I don't get sola scriptura

[hn160]

Lutheran get it. We believe that the holy Bible of the Old and New Testaments is the only divinely inspired book and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge. Scripture alone is the formal principle of the faith, the final authority for all matters of faith and morals because of its inspiration, authority, clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency. We also believe that the Old Testament speaks throughout about Christ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

That is both time consuming and would require a knowledge of ancient culture. That is impractical for me and most people. I could not do the job properly without giving up what I do for a living in order to reach a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. This is also impossible for anyone who is illiterate. That seems like a very inefficient and ineffective foundation for a faith. And if that is supposed to be how Christianity is arrived at then we’d have to say the vast majority of Christians throughout history have not been Christians since most couldn’t do this.

And that is why Christ built His Church so we would not have to do all this work. The Church is the One Christ revealed Himself. She leads the people to God with Truth.

St Peter and all the Apostles tougth the same things because that is what Jesus tought them. So, you tell me how in the world we have so many different beliefs of what Christ tought today?

those outside the Church get to pick which Scriptures they want. Many Scriputers they avoid because it does not make sense to them. Testimony from many protestants who became Catholics.

Scriptures must be taken is a whole and not some verses here and there or one without the other for that mater. When Jesus said, If you eat my flesh and drink my Blood, you have life in you and I will abide in you. Protestants tend to ignore this and goes on to pick other Scriptures as if the others are not important for our salvation. Everything Jesus tought is just important and not one Word of God is to be discredit.

To even start to read Scripture a person needs to find the Church first to begin understand what God says to us. The Church that Jesus commanded to teach alll men.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You asked if what Jesus commanded them to teach would be in the bible. I said, of course, at least those thingswhich He commanded which are also contained in the OT, since the NT wasn’t written yet. Richard, you have a habit of putting words in a person’s mouth. I suppose it is a debater’s device, not a way to understand.

I put nothing in your mouth. I asked

Didn’t Jesus command them

Matt28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Wouldn’t they have taught the things contained in the bible?

To which you replied

Well, of course. At least the things taught in the Old Testament, because the New Testament didn’t exist yet. So, to be sure we observe all things whatsoever, it is best to be within the Church Jesus established to teach all nations.

JESUS says 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Jesus doesn’t tell them to preach the things written in the OT or anything written, but only the things that He commanded. See, Mack the things that Jesus commanded are what comprise the New Testament.

I’m glad you agree with somethings, at any rate. However, the Church is the Body of Christ. And when Paul persecuted the Church, Jesus asked Paul whe he persecuted ME. Also, Jesus said, “He who accepts you accepts Me.” This is one of the major disagreements between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants do not think there is an earthly interpretive authority, and Catholics think there is. Yes, Catholics think that the Church takes Jesus place on earth, because Jesus is the head of the Church and guides it from heaven.

Again this is called blaspheme.

No contradiction. If we use the definition of Church as all Christians collectively, then when the Church interprets scripture, then all the Christians collectively are interpreting scripture.

All Christians don’t interpret the bible the same way though.

That’s the trouble with an individual interpeting scripture. When an individual inteprets scripture, he is doing it for the whole world, not just himself. Realize that. The Holy Spirit guides Christians collectively in scripture interpretation, not individually. There is empirical proof of that: different Christians interpret scripture differently. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not guiding all of them.

Scripture is interpreted individually. There is no such thing as collective interpretation.

Nope, I don’t see it. Peter is warning them that since the second coming will come like a thief in the night, when you don’t know it, then you had better be prepared. You had better be not caught in any type of misunderstanding or twisting of scripture, you must be found by Jesus when He comes, in peace, without spot, and blameless. You must not be led away by the error of the wicked, must not fall from your own steadfastness.

Wow, I really don’t think that you are reading what you are posting. First, you say that Peter is warning about the second comming, then you say

Peter is not talking about things hard to understand about the end times, but things hard to understand, period, that Paul talks about, unless you have been previously taught and so already understand what would be otherwise hard.
Pay attention to the apostolic teaching and you will understand scripture.

Is this the official CC teaching Mack, that Peter is talking about the end times here, but not about the end times?

Here is a person who doesn’t know that what is not written down can also later become written down. But however it is delivered, preached, or read by a reader, all of God’s teaching must be written in our hearts for it to be any good.
Oral tradition is that teaching preached by the the apostles and evangelists by which the early Christians became Christians. It was taught before and during the period in which the early Christians were also writing. It forms the background and context in which the Christian Greek scriptures came to be; it is the context in which scripture is understood.

So, you won’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth, are these the things written in the OT or the things that Jesus commanded?

These questions have already been answered. The last as well. It refers to “material sufficiency.” I don’t know the source of the term–probably one of the early Reformers. Material sufficiency is the pious belief that all of God’s revelation eventually became written down in inspired scripture, at least in seed or incipient form. Catholics do not disagree with this notion.

So you are saying it is now written down but it is not quite the same as scripture.

Formal sufficiency means that scripture is in a form that is understood. This notion is much more controversial. Empirical evidence shows that it is NOT in a form easily understood, since there are so many different understandings of it. Obviously, there are so many different understandings because there are so many wrong understandings.

So, yes, there is something in oral tradition that is not in the bible: understanding.

Great! Where can I get a copy of this tradition that is now written down? I’m assuming that you can look up any verse in the bible and it will give me the official exegesis of the verse? Like your interpretation of 2Peter3? Right?

 

[Nicea325]

I put nothing in your mouth. I asked

Didn’t Jesus command them

Matt28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Wouldn’t they have taught the things contained in the bible?

To which you replied

JESUS says 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Jesus doesn’t tell them to preach the things written in the OT or anything written, but only the things that He commanded. See, Mack the things that Jesus commanded are what comprise the New Testament.

Again this is called blaspheme.

All Christians don’t interpret the bible the same way though.

Scripture is interpreted individually. There is no such thing as collective interpretation.

Wow, I really don’t think that you are reading what you are posting. First, you say that Peter is warning about the second comming, then you say

Is this the official CC teaching Mack, that Peter is talking about the end times here, but not about the end times?

So, you won’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth, are these the things written in the OT or the things that Jesus commanded?

So you are saying it is now written down but it is not quite the same as scripture.

Great! Where can I get a copy of this tradition that is now written down? I’m assuming that you can look up any verse in the bible and it will give me the official exegesis of the verse? Like your interpretation of 2Peter3? Right?

Well Richard where can I get a copy of a Bible where it states Jesus taught: The Bible-Only? I am still waiting for that important piece of information,so I too can believe an unbiblical doctrine called the Bible-Only.

 

[patricius79]

The bible or more specifically 2Peter 3 tells us in no uncertain terms what Peter is talking about and it’s not the untaught in oral tradition.

I don’t think the Bible says that.

He is talking about the second comming of Jesus. Which some seem to be twisting to say something that it was not meant to say.

yes he is talking about the second coming of Jesus. and “untaught” might be referring to oral tradition. that would seem to be the sense of the Church that Jesus founded

How does my argument violate the fact that all the information that we need for our salvation is in the bible? SS.

all SS proponents insist on sentences not in Scripture and not shown to be deduced from Scripture. they also appeal to other sources besidess in matters of faith. that violates S.S.

in fact, none of the Protestant distinctives are in Scripture. they are all oral traditions, and nobody in the early Church comes close to them to my knowledge.

The written and oral traditions being one and the same thing.

1 Corinthians 2
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified

.

the written and oral traditions are the Word of God, yes. but they are two different forms. that’ss why 2 Jn and 3 Jn 13 refer to things written orally, and 1 Cor 11:2,34 clearly refers to things taught orally, as does 2 Tim 3:16-17

*10
2 **You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, **endurance,
11
persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me.
12
In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
13
But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
14
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15
and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16
3 4 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful **for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, **17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Table of Contents Previous Chapter Next *

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Great! Where can I get a copy of this tradition that is now written down? I’m assuming that you can look up any verse in the bible and it will give me the official exegesis of the verse? Like your interpretation of 2Peter3? Right?

Well Richard where can I get a copy of a Bible where it states Jesus taught: The Bible-Only? I am still waiting for that important piece of information,so I too can believe an unbiblical doctrine called the Bible-Only.

The bible doesn’t state that Jesus taught the bible only, but the bible has in it the things that Jesus taught. Is there something in your oral tradition that I need to know for my salvation that is not contained in the bible? If so what is it?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I don’t think the Bible says that.

Says what?

yes he is talking about the second coming of Jesus. and “untaught” might be referring to oral tradition. that would seem to be the sense of the Church that Jesus founded

“Might be referring to oral tradition”? Aren’t you sure? Don’t you have the final authority in bible interpretation behind you? The fact is that Peter states what he is talking about in v.16
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As 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.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

And that is that he is talking about the things he mentioned before. If you say he is talking about oral tradition, it is you who are wresting scripture.

all SS proponents insist on sentences not in Scripture and not shown to be deduced from Scripture. they also appeal to other sources besidess in matters of faith. that violates S.S.

in fact, none of the Protestant distinctives are in Scripture. they are all oral traditions, and nobody in the early Church comes close to them to my knowledge.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What is a Protestant distinctive?

the written and oral traditions are the Word of God, yes. but they are two different forms. that’ss why 2 Jn and 3 Jn 13 refer to things written orally, and 1 Cor 11:2,34 clearly refers to things taught orally, as does 2 Tim 3:16-17

There is no 2&3rd Jn.13

1Cor11
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

34And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

How do these texts tell us that oral tradition is in a different form than written scripture?

Check out these scriptures.

1Cor.2
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Gal.1
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

[patricius79]

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What is a Protestant distinctive?

.

A Protestant distinctive is a doctrine held by one or more Protestant groups which conflicts with the historic Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures of which it is the only historic source. (e.g. the N.T. Canon)

all of the Protestant distinctives are oral traditions, as were the teachings of the earlier Sola Scriptura propponents like the Arians. that is one of the reason why I find S.S. to be an incoherent idea. (Protestants also don’t agree on what it means, as we saw above in my conversation with Jon, who holds a different definition then the the one given at Wikipediea) but even so, nobody follows there own deffinition of S.S.

the Protestant oral traditions can be anything from “the Catholic Church began with Constantine” to “Jn 6 is not literal” to “OSAS” to “Sola Scriptura”

or it can be your oral tradition, e.g. that 1 COr 2:2 and Gal teach Sola Scriptura. or that 2 Pt 3:16 is not referring to oral tradition. clearly they teach nothing of the sort. in fact they clearly refer to oral Tradition, like 2 Thes 2:15 explicitly does, as well as 2 Jn 12, Is 59:20-21, Jn 15:15, 2 Tim 3:16-17, etc

the Protestant oral traditions both singly and as a group are also very much at odds with history. e.g. Schaff and others admit that hte early Church did not teach forensic justification as Melancthon etc did. and Kelly admits that Tradition and Scripture were regarded as mutually supporting one another in the early Church

 

[Richard_Kastner]

A Protestant distinctive is a doctrine held by one or more Protestant groups which conflicts with the historic Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures of which it is the only historic source. (e.g. the N.T. Canon)

all of the Protestant distinctives are oral traditions, as were the teachings of the earlier Sola Scriptura propponents like the Arians. that is one of the reason why I find S.S. to be an incoherent idea.

Why would my disagreeing with the CC’s interpretation of **scripture **be an oral tradition?

(Protestants also don’t agree on what it means, as we saw above in my conversation with Jon, who holds a different definition then the the one given at Wikipediea) but even so, nobody follows there own deffinition of S.S.

I know, but this fact does not invalidate the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible SS. If you disagree with this we can quickly resolve this whole question. Just tell me what is contained in your oral tradition that is not contained in the bible that we need for our salvation?

the Protestant oral traditions can be anything from “the Catholic Church began with Constantine” to “Jn 6 is not literal” to “OSAS” to “Sola Scriptura”

I don’t see how any of these are oral traditions. They are just disagreements on scripture interpretation.

or it can be your oral tradition, e.g. that 1 COr 2:2 and Gal teach Sola Scriptura.

You certainly cannot use those verses to demonstate that oral tradition taught anything but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

or that 2 Pt 3:16 is not referring to oral tradition. clearly they teach nothing of the sort.

Actually not so clearly. Are you saying that the official CC teaching on 2Peter 3:16 is talking about oral tradition?

in fact they clearly refer to oral Tradition, like 2 Thes 2:15 explicitly does,

Wait a minute you can’t prove one scripture is talking about oral tradition by going to another one. What do you think Peter is refering to when he says "16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood

2Thess2
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
1Cor.2
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

and Gal.1
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

tell us that the tradition they were teaching was nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

as well as 2 Jn 12,

Again there is no 2Jn.12

Is 59:20-21

20And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

And all these words can be found in the bible.

Jn 15:15

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

And all these things are made known to us in the bible.

the Protestant oral traditions both singly and as a group are also very much at odds with history. e.g. Schaff and others admit that hte early Church did not teach forensic justification as Melancthon etc did.

What tradition would that be (specific)

and Kelly admits that Tradition and Scripture were regarded as mutually supporting one another in the early Church

Is this saying that tradition and scripture are the same?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Pat,

=patricius79;8113897]
all of the Protestant distinctives are oral traditions, as were the teachings of the earlier Sola Scriptura propponents like the Arians.

Most here tell me that Martin Luther thought up Sola Scriptura.

that is one of the reason why I find S.S. to be an incoherent idea. (Protestants also don’t agree on what it means, as we saw above in my conversation with Jon, who holds a different definition then the the one given at Wikipediea) but even so, nobody follows there own deffinition of S.S.

Why would you expect various different communions to agree on the matter? Rome and the Orthodox don’t agree on Sacred Tradition either.
Why would you expect that I would agree with Wikipediea, when it isn’t part of the Lutheran Confessions. A while back I quoted what the Confessions say. Do you have any evidence that, based on our confessions, we are doing something other than that? If not, then your charge that “nobody follows there own deffinition of S.S.” assumes a fact not in evidence. Or, are you saying that we don’t practice sola scriptura based on what ***your ***definition is?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Well Richard where can I get a copy of a Bible where it states Jesus taught: The Bible-Only? I am still waiting for that important piece of information,so I too can believe an unbiblical doctrine called the Bible-Only.

The bible doesn’t state that Jesus taught the bible only, but the bible has in it the things that Jesus taught. Is there something in your oral tradition that I need to know for my salvation that is not contained in the bible? If so what is it?

Exactly! Therefore it is NOT Biblical at all. No where does Christ or the Apostles or any author in the Bible state or command the Bible is the final and sole authority. Thank you for finally admitting it. My Oral Tradition? Not mine at all,but the early church Richard. I know as a Protestant,history is not your forte,so I suggest you read it and learn it.

Oral Tradition? Easy: THE CANON of the BIBLE. Where does the Bible even hint a canon for the OT or NT? It is AN ORAL TRADITION.Why do you adere to that **ORAL Tradition **,not WRITTEN Tradtion,not TAUGHT in the Bible-Richard? Care to answer that Chinese riddle?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Why would my disagreeing with the CC’s interpretation of **scripture **be an oral tradition?

I know, but this fact does not invalidate the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible SS. If you disagree with this we can quickly resolve this whole question. Just tell me what is contained in your oral tradition that is not contained in the bible that we need for our salvation?

I don’t see how any of these are oral traditions. They are just disagreements on scripture interpretation.

You certainly cannot use those verses to demonstate that oral tradition taught anything but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Actually not so clearly. Are you saying that the official CC teaching on 2Peter 3:16 is talking about oral tradition?

Wait a minute you can’t prove one scripture is talking about oral tradition by going to another one. What do you think Peter is refering to when he says "16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood

2Thess2
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
1Cor.2
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

and Gal.1
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

tell us that the tradition they were teaching was nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Again there is no 2Jn.12

20And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

And all these words can be found in the bible.

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
And all these things are made known to us in the bible.

What tradition would that be (specific)

Is this saying that tradition and scripture are the same?

Yeah, most it is in the Bible and it is also enough to show those who disobey the Church to be treated as a tax collector, a heretic. The Church must be the one built by Christ and the Apostles and have survived for 2000 years since Christ was here.

It is also in the Bible what the mind of those in Church should be, ONE Faith, all believing the same thing because the Truth is one.

It also says that Jesus is a King. This King must have a Kingdom. So far, only the CC resembles a Kingdom. this a clue for many.

There are so much more. There is also enough in the Bible to show the condemnation of many.

It also in the Bible who holds the keys of authority. Rev. says that Jesus has the Keys and Jesus gives the Keys to St Peter. The only Church where St Peter is. It is in the CC.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Exactly! Therefore it is NOT Biblical at all. No where does Christ or the Apostles or any author in the Bible state or command the Bible is the final and sole authority. Thank you for finally admitting it. My Oral Tradition? Not mine at all,but the early church Richard. I know as a Protestant,history is not your forte,so I suggest you read it and learn it.

The fact that the bible doessn’t explicitly say that Jesus taught the Bible, doesn’t mean that all the information that we need for our salvation is not in fact in the bible, SS. Nor does it mean that “it is NOT Biblical at all.”

Oral Tradition? Easy: THE CANON of the BIBLE. Where does the Bible even hint a canon for the OT or NT? It is AN ORAL TRADITION.Why do you adere to that **ORAL Tradition **,not WRITTEN Tradtion,not TAUGHT in the Bible-Richard? Care to answer that Chinese riddle?

2Tim.3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The bible was given to us by God.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Exactly! Therefore it is NOT Biblical at all. No where does Christ or the Apostles or any author in the Bible state or command the Bible is the final and sole authority. Thank you for finally admitting it. My Oral Tradition? Not mine at all,but the early church Richard. I know as a Protestant,history is not your forte,so I suggest you read it and learn it.

The fact that the bible doessn’t explicitly say that Jesus taught the Bible, doesn’t mean that all the information that we need for our salvation is not in fact in the bible, SS. Nor does it mean that “it is NOT Biblical at all.”

Self-refuting argument against SS. Listen to what you just said:

all the information that we need for our salvation is not in fact in the bible, SS

In order for SS to be valid,it must be supported by the Bible,IMPLICITLY or EXPLICITLY by Christ or the Apostles or the early church. So how can you even believe and follow a doctrine not taught by anyone in the NT? Show me ONE ecumenical council advocating and defending SS?

Quote:
Oral Tradition? Easy: THE CANON of the BIBLE. Where does the Bible even hint a canon for the OT or NT? It is AN ORAL TRADITION.Why do you adere to that ORAL Tradition ,not WRITTEN Tradtion,not TAUGHT in the Bible-Richard? Care to answer that Chinese riddle?

2Tim.3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Redundant argument and taken out-of-context verses. The above in NO SHAPE or FORM proves or supports SS. St.Paul did not write 2 Tim 3 or 15-16 in defense of SS. That is called eisegesis Richard and that is what you are applying to those verses. Second,you still did not answer the question at hand.

Why do you adere to the ORAL Tradition (canon of scripture) by the CHURCH, not a WRITTEN Tradtion,not TAUGHT in the Bible-Richard?

Care to answer Richard?

The bible was given to us by God.

And this your profound misunderstanding. It is not a question of WHO,but a question of HOW did God do it? Through the CHURCH and its bishops…Richard. And if you deny this undisputable fact of church history,then you most certainly are one prideful person.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Self-refuting argument against SS. Listen to what you just said:

all the information that we need for our salvation is not in fact in the bible, SS

This is what I said

“The fact that the bible doessn’t explicitly say that Jesus taught the Bible, doesn’t mean that all the information that we need for our salvation is not in fact in the bible, SS.”
The exact opposite of your partial quote. If ypu are going to start playing games Nicea there probobly is no reason to continue.

In order for SS to be valid,it must be supported by the Bible,IMPLICITLY or EXPLICITLY by Christ or the Apostles or the early church. So how can you even believe and follow a doctrine not taught by anyone in the NT? Show me ONE ecumenical council advocating and defending SS?

Well first of all SS is not a doctrine. It is a principle and that principle states that all the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. Do you disagree with this?

Redundant argument and taken out-of-context verses. The above in NO SHAPE or FORM proves or supports SS. St.Paul did not write 2 Tim 3 or 15-16 in defense of SS. That is called eisegesis Richard and that is what you are applying to those verses. Second,you still did not answer the question at hand.

2Tim.3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

This isn’t an argument at all. Are you saying that this is wrong and scripture is not given to us by God?

Why do you adere to the ORAL Tradition (canon of scripture) by the CHURCH, not a WRITTEN Tradtion,not TAUGHT in the Bible-Richard?

Care to answer Richard?

Canon of scripture, the bible is not oral tradition.

And this your profound misunderstanding. It is not a question of WHO,but a question of HOW did God do it? Through the CHURCH and its bishops…Richard. And if you deny this undisputable fact of church history,then you most certainly are one prideful person.

It says how “16All scripture is given by inspiration of God”
2Peter1
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Ya you know Nicea, I really don’t see any reason to continue in a dialogue with you.

 

[Christalone]

Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.

I’m not trying to change your beliefs, I’m just trying to wrap my mind around them. As a Catholic, I find them strange. I hope someone can explain so I don’t misunderstand the Protestant view.

We don;t get it either! It is merely a dogmatic accusation made by mainly catholics. I have never seen a non catholic say they follow sola scriptura.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Self-refuting argument against SS. Listen to what you just said:

all the information that we need for our salvation is not in fact in the bible, SS

This is what I said

“The fact that the bible doessn’t explicitly say that Jesus taught the Bible, doesn’t mean that all the information that we need for our salvation is not in fact in the bible, SS.”
The exact opposite of your partial quote. If ypu are going to start playing games Nicea there probobly is no reason to continue.

I beg your pardon-games? Do you truly feel this is a game? See there you go again implying SS,which again is NO WHERE mentioned explicitly or implicitly in the Bible. You hold to a belief that is not even supported by scripture or the early church. The issue here is SS,not what is necessary for salvation Richard.

Quote:
In order for SS to be valid,it must be supported by the Bible,IMPLICITLY or EXPLICITLY by Christ or the Apostles or the early church. So how can you even believe and follow a doctrine not taught by anyone in the NT? Show me ONE ecumenical council advocating and defending SS?

Well first of all SS is not a doctrine. It is a principle and that principle states that all the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. Do you disagree with this?

Precisely why SS is bogus because to many SS is a doctrine and not merely a principle. Again Richard,the issue here is SS,not what is necessary for salvation,two different issues. Second of all,Christ is required for salvation,not the Bible-Alone. Third,SS is bogus because Bibles were not readily available to everyone for centuries. I can go on and on the false premises of SS.

Quote:
Redundant argument and taken out-of-context verses. The above in NO SHAPE or FORM proves or supports SS. St.Paul did not write 2 Tim 3 or 15-16 in defense of SS. That is called eisegesis Richard and that is what you are applying to those verses. Second,you still did not answer the question at hand

.

2Tim.3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

This isn’t an argument at all. Are you saying that this is wrong and scripture is not given to us by God?

One more time Richard,the issue here is not about if Scripture was given to us by God,but the doctrine/principle SS.Richard,you keeping dodging the question and one more time,the above were NOT written in defense of SS.

Quote:
Why do you adere to the ORAL Tradition (canon of scripture) by the CHURCH, not a WRITTEN Tradtion,not TAUGHT in the Bible-Richard?

Care to answer Richard?

Canon of scripture, the bible is not oral tradition.

You still fail to answer Richard.WRONG! The Bible IS Oral Tradition PENNED down on parchment,etc. The early Christians taught orally,not straight out of the Bible-Only.What you are applying is that the written word was totally something apart from the Oral Tradition taught by Christ and the Apostles. I have already proven the false premise of SS and with little effort.

Again,why do you adhere to the ORAL Tradition (canon of scripture) by the CHURCH, not a WRITTEN Tradtion,not TAUGHT in the Bible-Richard?

Quote:
And this your profound misunderstanding. It is not a question of WHO,but a question of HOW did God do it? Through the CHURCH and its bishops…Richard. And if you deny this undisputable fact of church history,then you most certainly are one prideful person.

It says how “16All scripture is given by inspiration of God”
2Peter1
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Still in denial-eh? Nothing what you quoted disproves the fact the CHURCH…Richard through ORAL tradition gave us the canon of scripture-NOT THE BIBLE-ALONE

Ya you know Nicea, I really don’t see any reason to continue in a dialogue with you.

Of course not,because you simply cannot admit you are not willing to admit what I am telling you is absolutely true…SS is bogus and a novel belief no were taught until the Reformation. That is what happens when people refuse to study history.

 

[patricius79]

Why would my disagreeing with the CC’s interpretation of **scripture **be an oral tradition?

because one cannot disagree with the Catholic Church’s interpretation without insisting on sentences not in Scripture

I know, but this fact does not invalidate the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible SS.

I think that is a true oral tradition, although not all that is needed for salvation is explicit in Scripture. e.g. the dogma of the Trinity and the N.T. Canon which have no historical sources besides the Catholic Church

 

[Richard_Kastner]

because one cannot disagree with the Catholic Church’s interpretation without insisting on sentences not in Scripture

Protestant oral traditions can be anything from “the Catholic Church began with Constantine” to “Jn 6 is not literal” to “OSAS” to “Sola Scriptura”

or it can be your oral tradition, e.g. that 1 COr 2:2 and Gal teach Sola Scriptura. or that 2 Pt 3:16 is not referring to oral tradition.

I disagree with your churches interpretation of 2 Peter3 because I believe what it is expicitly saying. In other words the sentence that is there. While you believe that this is talking about oral tradition or something that is not there and cannot be shown to be there by you your church or anyone else.

:
I know, but this fact does not invalidate the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible SS.

I think that is a true oral tradition, although not all that is needed for salvation is explicit in Scripture. e.g. the dogma of the Trinity and the N.T. Canon which have no historical sources besides the Catholic Church

So, what is it? Either it’s in there or not. By the way, the dogma of the Trinity is not needed for our salvation. This is, Romans 10
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

The canon is given by God. 2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[wisdomseeker]

I disagree with your churches interpretation of 2 Peter3 because I believe what it is expicitly saying. In other words the sentence that is there. While you believe that this is talking about oral tradition or something that is not there and cannot be shown to be there by you your church or anyone else.

So, what is it? Either it’s in there or not. By the way, the dogma of the Trinity is not needed for our salvation. This is, Romans 10
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

The canon is given by God. 2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yeah, I know many people open congregation based in just one verse of teh Bible. Just like you just did. if these only two verses is all you need for salvation, then good luck to you. I prefer the whole revelation of God through His Church. because when do this, all you doing is disregarding everything else that God ever said. good luck to you with that idea.

These two passage is not even enough to prove that Jesus even existed, does it? what about the Church Jesus built? you don’t have to accept her either?