Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[SolaScriptura]

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

Ummm … Michael … you are still floundering. You were supposed to be providing evidence of the infallible Oral Tradition the Apostle taught the Thessalonians. This is only my 4th or 5th time asking. If you can’t do it, just say so and stop with all the diversions. Waiting …

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Originally Posted by Reformed1
For what it is worth, while scripture is called “God breathed”, tradition never gets elevated to that level.

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

As I have been accused on here at times I will make the same accusation against you. You just aren’t listening. You aren’t interested in learning and you aren’t interested in what we’re saying. If you were, you’d see that this has already been dealt with. Time to kick the dust off my shoes on this issue.

 

[E.E.N.S]

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.

I am sorry you feel that way, I truly am. You are in disagreement with St. Paul because he says that the things passed down from him (and the rest of the apostles) orally are also the Word of God, and he says to hold fast to those traditions - which are the word of God. Not only are you in opposition to much of Scripture by holding this view, you are in opposition to 2000 years of Christian history and teaching, and logic, and also the Church that Christ himself established.

I was Baptist 6 years ago, Brian, but you know the difference between you and me? I listened to the promptings of the Holy Spirit when I was being led to the very Church I saw in a negative light and wanted to be wrong. I came home to the True Faith simply because it is the Truth - the Truth is Jesus Christ - the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ - that Church is the Holy Catholic Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago and has not fallen since then, according to His promise and teh guidence of the Holy Spirit.

I know it is hard to let go of bias opinion, especially when we refuse to let go of the blinders.

 

[Reformed1]

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

God Bless,
michael

The Word would be the Word, whether written or spoken.

But, that is a long way away from validating your position.

 

[runandsew]

John 14:26
But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So these two passages taken out of the KJV show that the Holy Spirit will bring to the remembrance of the Apostles everything that Jesus said, but then it states that everything is not written down.

Why would Jesus have sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles so they would remember everything he said, if they were not going to write it all down?

He didn’t command them to write, but he did command them to preach.

And what good is an infallible book, if we don’t have an infallible interpretation?

The teachings of Tradition and the Church Magisterium insure us that we have an infallible interpretation to the infallible book.

That is where the Holy Spirit comes into play, helping the Apostles and there successors remember everything that Jesus said so they can make an infallible interpretation of the infallible Bible.
If someone has an issue with this, don’t blame me, take it up with Jesus, He is the one who did it.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The Scripture do not have to explicitly say they are “totally sufficient” for them to be sufficient and for one to arrive at the truth through logical arguments.

Indeed they don’t have to be explicit, but there aren’t even any implicit references from the Bible to bolster Sola Scriptura!!!

You can fall into the pit of ad hominem attacks on my understanding of Sola Scriptura, but the fact of the matter remains:

THE BIBLE NOWHERE SUGGESTS THAT IT IS THE SOLE INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH FOR THE CHURCH. NOWHERE!

 

[Reformed1]

I am sorry you feel that way, I truly am. You are in disagreement with St. Paul because he says that the things passed down from him (and the rest of the apostles) orally are also the Word of God, and he says to hold fast to those traditions - which are the word of God. Not only are you in opposition to much of Scripture by holding this view, you are in opposition to 2000 years of Christian history and teaching, and logic, and also the Church that Christ himself established.

I was Baptist 6 years ago, Brian, but you know the difference between you and me? I listened to the promptings of the Holy Spirit when I was being led to the very Church I saw in a negative light and wanted to be wrong. I came home to the True Faith simply because it is the Truth - the Truth is Jesus Christ - the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ - that Church is the Holy Catholic Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago and has not fallen since then, according to His promise and teh guidence of the Holy Spirit.

I know it is hard to let go of bias opinion, especially when we refuse to let go of the blinders.

So, what exactly are these traditions that Paul handed down orally and how do you trace them back to the apostles?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

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

Niether is papal infallibility, indulgences, apostolic succession, perpetual virginity of Mary, assumption of Mary, and so on. It’s just too bad that I’d have you nailed into the floor right now but you can pull out your “Tradition” card. This is the way your Church can avoid all charges of heresy. Just say “hey it’s in our Tradition”.

 

[mikeledes]

Ummm … Michael … you are still floundering. You were supposed to be providing evidence of the infallible Oral Tradition the Apostle taught the Thessalonians. This is only my 4th or 5th time asking. If you can’t do it, just say so and stop with all the diversions. Waiting …

So the apostles never taught the early Christians about marriage? Are you saying that Christianity never had an infallible teaching on what constitutes a valid marriage before God?

God bless,
Michael

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

If you can’t do it, just say so and stop with all the diversions. Waiting …

And we are still waiting for you to show us WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS THAT IT IS THE SOLE INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH FOR THE CHURCH.

Why don’t you just say you can’t and stop with all the diversions and insults.

 

[E.E.N.S]

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.

I hate to sound rude, but I have no other way of saying it at this point, you are completely ignorant of history.

Catholics were called Catholics LONG before the protestant deformation and break with the Church.

 

[mikeledes]

Niether is papal infallibility, indulgences, apostolic succession, perpetual virginity of Mary, assumption of Mary, and so on. It’s just too bad that I’d have you nailed into the floor right now but you can pull out your “Tradition” card. This is the way your Church can avoid all charges of heresy. Just say “hey it’s in our Tradition”.

The same way a host of heretics have justified their teachings using the Bible alone, right?

God bless,
Michael

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The same way a host of heretics have justified their teachings using the Bible alone, right?

God bless,
Michael

Very True

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

So, what exactly are these traditions that Paul handed down orally and how do you trace them back to the apostles?

St. Athanasius (360AD) - let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian… (Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28)

Origen (230AD) - “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession, from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as truth which is in no way in variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2.)

 

[SolaScriptura]

So the apostles never taught the early Christians about marriage? Are you saying that Christianity never had an infallible teaching on what constitutes a valid marriage before God?

God bless,
Michael

Michael, Michael, Michael. This is getting ridiculous my friend. Can you or can you not provide evidence for what the Apostle taught the Thessalonians? The discussion is not that hard to follow. You are engaging in debate tricks. Show me the evidence!!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

That is how we trace them back to the Apostles

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The discussion is not that hard to follow. You are engaging in debate tricks. Show me the evidence!!

Stop the insults and show us WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS THAT IT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT IN ALL MANNERS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I throw down the gauntlet and challenge you to show us where the Bible says that it alone is totally sufficient!!!

You can call it a straw man if you want to, but the challenge remains!!!

 

[mikeledes]

So, what exactly are these traditions that Paul handed down orally and how do you trace them back to the apostles?

Honestly, all the Protestants in this thread should stop asking this question because they know the answer won’t matter anyway. They are set on Sola Scriptura, and they aren’t going to budge. I bring the example of marriage. To that, I’ll add the belief that we receive our soul at conception, abortion is the equivalent of murder, the sinfulness of artificial contraception, and the immorality of masturbation.

God Bless,
michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

What exactly did Paul teach the Corinthians or Thessalonians that isn’t recorded in scriptue? Can you provide the documentation for these beliefs or practices please?

By the way, Reformed1, upon reflection, I have to point out that what Paul taught outside scripture is not germane to THIS argument.

Your goal in asking your questions is to shift the burden of proof onto the shoulders of the Catholic Apologist (that would be me :tiphat: ) so that you can sit back and take pot shots at Tradition from the comfort of your easy chair.

This misses the point… even if the Catholic Church was centered in hell, the pope the anti-christ, the bishops and priests the slaves of Satan, and all the lay Catholics destined to be tortured for eternity… NONE of THAT would make sola scriptura true, logical, historical, or biblical.

So, we can debate Tradition in another thread if you like, but this thread is about the defense of sola scriptura.

You know the question, but not the answer: Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?