Defense of Sola Scriptura

[jlhargus]

Scripture did not originate from tradition.From where ever he got it, it wasn’t Scripture until it was theopneustos, preserving it in this world via Holy Writ.It’s not even the issue.

JL: It’s scripture because it is written, it is inspiried because it is theopneustos. It is the Word of God as Paul tells us, [1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.] 2Thes2:15 WHETHER by WORD or EPISTLE.

That very, God breathed, Word of God you CLAIM as sola authority tells you differently. Unless you can produce a scripture that tells us, ALL oral Tradition is NOW in written from. You are rejecting your very sola authority and teaching a tradition of men, which tells you the scriptures contain ALL Tradition. Isn’t that a total contradiction? Using an oral tradition of men, to say all Tradition is now in scripture? There is ABSOLUTELY NO scripture telling us that is the case? In fact scripture, in many places tells us differently, specifically in [2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BRETHREN, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, WHETHER by WORD, or our EPISTLE.] Your sola authority tells us to hold fast to TRADITION, WHETHER by WORD or EPISTLE.

Christ wrote nothing and the apostles wrote only to ALREADY established churches which had received, was already living and teaching that Oral TRADITIONED Word of God. Taught them by the Apostles, twenty years before the first word of the NT was penned. Some of that Oral Word of God was latter written down by inspiration and gathered into a canon of books in 382 A.D. Even those inspiried scriptures tells us, to hold fast to Traditions WHETHER by WORD or EPISTLE. The epistles were written for the most part to clarify or solve problems in the community.

How God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses is in Holy Writ: The Scriptures. ONLY the Scriptures are called theopneustos. It is never applied to "tradition."No. This is a matter of belief vs. unbelief.

JL: Correct the oral Word of God, Tradition is not God breathed. It was in NT times DIRECTLY taught face to face. Personally hand delivered by God himself. The very WORD made flesh, among us. That oral Word of God was guaranteed, by God the Son, thru the gift of God the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost, the SAME God who breathed the written Word. HE is the SAME animator, life force and guarantor of the Church, as the pillar and ground of truth.

One can cling tenaciously to tradition and miss belief in Christ completely.

JL: Yes, one can easily twist the written Tradition of scripture thru the tradition of men, sola scriptura, to their own destruction, [2Pt3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.] Most traditions of men are not that blatant, they generally obscure truth. An example, baptism is nothing more than a public declaration of faith in Christ, which is contrary to and not found in scripture.

 

[jlhargus]

If a dogma or doctrine was not necessary for salvation in the first century why should it be necessary now? Does this violate scripture?

JL: How would anything Christ revealed violate scripture? How could anything Christ revealed be unnecessary? How could coming to a better understanding of what Christ revealed be a bad thing?

Dogmas have historically been defined TO CORRECT false teaching. The Trinity was not defined and made a dogma, until it caused confusion and division in the Church, by false teaching. Although the concept of the Trinity was there from the beginning. It took over three hundred years to develop as a defined dogma, and only then, so the truth could be made manifest, as opposed to false teachings.

 

[PJM]

Properly understood here are three such Biblical evidences…

Mt. 16:15-19 especially verse 19

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19]I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." BIND = TEACH as well as forgivensss of sins.

John 17: 14 "I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. * 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

John 14: 25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

John 14: [16] And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, ] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you

So are you saying that your private interpretation of these verses is right or are you taking the Catholic Church’s word that these verses refer to it and so you should believe it because it says you should?

***Catholics have no need for “personal interpretation” as our understanding [as should anyone seeking the singular truth] conforms to CC Teaching.

The Goal of the bible lies in proper understanding, which simply cannot [evidence the proliferation of non-catholic "bible churches’] come form applying ones own personal take. SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE! The bible was "birthed by the early CC and written specifically and precisely [logically and historically proveable] for Catholics; so to usurp some ungiven authority [show where in the] bible personal interpetiaton is authorized, permitted, suggested] and then we might better understand yor position, which factually seems only contrived. ***

Don’t interpet it, JUST READ IT AND APPLY IT TO YOUR LIFE! I’m saying read it an apply it PERIOD!

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Someone had made the statement you could not find salvation or know who God was by reading scripture. Implying you would have someone presumably tell you or explain for you to know salvation.

Obviously the Holy Spirit must enlighten the believer and impart grace to be able to believe.

Reading and studying scripture reveals who God is and what His will is for us. Just reading scripture will not save anyone.

faith comes by hearing

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Our Helper

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
— John 14:26

If you ever have had a time when you were discouraged or unsure of what to do and a verse of Scripture suddenly came to mind—a verse you didn’t remember memorizing—that came from the Holy Spirit. It might have been a passage you heard in a sermon a month ago or 10 years ago, but there it was, vividly on display in your mind. That was the Holy Spirit, who brought to your remembrance what you needed to know.

The Holy Spirit helps us in our study, knowledge, and memorization of Scripture. Jesus said, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Maybe there have been times when someone asks you a question and your mind goes blank. But all of a sudden, some thoughts came to mind, and you started sharing them. They were so good, you wanted to take notes on yourself. You thought, This is good stuff. Where did this come from? It came from the Holy Spirit. He brought it to your remembrance.

This does not excuse you from the discipline of Bible study. You still have to read it, study it, and memorize it. But having done that, the Bible promises that the Holy Spirit will bring these things to your remembrance.

The Bible tells us that “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:9–10). What does God want to show you today?

Have Pastor Greg’s devotions blessed you? Write and tell him!
Greg@harvest.org

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Our Helper

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
— John 14:26

If you ever have had a time when you were discouraged or unsure of what to do and a verse of Scripture suddenly came to mind—a verse you didn’t remember memorizing—that came from the Holy Spirit. It might have been a passage you heard in a sermon a month ago or 10 years ago, but there it was, vividly on display in your mind. That was the Holy Spirit, who brought to your remembrance what you needed to know.

The Holy Spirit helps us in our study, knowledge, and memorization of Scripture. Jesus said, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Maybe there have been times when someone asks you a question and your mind goes blank. But all of a sudden, some thoughts came to mind, and you started sharing them. They were so good, you wanted to take notes on yourself. You thought, This is good stuff. Where did this come from? It came from the Holy Spirit. He brought it to your remembrance.

This does not excuse you from the discipline of Bible study. You still have to read it, study it, and memorize it. But having done that, the Bible promises that the Holy Spirit will bring these things to your remembrance.

The Bible tells us that “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:9–10). What does God want to show you today?

Have Pastor Greg’s devotions blessed you? Write and tell him!
Greg@harvest.org

Jesus heard another voice quoting Scrpture in the desert, and it wasn’t the Holy Spirit.
Just because a Scripture quote comes to me, should I think it comes from God?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

JL: Tell us how and to what Luther was accountalbe, that should settle the whole matter of accountablity.

“The dogma of the infallibility of the Bible is no more self-evident than is that of the infallibilty of the Popes” (Thomas Henry Huxley, 1825-1895)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jlhargus,

Goodness … I wished I had thought of that…

JL: Tell us how and to what Luther was accountalbe, that should settle the whole matter of accountablity.

As I recall, Luther appeared to be only accountable to the local princes who provided him with shelter as they hid him from lawful presecution. I think one of the major issues for this type of ‘local’ accountability was the setting of the stage (almost 100 years from when he nailed up the 95 Theses) for the Thirty Years War (1618–1648). Another one of the side effects of SS.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jerry,

I have no criticism of what you wrote… the Holy Spirit is the Love of God - and praying to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment is asking for the Grace of God to understand His Will in our lives.

But, are you using this inspirational view as a “Defense of Sola Scriptura”?

Our Helper

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
— John 14:26

If you ever have had a time when you were discouraged or unsure of what to do and a verse of Scripture suddenly came to mind—a verse you didn’t remember memorizing—that came from the Holy Spirit. It might have been a passage you heard in a sermon a month ago or 10 years ago, but there it was, vividly on display in your mind. That was the Holy Spirit, who brought to your remembrance what you needed to know.

The Holy Spirit helps us in our study, knowledge, and memorization of Scripture. Jesus said, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Maybe there have been times when someone asks you a question and your mind goes blank. But all of a sudden, some thoughts came to mind, and you started sharing them. They were so good, you wanted to take notes on yourself. You thought, This is good stuff. Where did this come from? It came from the Holy Spirit. He brought it to your remembrance.

This does not excuse you from the discipline of Bible study. You still have to read it, study it, and memorize it. But having done that, the Bible promises that the Holy Spirit will bring these things to your remembrance.

The Bible tells us that “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:9–10). What does God want to show you today?

Have Pastor Greg’s devotions blessed you? Write and tell him!
Greg@harvest.org

if so, then I guess I do have a criticism or two with this approach because it basically uses ‘private interpretation’ to end run the clearly written Word of God.

Looking forward to hearing from you…

God bless

 

[joe370]

Moondweller, (or any non-Catholic for that matter) - I ask again: what are the non-essentials, spelled out in the bible? If they are not in the bible, (which is to be the Christians final authority) - then it’s just you opinion - correct? If you can identify them in the bible, then please do, so that I may know, what is considered extraneous and rule them out?

If you cannot identify them, in the bible, then who, in the Protestant churches, has the authority to identify them, as non-essentials, so that I may know, what is considered extraneous and rule them out?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kevin,

I guess your responses are just getting too cryptic for me … what is it you are trying to say? Especially in quoting a 19th Century agnostic…

“The dogma of the infallibility of the Bible is no more self-evident than is that of the infallibilty of the Popes” (Thomas Henry Huxley, 1825-1895)

I really thought Jlhargus had an excellent idea - it is certainly one way to find that underlying criteria that is apparently being used but just not expressed. I guess you do not see it that way…?

God bless

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Hi, Kevin,

I guess your responses are just getting too cryptic for me … what is it you are trying to say? Especially in quoting a 19th Century agnostic…

I really thought Jlhargus had an excellent idea - it is certainly one way to find that underlying criteria that is apparently being used but just not expressed. I guess you do not see it that way…?

God bless

It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them (which came first, the chicken or the egg, sola scritura or the Pope) An argument always leaves each party convinced that the other has a closed mind.

 

[moondweller]

JL: It’s scripture because it is written, it is inspiried because it is theopneustos. It is the Word of God as Paul tells us, [1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.] 2Thes2:15 WHETHER by WORD or EPISTLE.

That very, God breathed, Word of God you CLAIM as sola authority tells you differently. Unless you can produce a scripture that tells us, ALL oral Tradition is NOW in written from. You are rejecting your very sola authority and teaching a tradition of men, which tells you the scriptures contain ALL Tradition. Isn’t that a total contradiction? Using an oral tradition of men, to say all Tradition is now in scripture? There is ABSOLUTELY NO scripture telling us that is the case? In fact scripture, in many places tells us differently, specifically in [2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BRETHREN, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, WHETHER by WORD, or our EPISTLE.] Your sola authority tells us to hold fast to TRADITION, WHETHER by WORD or EPISTLE.

Christ wrote nothing and the apostles wrote only to ALREADY established churches which had received, was already living and teaching that Oral TRADITIONED Word of God. Taught them by the Apostles, twenty years before the first word of the NT was penned. Some of that Oral Word of God was latter written down by inspiration and gathered into a canon of books in 382 A.D. Even those inspiried scriptures tells us, to hold fast to Traditions WHETHER by WORD or EPISTLE. The epistles were written for the most part to clarify or solve problems in the community.

JL: Correct the oral Word of God, Tradition is not God breathed. It was in NT times DIRECTLY taught face to face. Personally hand delivered by God himself. The very WORD made flesh, among us. That oral Word of God was guaranteed, by God the Son, thru the gift of God the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost, the SAME God who breathed the written Word. HE is the SAME animator, life force and guarantor of the Church, as the pillar and ground of truth.

JL: Yes, one can easily twist the written Tradition of scripture thru the tradition of men, sola scriptura, to their own destruction, [2Pt3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.] Most traditions of men are not that blatant, they generally obscure truth. An example, baptism is nothing more than a public declaration of faith in Christ, which is contrary to and not found in scripture.

2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.”“The traditions” whether by word or letter are not different. It’s erroneous, indeed, to contend that the Apostles taught some doctrines orally only, and others (totally different) by letter only. The doctrines concerning the faith and salvation were first taught orally and then preserved in theopneustos Scripture for all subsequent generations.

Theopneustos Scripture is the way God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses. ONLY Scripture is called theopneustos.

If you assert otherwise then give me the list of doctrines taught by the Apostles orally only. And then provide for me the proof that they actually taught them.“You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers FROM THE SCRIPTURES, for He [Christ] foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.”
Augustine, In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. See NPNF Series I. VII:469.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller, (or any non-Catholic for that matter) - I ask again: what are the non-essentials, spelled out in the bible? If they are not in the bible, (which is to be the Christians final authority) - then it’s just you opinion - correct? If you can identify them in the bible, then please do, so that I may know, what is considered extraneous and rule them out?

If you cannot identify them, in the bible, then who, in the Protestant churches, has the authority to identify them, as non-essentials, so that I may know, what is considered extraneous and rule them out?

Why are you appealing to me or “any non-Catholics?” “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity,” are Augustine’s words. And don’t you consider him a “Catholic?” Hence, a Catholic maxim, right? So, according to Augustine your church recognizes essentials and nonessentials. Talk to your priest.

 

[jlhargus]

2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.”“The traditions” whether by word or letter are not different. It’s erroneous, indeed, to contend that the Apostles taught some doctrines orally only, and others (totally different) by letter only. The doctrines concerning the faith and salvation were first taught orally and then preserved in theopneustos Scripture for all subsequent generations.

Theopneustos Scripture is the way God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses. ONLY Scripture is called theopneustos.

If you assert otherwise then give me the list of doctrines taught by the Apostles orally only. And then provide for me the proof that they actually taught them.“You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers FROM THE SCRIPTURES, for He [Christ] foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.”
Augustine, In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. See NPNF Series I. VII:469.

JL: Simple answer, give us the scripture telling us to no longer hold fast to Tradition taught, whether by WORD or EPISTLE. That will settle the whole matter.

I have no problem with Augustine, he held Traditions taught whether by Word or Epistle. Just as those scriptures he was speaking about told him.

 

[moondweller]

JL: Simple answer, give us the scripture telling us to no longer hold fast to Tradition taught, whether by WORD or EPISTLE. That will settle the whole matter.

Never said differently about holding fast to the traditions taught by the Apostles, whether by word or letter. You completely evaded the issue presented to you.

 

[tqualey]

Hold on there, MD,

You may have gotten caught on a common misquote…!

Check this out:

The Peace Saying was not as von Fallersleben and others have alleged coined by the church father Augustine.(4) It is rather the product of an irenic Lutheran theologian and pastor living in Augsburg during the early seventeenth century with the name of Peter Meiderlin.(5) In the publication which contains the saying he used the Latin anagram of his German name: Rupertus Meldenius. Meiderlin lived in a very troubled time, a time exposed to the ravages of the Thirty Years War and one of much strife between Lutherans and Calvinists as well as a period of internal discord within Lutheranism itself. In this so-called “Confessional Age,” the Lutheran movement became a battleground for competing political forces such as the territories of Saxony and the Palatinate. But especially vexing for the soul of the religious reform movement. were the numerous doctrinal disputes which in part had their origin in the theological differences of the Reformation leaders themselves. In the period after Luther’s death, there emerged an intense competition as to who represented the Lutheran theological heritage most authentically. An attempt to forge an authoritative doctrinal norm binding for everyone produced the Formula of Concord (1577) but resulted also in much cantankerousness about the legitimacy of the formula. The period that followed has also been termed the age of “Lutheran Orthodoxy,” in which theologians increasingly would use scholastic philosophical means to define more specifically their Bible-oriented faith, which became tied to the emerging Lutheran confessional norms. A new wave of theological disputes spread through the protestant universities during the early 1600’s which cannot be detailed here sufficiently but is documented and studied amply in a protestant doctrinal history such as the one by Otto Ritschl.(6)

Here is the link: mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/unitas/essrev.html

Ultimately, the issue is that with 20,000+ groups all claiming to be churches following Christ - yet contradicting and voiding out what each other says - it is nothing but chaos. I think this is the real issue that should be addressed … and not mismatched quotes.

God bless

Why are you appealing to me or “any non-Catholics?” “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity,” are Augustine’s words. And don’t you consider him a “Catholic?” Hence, a Catholic maxim, right? So, according to Augustine your church recognizes essentials and nonessentials. Talk to your priest.

 

[ncgolf]

If you assert otherwise then give me the list of doctrines taught by the Apostles orally only. And then provide for me the proof that they actually taught them

Why does it have to be doctrines?

Matthew 2:23 “He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a Nazorean.”

I don’t believe there is a specific OT reference to Nazareth and since Matthew is without error there must have been such a phrophecy … though unwritten in Scripture. The reference would have been one the people obviously knew about … hence the only other way it gets passed is by oral tradition … eventually making it’s way to God-breathed Scripture.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

tqualey:

The previous unanswered quesitons remain - and considering your previous posts, you may want to consider rising to the occasion rather then just playing with a response. There is no problem with honest and spirited dialogue over matters being debated - just the tepid responses of those who have neither interest or desire.

So, to repeat the questions: if the Catholic Church was not founed by Christ and is not the Church of Matt 16 - just Who did found the Catholic Church, when was the Catholic Church founded and just where is this Church founded by Christ identifed in Matt 16???

You make the WHOLE BASIS of the remarkable exemption of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church regarding accountability dependent on Jesus specifically so stating. Then when you are asked the required question, “Where?” - you argue your point is unsubstantiated. Friend, you can’t found your whole position of “IT SAYS!” and then insist, “It needn’t say.” This should be obvious to you.

Let’s say I alone insist that I alone am smart. And I build the whole apologetic for such on the fact that God says that I alone am. OF COURSE, you would immediate ask the central, foundational questions: Where does God say that? I can hear you laughing now when I respond, “Well, actually, He never so much as mentioned me…”

All this continues to be the Catholic apologetic for WHY it is the most sound rubric for determining if The Catholic Church is correct for The Catholic Church to exempt itself from the question and accountability and norming, by itself alone insisting that itself alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is infallible/unaccountable, so the whole question of correctness is to be laid aside and rather all are to just accept whatever it alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” SOMEHOW, it must TRY to justify that rubric for determining correctness. It must preserve that all OTHERS are accountable - right here, right now - but must argue that it itself alone is not.

I could easily turn to Scripture and justify my position

.

Go ahead.

Show us that while God repeatedly warned us of false teachers, He exempted The Catholic Church exclusively from that possibility. Show us why Jesus was wrong to praise the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue and declaring them false? Show us the verse where God (or Jesus or any Apostle) said that we are to accept whatever The Catholic Church alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” but we are to hold as accountable the teachings of every other man, woman, child, group, organization, body, institution, congregation, denomination?

it has resulted in division, confusion and lack of accountability.

I agree. When self alone exempts self alone from accountability - then there is no accountability. When self alone declares instead that all must just accept whatever self alone says with docility, as Jesus speaking - then there is no accountability. Read your catechism # 87.

it requires something outside of itself to function in the process of accountability.

.

I could not agree more! One of the basic defenses for Sola Scriptura.

So, when The Catholic Church designates The Catholic Church as the sole interpreter, sole authority and sole arbiter, looking to the teachings of itself as the “rule” for the teachings of itself, what OUTSIDE of itself is it accountable to (other than God)?

.

 

[jlhargus]

Never said differently about holding fast to the traditions taught by the Apostles, whether by word or letter. You completely evaded the issue presented to you.

JL: You are mistaken that I evaded the issue. I can say the same with this and the other post of yours addressed to me. I was cutting to the heart of the matter.

2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.”“The traditions” whether by word or letter are not different.

JL: Correct they are not different as Paul says they are Word of God. One is found in scripture. The other is found in the practices of the living community of God, the Church.

It’s erroneous, indeed, to contend that the Apostles taught some doctrines orally only, and others (totally different) by letter only.

JL: Correct that is totally erroneous to contend they were different in a contradictory way. The whole Gospel was first Traditioned orally, when some things needed to be clarified, theopneustos, epistles were written to clarify.

The doctrines concerning the faith and salvation were first taught orally and then preserved in theopneustos Scripture for all subsequent generations.

JL: Correct the Word of God was fist taught orally, [1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

And as the Written Word of God reveals not all was written in scripture. Those theopneustos scriptures tell us we must hold fast to Traditions whether by Word or Epistle. You follow a tradition of men saying ALL Tradition is now in the written scripture, yet those theopneustos scriptures say the opposite. If not, then you should be able to produce scripture telling us to hold fast to the Tradition of Scripture only.

Theopneustos Scripture is the way God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses. ONLY Scripture is called theopneustos.

JL: Unless you can give a scripture telling us to hold only to written scripture. Then you have a contradiction with what those very theopneustos scriptures tell you. Hold fast to the Traditions taught whether by Word or Epistle.

If you assert otherwise then give me the list of doctrines taught by the Apostles orally only. And then provide for me the proof that they actually taught them.

JL: A doctrine taught by the apostles orally would be the canon of the bible. The proof or evidence is found in the lived out Traditions of the Church and those books agreement with that Tradition. Another, infant baptism, the evidence is found in the scriptures where it is implied and the constant lived out practice of the Church. One more, would be the Trinity, the evidence is found in the scriptures where it is implied and the lived out understanding in the Tradition of the Church as discerned and defined by Councils. I assume you accept the definition of the Trinity.

Now, show us where your sola authority tells us NOT to hold Traditions whether by Word or Epistle. If there was no oral Tradition, why would your sola authority say to hold to them? I know as a former Protestant how difficult oral Tradition is to understand, but all Protestant denominations have oral traditions, and they don’t even know it. It is those traditions that make a Baptist different and distinguishable from a Presbyterian, a Presbyterian from a Methodist, a Methodist from a Lutheran etc… That’s why they each have different interpretations of the same scriptures, which is interpreted thru the lens of their particular tradition.

“You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers FROM THE SCRIPTURES, for He [Christ] foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.” Augustine, In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. See NPNF Series I. VII:469.

JL: I have no problem with Augustine, he held the Traditions whether by Word or Epistle. Just as the scriptures he was speaking about, told him.

By the way show me any ancient codex of the bible, from which new translations have been made from the original Greek, which does not contain those seven books Protestants REMOVED. In fact show me any complete extant bible before the 15 hundreds, that does not contain those seven books.