Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[mikeledes]

Ummm … Michael … hate to disappoint you, but this is just an assertion, not evidence or proof. Want to explain what evidence you have that this what the Apostle Paul taught the Thessalonians?

Can you tell me where in the Bible does it say that a valid marriage is an exchange of vows? How do you define marriage, besides being between a man and a woman? When is a marriage a marriage before the eyes of God? Is it at the exchange of vows? Paul constantly talks about fornication and adultery, so he must have given a clear teaching on what constitutes a true marriage.

God Bless,
michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

I’ve answered this more than once. You guys have to deal with my argument and quit telling me how to argue. Would you like to be the first one to actually deal with the argument rationally?

I doubt I’ll be the first since so many others have responded so far, but I’ll take a crack at it.

I can read the whole thread, but there has been a lot of give and take. Just so that I study the right issues, which post specifically contains the argument that you feel has not been addressed?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why don’t you index for us the traditions that Paul speaks of in 2Thess 2:15?

So, you admitting that you have nothing to offer?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Can you tell me where in the Bible does it say that a valid marriage is an exchange of vows? How do you define marriage, besides being between a man and a woman? When is a marriage a marriage before the eyes of God? Is it at the exchange of vows? Paul constantly talks about fornication and adultery, so he must have given a clear teaching on what constitutes a true marriage.

God Bless,
michael

Ummm …Michael … this is what you call a bait and switch move or a red herring. This would not be allowed in serious debate. Answer my question. Prove that the Oral Tradition Paul taught the Thessalonians was a valid marriage occurs at the exchange of vows.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

What about John 20:30? (Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.)
Where did that get written down?

If it never got written down it never became Scripture. Only the things we needed to know were written in Scripture.

 

[Reformed1]

So, you admitting that you have nothing to offer?

I’m not sure I understand your question.

You guys constantly bring up 2 Thess 2:15 to support your belief in various “traditions” that you claim originated with the apostles.

Yet, to the best of my knowledge, your church has not defined a single word spoken by Jesus or the apostles that isn’t found in scripture, nor has your church ever listed exactly what the traditions are that Paul is referring to.

So, please, go ahead and list for me the “traditions” that the Thessalonians knew about but weren’t recorded in scripture. Did they have knowledge of the immaculate conception? How about papal infallibility? How about any of the various other “traditions” you guys believe to be apostolic?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The same basis you use to call yourself Baptist.

God Bless,
Michael

LOL nice try. The problem is, there was a Baptist in the Bible. I don’t see “Catholic” in the Bible though.

You mention marriage later on. How do you define a valid marriage then? By Catholic doctrine? You can’t do that. Marriage is a universal institution given to all mankind, believers and unbelievers alike. As for Christians, a valid marriage is one where a man and woman who are both Christians get married and in the process they follow the laws of the land. Scripture teaches us to follow the laws of the land unless they violate God’s commands.

 

[mikeledes]

Okay, knowledge can deepen over time but so many of your traditions just appear on the scene centuries after the apostles and there is no way to tie the various traditions to the apostles.

Since you guys harp on 2 Thess 2:15 so much it would seem that you should be able to define exactly what the traditions are that were being taught by Paul to either the Corinthians, Thessalonians, or somebody somewhere. But, you can’t.

Protestantism appears over a millenia after the apostolic age and that obviously isn’t a problem for you.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[E.E.N.S]

If it never got written down it never became Scripture.

Right.

Only the things we needed to know were written in Scripture.

Wrong. St. Paul says to hold fast to both oral and written.

Wow, I wonder where you would have found yourself if you lived over a few hundred years ago. Sola Scriptura is a new invention, you just don’t see any trace of it throughout the history of Christianity (pre-Reformation).

 

[mikeledes]

Ummm …Michael … this is what you call a bait and switch move or a red herring. This would not be allowed in serious debate. Answer my question. Prove that the Oral Tradition Paul taught the Thessalonians was a valid marriage occurs at the exchange of vows.

A clear definition of marriage is necessary in order to discern what is sexually immoral and what is not. In your view, what is fornication?

God Bless,
michael

 

[Reformed1]

Protestantism appears over a millenia after the apostolic age and that obviously isn’t a problem for you.

God Bless,
Michael

Many of your traditions appear centuries after the apostles and that obviously isn’t a problem for you.

God Bless,

Reformed

 

[E.E.N.S]

LOL nice try. The problem is, there was a Baptist in the Bible. I don’t see “Catholic” in the Bible though…

Well, then by that reasoning I guess you should stop using the word “Trinity” because it isn’t found in the Bible.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

EENS>> (your words bolded) So I could say no matter which way Catholics put it it’s still man made Traditions over the God inspired Scriptures?** Wrong. Sacred Scripture is God’s Written Word, and Sacred Tradition is God’s Living Word - the traditions of men that nullify the Word of God are entirely different.** That’s what it comes down to. **Your misunderstanding of it. **God’s Word is truth and if you put anything else with it, you are saying that God’s Word is not enough. Sacred Tradition is also God’s Word.

Nope. Not wrong. God’s written Word is God’s living Word. It alone has the ability to penetrate the thoughts of the heart and to discern the intentions of man. Tradition cannot do this. The Written Word is the Living Word, and Tradition is not.

No misunderstanding on my part. None whatsoever. It seems simply logical to me that when God gives us His Word, we put nothing else on its level or above it.

No, Tradition is not God’s Word. It is man’s word, whether mad pridefully refuses to admit this or not.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Well, then by that reasoning I guess you should stop using the word “Trinity” because it isn’t found in the Bible.

I’ll do that when you stop using “Sacred Tradtion” because that is not in the Bible either. Even the concept of it violates God’s Word. Sound like a deal?

 

[mikeledes]

LOL nice try. The problem is, there was a Baptist in the Bible. I don’t see “Catholic” in the Bible though.

You mention marriage later on. How do you define a valid marriage then? By Catholic doctrine? You can’t do that. Marriage is a universal institution given to all mankind, believers and unbelievers alike. As for Christians, a valid marriage is one where a man and woman who are both Christians get married and in the process they follow the laws of the land. Scripture teaches us to follow the laws of the land unless they violate God’s commands.

So you go around baptizing people in the Jordan? John the Baptist was called the Baptist because that is what he did. he baptized people.

Can you point out where I can find your definition of what constitutes a valid marriage?

Catholic, by the way, means universal. We started using Catholic to describe ourselves when all these new churches started popping up claiming to be the church of Christ after the Reformation.

God Bless,
michael

 

[Reformed1]

EENS>> (your words bolded) So I could say no matter which way Catholics put it it’s still man made Traditions over the God inspired Scriptures?** Wrong. Sacred Scripture is God’s Written Word, and Sacred Tradition is God’s Living Word - the traditions of men that nullify the Word of God are entirely different.** That’s what it comes down to. **Your misunderstanding of it. **God’s Word is truth and if you put anything else with it, you are saying that God’s Word is not enough. Sacred Tradition is also God’s Word.

Nope. Not wrong. God’s written Word is God’s living Word. It alone has the ability to penetrate the thoughts of the heart and to discern the intentions of man. Tradition cannot do this. The Written Word is the Living Word, and Tradition is not.

No misunderstanding on my part. None whatsoever. It seems simply logical to me that when God gives us His Word, we put nothing else on its level or above it.

No, Tradition is not God’s Word. It is man’s word, whether mad pridefully refuses to admit this or not.

For what it is worth, while scripture is called “God breathed”, tradition never gets elevated to that level.

 

[mikeledes]

I’ll do that when you stop using “Sacred Tradtion” because that is not in the Bible either. Even the concept of it violates God’s Word. Sound like a deal?

It violates your interpretation of God’s Word. But it seems you will still be using the word Trinity even if it’s not found in the Bible. Also, the word Bible is not found in the Bible.

God Bless,
michael

 

[mikeledes]

For what it is worth, while scripture is called “God breathed”, tradition never gets elevated to that level.

So I guess while the Word of God was still primarily in oral form, it was not “God Breathed”?

God Bless,
michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Mike>>So you go around baptizing people in the Jordan? John the Baptist was called the Baptist because that is what he did. he baptized people.

Can you point out where I can find your definition of what constitutes a valid marriage?

Catholic, by the way, means universal. We started using Catholic to describe ourselves when all these new churches started popping up claiming to be the church of Christ after the Reformation.

**The Jordan has nothing to do with the issue. You are arguing ad absurdim. You know I don’t baptize in the Jordan. In fact, I said I have never baptized anyone but I have the right to as a Christian. John the Baptist baptized people who repented of their sins, as do Baptists. Is this the epitome of consistency or what?

You can find examples in Scripture of where I obtained my definition of marriage. A real Christian should not even have to ask this, heck even a non-Christian could understand this truth. But you are just trying to fog the issue.

I know that Catholic means Universal. That means that I am Catholic too, though not a Roman Catholic. I am a member of the Universal Christian Church. Jesus’ Church. Now, who’s authority did you guys act under to change the name to “Catholic” as opposed to “Christian” in an effort to not be confused with Protestants who “called” themselves Christians? Obviously you think we’re not Christians. I thank God that Scripture disagrees with you. Severely.**

 

[Reformed1]

A clear definition of marriage is necessary in order to discern what is sexually immoral and what is not. In your view, what is fornication?

God Bless,
michael

How did the Jews discern this? Remember they had no infallible source either.