Sola Scriptura Answer to a Modern Question

[CompSciGuy]

I think Radical’s post misses the point. The purpose of that argumentation is to break down this unrealistic pedestal that Protestants put the Bible on, and to see the New Testament in the context of the early Church. In those days, as today, the faith was transmitted by apostolic tradition (then in full, now in part since we have the written scriptures). The NT was not compiled until much later, and even then it was not considered to be a sole rule of faith.
The important thing to bring up, as I have in previous posts, is that the New Testament is not written like an instruction manual. Some aspects of the faith, such as the sacraments, are not expanded upon because it is expected that we already know about them from the teachings of the holy Catholic church. Protestants then loosely weave the scriptures together to create a “biblical” doctrine, resulting in many various views and denominations. They justify it by creating a classification of “essentials vs. non-essentials,” saying that non-essentials can’t be of importance since they aren’t discussed in detail in scripture. To which I would have to ask, did Christ found a faith, or a template for a faith? When he instituted the Eucharist, do you think he left it up for grabs for his followers to decide if it was an ordinance or a sacrament, his true body and blood, his spiritual presence in and around the host, or nothing more than a symbol of his passion?

 

[CopticChristian]

I think Radical’s post misses the point. The purpose of that argumentation is to break down this unrealistic pedestal that Protestants put the Bible on, and to see the New Testament in the context of the early Church. In those days, as today, the faith was transmitted by apostolic tradition (then in full, now in part since we have the written scriptures). The NT was not compiled until much later, and even then it was not considered to be a sole rule of faith.
The important thing to bring up, as I have in previous posts, is that the New Testament is not written like an instruction manual. Some aspects of the faith, such as the sacraments, are not expanded upon because it is expected that we already know about them from the teachings of the holy Catholic church. Protestants then loosely weave the scriptures together to create a “biblical” doctrine, resulting in many various views and denominations. They justify it by creating a classification of “essentials vs. non-essentials,” saying that non-essentials can’t be of importance since they aren’t discussed in detail in scripture. To which I would have to ask, did Christ found a faith, or a template for a faith? When he instituted the Eucharist, do you think he left it up for grabs for his followers to decide if it was an ordinance or a sacrament, his true body and blood, his spiritual presence in and around the host, or nothing more than a symbol of his passion?

The Canon of the Sacred Scripture
It has been decided that nothing except canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exo-

The bible was declarec canonical to be read in the Church in 397 Council of Carthage.

 

[CopticChristian]

I still hold that thought because Paul didn’t say they were a law unto themselves. He said when Gentiles naturally do what God commands they are a law unto themselves.
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Thus Paul is talking about those who have not heard of God and the Law before Christ and those who have not heard of Christ after His coming. So, if someone lives in a Muslim nation, where preaching Christ is outlawed, lives ther whole life and dies without hearing the Gospel, will God send them to hell because they didn’t accept Christ as their Savior? I don’t think so. I believe God will judge them based on whether they worshipped God, were they honest, forgiving, patient, loving, and so on. The passage above and the context don’t apply to those who have heard the message.
Romans 2:12a Those people who don’t know about God’s Law will still be punished for what they do wrong.
As for the circumcision of the heart, Paul is saying that outward signs or faith, like crossing yourself, pennance, or wearing saints medallions, don’t mean anything, it is the level of commitment to Christ that is important. So my point still stands. If tradition is inerrant and based on Christ’s teachings why do we need Scripture? I believe as errors crept into doctrine that God moved the Church to compile the New Testament and the Scriptures contained are exactly what God intended us to have.

Circumcision is the second requrement of a Jew. The first is be fruitful and multiply. The second is circumcision to enter into the Old Covenant, a work of the Mosaic Law, not the Moral Law. You are confusing outward signs of Faith with works of the law. This is typical of Protestants that do not understand Torah, works of Law and Moral Law. What else might you be confused about?