oddly enough, this was recorded in scripture. So then, can we see that the oral traditions before enscripturation were two different doctrines?

Where exactly is this "doctrine" found in Scriptures? This is the first example of a faulty premise NOT based on Scriptures. It is based on your OPINION. It is not backed up by any Scriptures whatsoever, and violates the sense of what IS in Scriptures.

The New Testament does not make any such "two different doctrines" distinction that you present... The Apostles present ONE teaching, ONE deposit of faith:

Maintain the traditions...even as I have delivered them to you 1 Cor 11:2
Hold to the traditions...taught...by word of mouth or by letteer 2 Thes 2:15
...the tradition that you have received from us 2 Thes 3:16
...the gospel, which you have received... 1 Cor 15:1
...the gospel, which you received Gal 1:9
We preached to you the Gospel of God 1 Thes 2:9
Samaria had received the word of God Acts 8:14
You have received the word of God, which you heard from us 1 Thes 2:13
...the holy commandment delivered to them 2 Peter 2:21

and the coup de grace

...the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. Jude 3

It should be perfectly clear that there was NOT two "gospels" taught. Nor does the Bible EVER say that the written teachings entirely encapsulate oral teachings. From the verses above, it is clear that "Word of God" is NOT always written. And there is absolutely no Scriptural requirement that God's Word MUST be put into writing. Christianity accepted the dictates the Council of Jerusalem NOT because they were written down in Scriptures 20 years LATER, but because of their Apostolic Authority, BACKED by the Holy Spirit.

Where are those apostles now? They are dead! While they were alive, they could use their memories of Christs teaching, and make such judgements.

Again, as the above verses state, the successors appointed by the Apostles did NOT have to use their memories of Christ's teachings - they were GIVEN that by the Apostles. The Pastorals show this on numerous occasions:

Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me...Guard the truth which has been entrusted to you BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO DWELLS WITHIN US )(we'll come back to this one when I address another of your presumptions 2 Timothy 1:13-14

And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be albe to teach others also. 2 Timothy 2:2

Paul says that Timothy is not only to receive and "follow the pattern" of his ORAL teaching, as well as the written, but to ALSO teach the SAME! The Church does this in regards to the entire "deposit of the fatih", apostolic teachings, in accordance with St. Paul. As a result, it is a faulty premise not found in Scriptures to REMOVE part of the Apostolic faith given. That is exactly what you do. You remove part of the Apostolic faith given.

This ministry of the Holy Spirit ended with the death of the last apostle. The criteria to be an apostle is mentioned in Acts 1.

Faulty premise number 2.

NOWHERE does the bible say that the ministry of the Holy Spirit ended with the death of the last apostle. Again, a non-Biblical presumption that builds upon a tradition that violates Sola Scriptura.

For example, Paul writes:

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor 12:4

Then, Paul details the various gifts given to the CHURCH for building her up. Where does the Bible say that these gifts are no longer given? Do people STILL say "Jesus is the Lord"? How can this be if the Holy Spirit no longer ministers to the Church??? Another faulty premise, no doubt.

Rather than quote the NUMEROUS times that the Bible mentions that the Spirit is given to the Church, that Christ and His Spirit will REMAIN with the Church for all time, that Christ will not leave His Church orphans, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, I think it would be up to you to prove your assertion from Scriptures.

It is clear from the Pastorals, for example, that the Holy Spirit CONTINUES to grace the Church with gifts.

Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me...Guard the truth which has been entrusted to you BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO DWELLS WITHIN US 2 Timothy 1:13-14

Now, faulty premise three is based on a simple misreading of Scriptures. Let's look at Acts 1 a bit more closely...

Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. Acts 1:21-22

This only refers to the metaphor that our Lord created with the New Israel, calling 12 apostles to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. To complete THIS metaphor, the Apostles asked God to choose one to fill the role of Judas. This does not say anything about WHO an apostle can be, but who is eligible to complete the metaphor created by Christ.

This is clear when Paul HIMSELF says he is an apostle. In the opening sentence of a number of his epistles, he identifies himself as an apostle. Clearly, he is not making the claim to fill the role of the metaphor formed by Jesus. Paul did not witness the "beginning from the Baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from US". The term "apostle" in the broad sense is "one who is sent". Thus, Paul fits that definition, as does Timothy and Silvanus, whom Paul also calls apostles in 1 Thessalonians 2. Apostles are ministers of Christ who CONTINUE to teach the faith given by the Apostles, as Paul charged Timothy to in his first letter to Timothy... It is in this sense that the Catholic Church claims apostolic succession - to follow in the footsteps of Timothy and the others established by the Apostles to continue teaching the faith. Proof of that is in the fact that the Church does not have "12" cardinals, or any other such thing to simulate the continuation of the actual 12 apostles.

Acts 15 is nothing more then sola scriptura in action.

The event in question has nothing to do with sola scriptura. The decision made at Jerusalem COMPLETELY VIOLATES the idea of sola scriptura - and the Holy Spirit AGREED! WHERE in the Scriptures that the Apostles possessed during the Council state that circumcision was temporary?

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen 17:8-14

A sign of the everlasting covenant... How exactly is Acts 15 "sola scriptura" in action? It completely IGNORES Scriptures, recognizing that God has formed a new Covenant, the sign being the Eucharist. This is interpretation based on their apostolic authority, not the bible!

The scriptures says the Church is theopneustos? Yeah right, now If I challenge you to show me one text that connects the words Church and theopneustos, you will go silent and this will be totally ignored. Come on, please dont be so shallow. Anyone can get a computer and do a word search on theopneustos and see that the word nowhere occurs in a context were it refers to the church. Why do you make up such things? I honestly think you would make up any tale in the service of your traditions. Yes, I should not be condescending, but please help me out a little here. I sit here and shake my head thinking it is incredible that someone would say the things you do. We go over and over the same things. You point out that the word "alone" does not occur in the passage. I point out that the word scripture is the only word attached to the word "theopneustos."

In your rush to judge, you do not take into consideration that Scriptures implies many things without explicitly saying it. For example, our understanding of "trinity". It is formulated from numerous Scriptures and their understanding of them.

In the same manner, we understand implicitly that the Church possesses the Spirit of God. Do I really need to prove that from many Scriptures that show that the Spirit abides in those who obey God's commandments? Or that the Spirit enables one to say "Jesus is Lord"? Or when the elders of the Church layed hands on Timothy (and others) to confer the Spirit? Or the act of Baptism? Or when Jesus PROMISED to send His Spirit, the Advocate, to the Church? And HOW EXACTLY is the Church the pillar and foundation of the Truth, IF the Spirit is not within? How is the Church the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3)? I could post numerous verses that show that the Spirit exists within the Church. I had assumed that every Christian was aware of that. For example:

...every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit. 1 Thes 4:4-8

I dont know why I bother, I know you will again repeat the same silly argument that the word "alone" no where occurs in the bible. When I have explained why the doctrine is in 2Timothy 3:16, you just bury any verse I speak of in your traditions so that you cannot even hardly read the words of the verse.

Not only is "alone" nowhere found in 2 Timothy 3, the idea that Scriptures alone are the sole rule of our faith is found nowhere else in the bible. While the doctrine of trinity is found throughout the Bible when read under Apostolic Tradition, we don't find sola scriptura or the idea scattered in the Bible. Rather, as I have posted already, what is important is that the teachings were GIVEN and RECEIVED by the Church to the Church. We see the TOTALITY of the teachings given, NOT the medium given. Yours is a false distinction that the Apostles never made. Yours is another of those presumptions that is not proven by the Bible. Thus, again, you do not stick to the dictums of sola scriptura.

Now, as to Ephesians 4 and compared to 2 Timothy 3,

If the Greek 'artios' (complete) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Tim 3, then "teleios" (perfect, mature) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers, and so on.

In Eph 4, the Christian is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fullness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by the teaching function of the Church. This is a much stronger statement of "perfecting the saints" of 2 Tim 3 - and yet, Eph 4 does NOT mention the Bible. This disproves sola scriptura.

Two Timothy actually proves TOO much, because the Scriptures of Timothy's YOUTH did NOT include the vast majority of the New Testament. Paul is clearly refering to the Old Testament. Thus, your interpretation of the passage proves TOO much, that the NEW TESTAMENT is not required and not necessary as a rule of faith. And finally, it goes without saying, that this passage (or no other in the NT) tells us WHAT IS Scriptures! We are NEVER told what inspired Scriptures ARE. Thus, the whole concept is purely a man-made tradition.

So what do we have regarding your defense of sola scriptura? A series of faulty premises, presumptions NOT found in the Bible - an ironic violation of your own dearly held maxim.:

The Holy Spirit is no longer ministring in the Church.
The Scriptures encapsulate EVERYTHING that the Apostles taught.
The ministry of the Apostles ended with the death of the last Apostle of Christ.
ANOTHER source of perfecting Christians is given - which denies the "sola"

It is based on the denial that the BIBLE ITSELF refers to something ELSE that is the pillar and foundation of the truth, the Temple of the Holy Spirit - the Church.

It is based on not realizing that the Bible NEVER tells us what IS Scriptures and what is not.

Your argument that "because only the Bible is refered to as God-breathed" tells us absolutely nothing about what IS our source of faith, nor does it eliminate everything BUT the Scriptures. Clearly, the Spirit of God is not found only in the Scriptures!

For sola Scriptura to be true, the Bible MUST state that IT ALONE is the ONLY source of Christian doctrine. One cannot use presumptions that are NOT found in Scriptures, as this in of itself violates the rule. If any other source of truth or teaching of doctrine is given, the whole house comes crashing down. That's what happens when you build upon sand.

Regards

 

[Guest]

The source of our faith is found in Christ Jesus - not the Bible.

The Scriptures as inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17) show that the Scriptures are infalliable, because God is infalliable. 2 Tim 3:16 shows the importance of Scriptures and their use. Would this not be the foundation of Christian doctrine and practice?

Christ relied on the Hebrew scriptures - it moved from the the written Hebrew Scriptures to the oral communication and written communication of the Apostles.

God has perserved throughout time both the Old and the New - to provide written insturction to those who would believe now - 2000 years removed from the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not rely on Apostolic tradtion, but on the very Word of God found in both the Old and the New.

I personally find it disgusting and insulting to the Father of the Heavens that there are those here, claiming to be followers of Christ, attempting to tear-down the verbal, plenary inspired Word of God. Perhaps that is not the intent, but an honest assestment of the arguements presented will show an attempt to tear down the Word of God. If we as Christians cannot understand and agree on the importance and place of the Scriptures, what is the point in trying to communicate it's message to anyone else?

The only reason that we know that Salvation is found in noone else except Jesus Christ is because of the Word of God.

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice
Funny on two accounts:

1) I never said that you "cared" - just figured that you "could".

2) All the things that you recite in the last paragraph - are found in the Bible. Without an infalliable book - how are you able to say anything in your last paragraph?

I cared enough to read it for myself and evaluate it according to the Bible. If you don’t, I guess that’s your problem. Would you want me to paste the entire book here for you to read? There are whole discussion forums about it if you want to know more. It must be of as much importance as the subject of ‘open theism.’ I can’t prove Jasher with evidence any more than you can prove infallibility of the Bible with evidence.

Is the newspaper infallible? Or the advice of a Christian friend? Or a song about life? Or the understanding of creation around us? Hardly, yet I make conclusions that effect my life on what I hear and read on a daily basis. A source of truth doesn’t have to be perfect to be used for instruction and edification. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice on Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:27 am
The source of our faith is found in Christ Jesus - not the Bible.

The Scriptures as inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17) show that the Scriptures are infalliable, because God is infalliable. 2 Tim 3:16 shows the importance of Scriptures and their use. Would this not be the foundation of Christian doctrine and practice

The law was inspired by God, even written by his finger but we learn that it was weak through the flesh (Romans 8:3 ) and the same is true of the Bible. I read that the first one hot off the press even said, “thou shalt commit adultery†instead of “thou shalt not commit adultery†and I don’t think it was meant as prophesy.

quote by aLoneVoice :
Christ relied on the Hebrew scriptures - it moved from the the written Hebrew Scriptures to the oral communication and written communication of the Apostles.

God has perserved throughout time both the Old and the New - to provide written insturction to those who would believe now - 2000 years removed from the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

Jesus also corrected the Hebrew scriptures and at times even began by stating, “You have heard it said†and then went on to say what God really meant. Preservation is not a guarantee of infallibility either. There are many, many books that have been preserved that don’t have two truths to rub together.

quote by aLoneVoice The doctrine of the Trinity does not rely on Apostolic tradtion, but on the very Word of God found in both the Old and the New.

Did you ever consider there might be a reason the trinity doctrine held today is not stated in the Bible or by any of the apostles? Maybe God is a complete ten persons in one, including the seven fold spirits of God. Who can say what his true nature is if he hasn’t revealed all aspects of it to us? We only have what he has allowed us to see. It may be a bit presumptuous to write that into a complete understanding of the godhead and even give it a name not given by God himself, hmmmn? Where do we find the infallibility of the trinity doctrine if it is not even stated as a doctrine in scripture?

quote by aLoneVoice
I personally find it disgusting and insulting to the Father of the Heavens that there are those here, claiming to be followers of Christ, attempting to tear-down the verbal, plenary inspired Word of God. Perhaps that is not the intent, but an honest assestment of the arguements presented will show an attempt to tear down the Word of God. If we as Christians cannot understand and agree on the importance and place of the Scriptures, what is the point in trying to communicate it's message to anyone else?

The only reason that we know that Salvation is found in noone else except Jesus Christ is because of the Word of God.

I love the inspired word of God. I place all the importance that Paul and Jesus and the scriptures themselves place on the word of God. But I also know that God is not limited by the approved list of books that became the Bible and he speaks today to those hearts that will listen. He may even use one of us silly people to bring out a truth that others may have missed. I may even learn some truth from you. :wink:

 

[Guest]

Christ did not come to change the Law or to re-write it. Rather, Christ came to fulfill it. As such, Jesus was to referring to the written Law of the Hebrew scriptures, but rather was correcting the teachings that were based on the Written Law.

In other words, it was the teachers that were misunderstanding and misstating the Law - not the Law itself.

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice on Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:13 am

Christ did not come to change the Law or to re-write it. Rather, Christ came to fulfill it. As such, Jesus was to referring to the written Law of the Hebrew scriptures, but rather was correcting the teachings that were based on the Written Law.

In other words, it was the teachers that were misunderstanding and misstating the Law - not the Law itself.

Then why does the Bible claim the law was as written in Deuteronomy 24:

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

And Jesus corrects it in Matthew 5:31-32?

Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.

Apparently, the law written by the Sanhedrin was not all the 'inspired' word of God unless Jesus was confused about what the 'inspired' scripture said or what God intended the 'inspired' law to be.

 

[Guest]

quote by aLoneVoice on Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:13 am

Christ did not come to change the Law or to re-write it. Rather, Christ came to fulfill it. As such, Jesus was to referring to the written Law of the Hebrew scriptures, but rather was correcting the teachings that were based on the Written Law.

In other words, it was the teachers that were misunderstanding and misstating the Law - not the Law itself.

Then why does the Bible claim the law was as written in Deuteronomy 24:

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

And Jesus corrects it in Matthew 5:31-32?

Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.

Apparently, the law written by the Sanhedrin was not all the 'inspired' word of God unless Jesus was confused about what the 'inspired' scripture said or what God intended the 'inspired' law to be.

I believe the words of Christ say you have "heard it said". Nowhere do I read Christ saying, "You have read it" or "seen it written."

Again, I would suggest that Christ was correcting the TEACHING of the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you for your reply. Just a few comments, not to cause an argument, mind you...

The source of our faith is found in Christ Jesus - not the Bible.

I agree.

The Scriptures as inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17) show that the Scriptures are infalliable, because God is infalliable.

Is it enough for the Scriptures alone to be infallible? Who interprets this infallible book? Would you agree that people can misinterpret this infallible book? What is God's intent in giving us ONLY an infallible book (which He did not) without telling us the CONTENTS or INTENT of that infallible book? It is my contention that the Bible tells us that God DID leave us a means of knowing His revelation that goes beyond mere words.

2 Tim 3:16 shows the importance of Scriptures and their use. Would this not be the foundation of Christian doctrine and practice?

I absolutely agree. The problem is the word "sola". We draw our doctrines from a particular reading of the Scriptures and how Christians have read the Bible in the past. Would you not agree that the Spirit still continues to grace the Church with His presence?

Christ relied on the Hebrew scriptures - it moved from the the written Hebrew Scriptures to the oral communication and written communication of the Apostles.

I think Christ did not rely on the Hebrew Scriptures, per sec, but utilized them as a common ground to discuss God's revelation to His people. He often refered to the teachings of their leaders, their traditions, and the lived life of the people. Christ didn't use "Scriptures alone" to teach His fulfillment of the Law. It is important to realize that it was His INTERPRETATION that was key, especially in such places as Matthew 5-7. (You have heard it said, but I tell you...)
I agree that He tasked the Apostles to continue everything that He had taught. Also, it is interesting to note that He did not commission the writing of a book. He left that to the Apostles as part of the transmission of the faith. This is not said to downplay the importance to the Bible, but just to enable others to realize that the Bible is NOT the sole source of our faith.

God has perserved throughout time both the Old and the New - to provide written insturction to those who would believe now - 2000 years removed from the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

I agree.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not rely on Apostolic tradtion, but on the very Word of God found in both the Old and the New.

Well, I have done some historical research on the "development of doctrine", and I think one must include both. For example, the Bible has Jesus in a subordinate role to the Father. Those who supported the idea that Jesus was not fully God flocked to these "subordinate verses" as their proof texts. What the Church did was to analyze the Scriptures, analyze what had been taught and believed up to that point, and defined the exact relationship between the Father and the Son. "Jesus is of the same essence as the Father" - a clause that is not found in Scriptures. Naturally, then, this definition of an Ecumencial Council relies on BOTH the Bible AND Apostolic Tradition (HOW we read the Scrtipures).

I personally find it disgusting and insulting to the Father of the Heavens that there are those here, claiming to be followers of Christ, attempting to tear-down the verbal, plenary inspired Word of God. Perhaps that is not the intent, but an honest assestment of the arguements presented will show an attempt to tear down the Word of God. If we as Christians cannot understand and agree on the importance and place of the Scriptures, what is the point in trying to communicate it's message to anyone else?

You are correct, we should accept what God has given us and we should come to a closer consensus on what He has revealed. God desires that ALL men come to the knowledge of the truth.

The only reason that we know that Salvation is found in noone else except Jesus Christ is because of the Word of God.

I believe that this has been a 2000 year teaching of pastors and clergy in both Catholic and Protestant communities. And it is also a 2000 year idea (and then some) that God's Word doesn't come in merely written form - as culminated by His Word in Human form...

Regards

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice :
I believe the words of Christ say you have "heard it said". Nowhere do I read Christ saying, "You have read it" or "seen it written."

Again, I would suggest that Christ was correcting the TEACHING of the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

Jesus probably knew most of his audience was illiterate and couldn’t read it for themselves. Doesn’t matter. The fact is that it was written in “the Hebrew Scriptures themselves†and is written right there in your KJV, in

Deuteronomy 24:1-2:

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

And the other fact is that Jesus quotes it and corrects it and says it is WRONG in Matthew 5:31-32 :

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.

So either the law written by the Sanhedrin was not all the inspired word of God or Jesus was confused about what the scripture said or what God intended the law to be. Or inspiration doesn’t include infallibility. Which is it?

 

[Guest]

quote by aLoneVoice :
I believe the words of Christ say you have "heard it said". Nowhere do I read Christ saying, "You have read it" or "seen it written."

Again, I would suggest that Christ was correcting the TEACHING of the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

Jesus probably knew most of his audience was illiterate and couldn’t read it for themselves. Doesn’t matter. The fact is that it was written in “the Hebrew Scriptures themselves†and is written right there in your KJV, in

Deuteronomy 24:1-2:

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

And the other fact is that Jesus quotes it and corrects it and says it is WRONG in Matthew 5:31-32 :

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.

So either the law written by the Sanhedrin was not all the inspired word of God or Jesus was confused about what the scripture said or what God intended the law to be. Or inspiration doesn’t include infallibility. Which is it?

unred - the uncleaninless spoken about in Deut is what Jesus says in Matthew. Jesus is correcting the TEACHING of Deut.

In other words, it was wrong to use Deut for anything less than " saving the cause of fornication" - that is the incleaniness spoken about.

The Law is not weak, but the "Law in the flesh" is weak - in that the flesh attempts to violate the Law and misuse it.

 

[Guest]

francis - God has provided two things

1) His Written Word (in the form of the Bible and in the form of the Living Word.

2) The Holy Spirit to teach us the Written Word

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice :
the uncleaninless spoken about in Deut is what Jesus says in Matthew. Jesus is correcting the TEACHING of Deut.

In other words, it was wrong to use Deut for anything less than " saving the cause of fornication" - that is the incleaniness spoken about.

Nope, I believe we’re talking nose-picking or not washing hands before handling the biscuits. Or else you have to deal with the fact that she may go be another man’s wife.
If it was for adultery, he was to have her stoned, not just send her away to marry someone else.

2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

 

[francisdesales]

francis - God has provided two things

1) His Written Word (in the form of the Bible and in the form of the Living Word.

2) The Holy Spirit to teach us the Written Word

I see you have your hands full with unred, so I will not give a long detailed response.

However, I would clarify that we BELIEVE that God has given us His "written Word" in the Bible. That is not self-evident and relies on SOMETHING ELSE, mainly, a community of people - which leads me to the second point. The Holy Spirit is active in the COMMUNITY in teaching this written word. It is the community as a whole, who, for example, TOLD US what WAS #1 above. Yes, the Spirit comes to us individually, but experience tells us that He comes to the Body as a whole to teach the faith. 1 Cor 12 tells us that not ALL receive the same gifts, thus not everyone is able to interpret Scriptures without error... Otherwise, there would be no need for teachers and pastors, etc, as per Eph 4, for example. God would just come to us ALL individually and "beam the info" into our heads. I trust you are not one of those who thinks that way.

Regards

 

[mondar]

The point I am making in refering to 2 Thessalonians is that Paul says that BOTH oral and written teachings are to be followed. The word "AND" in that phrase is key. Paul doesn't say that oral teachings are abrogated now that Scripture has been written. Paul NEVER says that. IF what you are saying is true, Paul would have said ONLY written traditions were now effective.

francisdesales, it is hard to be patient. When you completely fail to understand what I have written, I must admit that I do loose patience at times. I should be more patient, I did not understand all this at one time either. I sometimes loose patience because you completely fail to understand the doctrine of sola scriptura, and then try to spend time shooting at a doctrine you dont understand. You fail to understand the texts and my replies, and then make accusations in which you dont know what your talking about.

Now it is true that I am not a professional protestant apologist, I am just some weenie writing from the mountains of Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, you are so saturated in your traditions you cannot even begin to understand what protestants are saying by sola scriptura, or the biblical texts that apply to the issue.

Nevertheless, let me address what you are saying concerning 2 Thes 2 and 3. As you said.... "Paul NEVER says that." The reason "Paul NEVER said that" is because they are in the process of enscripturation. That fact that Paul does not say it is irrelevant. Neither does Paul deny it (which is also irrelevant). That is not the question at all, the question is what is Paul actually saying.

In 2 Thes 2:5, 15 Roman tradition makes Paul' statements to be something completely unrelated to what Paul is talking about when he speaks of oral traditions. Rome redefines Pauls concept of oral tradition. Rome reads its on traditions that Rome invented back into Pauls oral teachings when Paul did no such thing. Rome sees dogmas as the bodily assumption of Mary in Pauls statements in 2Thes, and these later traditions are not their. The bodily assumption of Mary was not pronounced Roman dogma unit Vatican 1? The 1800s. And Rome wildly speculates that this was a part of the oral teaching of Paul. Such wild speculation is simply impossible when you look at the context of 2Thes 2. That is why I quoted verse 5. That obviously went over your head. In verse 5 Paul is saying that:
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Now here he describes what oral tradition actually is. Oral tradition is the things that Paul taught to the Churches ("I told you") and this oral message is identical in content with his later writings ("these things"). When Paul says he taught "these things" he is referring to the content of his epistles. So then was Paul teaching the Thessalonians the bodily assumption of Mary? No, that is not "these things." The scripture nowhere has Paul or any apostle defending or teaching about the bodily assumption of Mary, or the queenly coronation of Mary. The oral traditions Paul is talking about is not the wild and fantastic doctrines later accepted by Rome, but the oral traditions of his teachings when he taught during his lifetime. This did not include Purgatory, and many many traditions that Rome has invented.

Now its true that Timothy had often heard Pauls oral teaching, and others heard Timothy, etc. You will later quote verses to show this. The problem is that it is not taught that this process of passing down teachings from teacher to student is "theopneustos" or "God breathed." The word "Theopneustos" does not occur in any of the context you will later quote from the epistles to Timothy. So Timothy will be instructed to pass down oral traditions, but the scriptures does not teach that these oral traditions will be "theopneustos" God breathed. The first generation (apostles) had an oral message that was identical to the written word according to 2Thes 2:5. I think it can be justifiably said that due to the oral message being identical, you can say that the oral message of the apostles was "theopneustos" but the scripture does not include as theopneustos (God breathed) those to whom oral tradition was passed. The word "theopneustos" is just simply not in any of those other contexts.

I am sorry if you do not have the ability to understand what I am saying. Try reading through what I wrote here several times and look up the context of 2Thes. Maybe you will finally get it.

I dont have time right now to reply to all you said in detail, maybe later.

Oh and by the way. I read a quote that you focused on... something I said. I may have written a very poor sentence. I dont even understand what I wrote myself. Hopefully I can straited that out this evening if I have time.

Later

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales, it is hard to be patient.

Well, at least we agree that we have a common fault...

I sometimes loose patience because you completely fail to understand the doctrine of sola scriptura, and then try to spend time shooting at a doctrine you dont understand.

I utilize the definition that most Protestants tell me - that Scripture is the sole infallible guideline of our faith. While others are useful, it is the Bible alone (sola Scriptura) that has authority over men in matters of faith and morals.

Now, I understand that there are other people with variations of this idea, but I believe "sola scriptura" in Latin means what I wrote.

I can understand your frustration, because I, too, hear all kinds of people telling me that "Catholics are wrong to do 'x'", when we do not do "x".... And good luck trying to correct them of this misunderstanding, in most cases. Take your idea of "tradition"...

Nevertheless, let me address what you are saying concerning 2 Thes 2 and 3. As you said.... "Paul NEVER says that." The reason "Paul NEVER said that" is because they are in the process of enscripturation.

As I have said before, and perhaps you overlooked it, WHERE is that concept in the Scriptures? WHERE does ANYONE say ANYTHING about "enscripturation"?

Paul is writing a letter to a community. He is not attempting to detail a systematic theological treatise or a catechism. We don't get that idea because Paul does not cover EVERY concept that is Christianity to ANY independent community. He is writing to ONE community at a time with the idea of correcting problems and exhorting the community. Each community has their own issues. Thus, he doesn't say much about the end of time or the parousia to Phillipians as he does to the Thessalonians. Why? Because the later group had issues with the question. And do you think they "googled" parousia at Thessalonica? Or did the Christians in India go to the "Christian theology" web site and download Paul's latest writing to the Thessalonicans???

YOU presume that Paul thinks in 200 years, people will look back, collect his writings, and put them in a unified book, calling it a "Bible". That is totally derived out of thin air, not taken from the Scriptures whatsoever. Paul NEVER tells us that "save these writings so later, we can dispose of those oral teachings I gave you"! Thus, you violate your own principle. Sola Scriptura is the idea that we take Christian doctrines and beliefs FROM THE SCRIPTURE ALONE.

Again, I ask you, WHERE does the bible make your appeal of "enscripturation"? Where does Paul tell ANYONE that we are to ignore former oral tradition, or that the written would "cover up" the oral? Sorry, Mondar, it's not there. What we have is a body of teachings given, both oral AND written, as Paul writes. It is YOU who separate the two and disposing of one of them. It is YOU who claims that one blows away and the other takes over.

In 2 Thes 2:5, 15 Roman tradition makes Paul' statements to be something completely unrelated to what Paul is talking about when he speaks of oral traditions. Rome redefines Pauls concept of oral tradition. Rome reads its on traditions that Rome invented back into Pauls oral teachings when Paul did no such thing. Rome sees dogmas as the bodily assumption of Mary in Pauls statements in 2Thes, and these later traditions are not their. The bodily assumption of Mary was not pronounced Roman dogma unit Vatican 1? The 1800s. And Rome wildly speculates that this was a part of the oral teaching of Paul. Such wild speculation is simply impossible when you look at the context of 2Thes 2. That is why I quoted verse 5. That obviously went over your head. In verse 5 Paul is saying that:

More smokescreens. Can we just stick to where the bible says it is the sole authority of our faith? To make this claim, you must prove it from the Bible, not from what Rome says or doesn't say about Tradition.

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Now here he describes what oral tradition actually is. Oral tradition is the things that Paul taught to the Churches ("I told you") and this oral message is identical in content with his later writings

Again and again and again, I have told you this is an assumption on your part. I even bolded it in my last reply to you. Rather than telling me "read it over several times, you might get it", as if I am stupid, you should try recognizing YOUR OWN POSITION!

It is based on an ASSUMPTION that Paul is in the process of something akin to a tape recorder and putting it all down on paper! Obviously, that is incorrect. WHERE does Paul talk about liturgy? WHAT do people do when they baptize? Celebrate the Eucharist? HOW do people pray? See, you make the common mistake that Paul and the other apostles got together one fine day, and said -

"Hey, we are all going to die soon, let's put together a bunch of letters together and then some day, our great-great grandchildren in the faith will recognize that this is Scripture and put it together into a book that they'll call the Bible. And then, everything we said will be written down and then people can just pick up a book and read it for themselves. Naturally, they'll all agree on what it means"

What a fantasy! :P

I suggest that you go to the library in Pennsylvania and read some books on how the Bible came to be. Read about the canon, about WHY the apostles wrote, and so forth. There was no collaboration. There was no grand plan between them to write a Bible. We can see that plainly when we analyze the writings and see that they are NOT a catechism (chapter 1 - salvation. chaper 2 - ethics...). Thus, it goes without saying that it was not the INTENT of Paul or anyone else to write down EVERYTHING that was taught. As such, it is you who misinterpret 2 Thessalonians. Your tradition forces you to make this mistake, rather than being open to the reality of the situation and then determining what the Apostles ACTUALLY did.

Regards

 

[unred typo]

Sorry to butt in, Mondar and Francisdesales, (idle hands here, blame aLoneVoice :wink: ) but where or why do we need either written or oral traditions if all we need to know is the story of Christ’s sacrifice and his commands to love one another? How much more do we need to know than that? Why all the disagreement and controversy and bitter fighting and inquisitions over ‘love one another as I have loved you’?