Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[SyCarl]

Answer the question:

Where does Jesus teach:

All doctrine must be written down in order to believed.

If SS were truly orthodox,then please show me where Jesus or any of the 12 taught EVER the above position?

Not that everything must be written but that what is written is enough.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
(John 20:30-31 ESV)

Not everything was recorded but he tells us that from what he wrote we may be believe and have life.

Augustine views these verses in the same way.

Yet He deigned both to create and to raise again; to create all, to resuscitate some. For though the Lord Jesus did many such acts, yet all of them are not recorded; just as this same St. John the evangelist himself testifies, that Christ the Lord both said and did many things that are not recorded; but such were chosen for record as seemed to suffice for the salvation of believers.

Augustine (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate 49]
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.l.html

And if John’s Gospel is sufficient, how much more all of Scripture?

Luke gives the reason he wrote his Gospel. If oral teaching was sufficient why did Theophilus need a written Gospel to know the certainty of what he had been taught orally?

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, **that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. **(Luke 1:1-4 ESV)

 

[dronald]

Paul describes Tradition, by definition of the concept…

you’ve ignored, fled, evaded, dodged, whatever, the point for a while now… so I’m sorta curious… whassup wid dat?

Timothy was told to remembber what Paul spoke, NOT WROTE DOWN.

And to carry it forward with the next generations. Protect that information.

That is about the picture of “Tradition”

I havn’t ignored a thing; I just don’t take issue with what you’re saying.

For example, when I do missions in Africa I remember much of what I know and pass it on. I don’t write it down and hand it to the residents.

 

[SyCarl]

Like many things, the Church reacts when its challenged.

We cannot interpret implicit passages by themselves or with other implicit passages. We can only interpret the implicit with the explicit. In the absence of the explicit the Church assists.

This is Material Sufficiency.

Formal Sufficiency demands that all passages in Scriptures be explicit. That is not the case. For FS to be sustained, the average person can - on their own - understand and interpret Scriptures.

We all know that is not the case.

Christ knew it, Peter knew it, and all the Apostles knew it. The ECFs talk and appeal to Scriptures from Tradition and with the Church - never apart. Those that twisted the Scriptures were condemned and/or excommunicated. That is the difference.

Formal sufficiency does not require that all passages must be clear but that was is in the clear passages contains what is necessary.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

I havn’t ignored a thing; I just don’t take issue with what you’re saying.

So, you don’t mind contradicting Paul and calling him a liar. OR rather, saying he says things that contradicts other things he said… I get it.

AND I guess, if I address you directly, pointing out contradictions, that… it doesn’t warrant a response. I get it. I’ve never been very important.

For example, when I do missions in Africa I remember much of what I know and pass it on. I don’t write it down and hand it to the residents.

Dron…that either spits at what I said, or ignores it, or dismisses it. But it doesn’t read it nor respect it.

I understand now, not to address you if you are wrong. I don’t have a tug boat big enough to haul all that hubris into a conversation.


Paul told tim to remember what was told, not written. Oral tradition, that’s the foundation of RCC Tradition. If ORAL dictates from Paul, were to be kept, protected and passed on, you can damn sure have something that is doctrine, but is not written down.

You can posture around it, as passive aggressively as you choose, but you or Paul are wrong. And your claim Paul said ONLY WRITTEN WORD, is obviously in error, since here he CHARGED Timothy with perpetuating the ORAL teachings.

This sorta intellectual dishonest posturing, takes the fun out of these chats.

I’m out.

 

[SyCarl]

Paul describes Tradition, by definition of the concept…

you’ve ignored, fled, evaded, dodged, whatever, the point for a while now… so I’m sorta curious… whassup wid dat?

Timothy was told to remembber what Paul spoke, NOT WROTE DOWN.

And to carry it forward with the next generations. Protect that information.

That is about the picture of “Tradition”

That Timothy was directed to pass on what he had heard is not the same as saying that what he heard was not written some place.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

That Timothy was directed to pass on what he had heard is not the same as saying that what he heard was not written some place.

Because you sit in the swimming pool, does not mean you are wet. yeah, I get that argument.

In context, Paul made sure the words he mentioned were known to be…

Spoken, by word (thus not written elsewhere most likely, granted not conclusively.)
BEFORE WITNESSES, which counters the lack of written word issue… making sure it’s official…

The likelihood falls that it is not written, but is spoken.

** 2 And what you have heard from me **
(I.E. it’s not written; for sure it’s not written for Timothy, else he wouldn’t have said it was spoken…)

in the presence of many witnesses,
( This is the ONLY thing Paul said to timothy he wanted him to remember, that it was important enough to mention it was before many witnesses. Before witnesses is relevant why?? TO substantiate it’s importance and authenticity.)

commit to faithful men
(Not something taught to every person so it becomes rumor and legend, but to faithful<<< to keep the message pure… ((same reason they wrote stuff down.)) and keep it with creditably.)

who will be able to teach others also.
(It is to be passed on, and on… and on…

So, REALLY? You are right to say it does not say, clearly and succinctly, that isn’t written down somewhere… To imply that makes it likely that’s what he meant, is a LOOOONNNGGG reach.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

That Timothy was directed to pass on what he had heard is not the same as saying that what he heard was not written some place.

Its difficult to believe that all of the apostolic faith once and all delivered to the saints is contained within the New testament, especially when the new testament it self tells us there is not enough space in the world to describe the works of Jesus after his Resurrection.

 

[dronald]

So, you don’t mind contradicting Paul and calling him a liar. OR rather, saying he says things that contradicts other things he said… I get it.

AND I guess, if I address you directly, pointing out contradictions, that… it doesn’t warrant a response. I get it. I’ve never been very important.

If you’re assuming that I’ve been attempting to call Paul a liar or accuse him of contradictions then you’re right; you don’t warrant a response.

Dron…that either spits at what I said, or ignores it, or dismisses it. But it doesn’t read it nor respect it.

You havn’t exactly picked a smoking gun here. I have the same Bible you have, with the same passages and I take no issue with it.

I understand now, not to address you if you are wrong. I don’t have a tug boat big enough to haul all that hubris into a conversation.

Okay.

Paul told tim to remember what was told, not written. Oral tradition, that’s the foundation of RCC Tradition. If ORAL dictates from Paul, were to be kept, protected and passed on, you can damn sure have something that is doctrine, but is not written down.

What did Paul tell Timothy that Paul never wrote down? Also, please provide evidence.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Formal sufficiency does not require that all passages must be clear but that was is in the clear passages contains what is necessary.

This sounds like a definition for SS…

I’m afraid to ask

Who defines what Formal Sufficiency is?

And does each denomination get to choose what they think its necessary?

 

[SyCarl]

Because you sit in the swimming pool, does not mean you are wet. yeah, I get that argument.

In context, Paul made sure the words he mentioned were known to be…

Spoken, by word (thus not written elsewhere most likely, granted not conclusively.)
BEFORE WITNESSES, which counters the lack of written word issue… making sure it’s official…

The likelihood falls that it is not written, but is spoken.

** 2 And what you have heard from me **
(I.E. it’s not written; for sure it’s not written for Timothy, else he wouldn’t have said it was spoken…)

in the presence of many witnesses,
( This is the ONLY thing Paul said to timothy he wanted him to remember, that it was important enough to mention it was before many witnesses. Before witnesses is relevant why?? TO substantiate it’s importance and authenticity.)

commit to faithful men
(Not something taught to every person so it becomes rumor and legend, but to faithful<<< to keep the message pure… ((same reason they wrote stuff down.)) and keep it with creditably.)

who will be able to teach others also.
(It is to be passed on, and on… and on…

So, REALLY? You are right to say it does not say, clearly and succinctly, that isn’t written down somewhere… To imply that makes it likely that’s what he meant, is a LOOOONNNGGG reach.

I quoted John Chrysostom’s interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 before but it bears repletion.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child you have known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.”

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Now if Chrysostom thought that Timothy could learn anything he needed from Scripture, is the view that Paul’s necessary teachings are recorded in the rest of Scripture that much of a stretch?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I quoted John Chrysostom’s interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 before but it bears repletion.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Now if Chrysostom thought that Timothy could learn anything he needed from Scripture, is the view that Paul’s necessary teachings are recorded in the rest of Scripture that much of a stretch?

The same saint says this as well.

Ver. 15. So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.

"Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken."

But I would ask you one crucial thing. If by chance we received orally or heard the commentary of Jesus Christ on the Old testament concerning himself contained therein is that equally as authoritative to scripture? This was not written down except in minor allusions to it in the New testament as a whole, yet such a homily by Christ would be equally if not more authoritative than any one book of the New testament, if we hypothetically possessed it in its entirety.

Now if it is hypothetically possible that an oral tradition directly from the lord, given to his apostles can be as authoritative as scripture you only have two possible ways to answer. Everything jesus said is contained within the bible or there is an oral tradition existing alongside of the New testament and within the church helping us understand as well as the bible.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

If you’re assuming that I’ve been attempting to call Paul a liar or accuse him of contradictions then you’re right; you don’t warrant a response.

Stop trying to create a way out. I never once assumed you made any deliberate attempt. Nothing I said hinted at that. That is more posturing because you don’t want to answer the issues. It’s a diversion. It’s dishonest.

Your intent, never crossed my mind. Your actions, and statements, draw the logical conclusion that Paul was a liar or contradictory. You present a claim as if it’s absolute, and yet, if your claim is correct, Paul is either… you guessed it… liar… or contradicting.

I made no personal attack on you. I stated the flat out logical fact. When you left the questions and scripture ignored 8 or 45 times, whatever it was, then I ASSumed, to get your attention, that you were comfortable with his contradiction or lie.

Rather than address the vss, you divert and play victim.

You havn’t exactly picked a smoking gun here. I have the same Bible you have, with the same passages and I take no issue with it.

And yet, you won’t answer the dilemma. Which is great. I had a fat neighbor. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar once. He looked his dad in the eye and said he wasn’t getting cookies. For fifteen minutes he said he wasn’t getting cookies. It was like a bill cosby routine.

Okay.

sigh. yawn. zzzzzz

What did Paul tell Timothy that Paul never wrote down? Also, please provide evidence.

It’s irrelevant. We aren’t debating WHAT TRADITIONS are ok. We are challenging your claim that PAUL SAID ONLY THE WRITTEN WORD, which is clearly utterly unrefined, unprocessed bull fertilizer.

You can try to divert the focus AGAIn to avoid having to back up on your posturing, but I think it’s pretty clear what’s going on.

First an appeal to emotion up above, playing victim to divert. Now you try to change the focus to what Tim was told, rather than he was TOLD SOMETHING ORALLY which is NOT WRITTEN which was your claim.

You are wrong.

You will evade, dodge and flee.

Because that’s what the person, who prefers to preach AT people, and not talk WITH people does 100% of the time.

Anything else, check with my people and make an appointment. Your colors are shown.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

I quoted John Chrysostom’s interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 before but it bears repletion.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Now if Chrysostom thought that Timothy could learn anything he needed from Scripture, is the view that Paul’s necessary teachings are recorded in the rest of Scripture that much of a stretch?

It is unrelated to the points.

First off scripture says you get spiritual perfection through works, not reading the word.

It says that those people who work are led by the people who are spiritually gifted to lead in the church. They are led to works of service. Through those works they are made perfect.

Paul wrote to timothy, the bishop over the Church of Ephesus. One of the largest cities, and most decadent, NY and LV combined…There is NO WAY Timothy was over one building/church/meeting hall. He had elders over the churches, throughout the city. Timothy was to be approved by them, and hold their respect. THEY led the churches. They led the people.

They did not sit off in their little dark corners and study the Bible.

OBVIOUSLY, HOWEVER, since PAUL referenced what TIMOTHY was taught in WORDS, and was told to give it to RELIABLE FAITHFUL MEN to teach others and carry it on, then it wasn’t just written word.

If you are denying that, then I’m chuckling.

 

[Nicea325]

SyCarl:

I am afraid simply saying something is not true is not much of an argument, I have presented a number of quotes showing what a number of the early church fathers have said. There are more that could be given.

And? You act as though Catholics have not seen or read your argument before? I have read the Protestant dream of trying to make the ECF’s appear Protestant. Quote all you want,I have seen it and read it all. Does not matter…no ECF was a Protestant. Tell me which denomination did Augustine belong to? Give me the name of his work defending SS to no end so I too become Protestant.

With respect to Scripture the highest authority I have already quoted Augustine as saying that they are the paramount and on the highest, even heavenly, ground of authority I think that they didn’t write more extensively or exhaustively on the topic as there was no need to because the practice was not really challenged.

And with respect to your argument, been there and done that a million times. News Flash: Augustine was Catholic.

Can you show definitive Church teaching denying formal sufficiency or condemning these fathers for what they say?

Once I am convinced the Church conclusively (West & East) has confirmed the ECF’s taught,believed and defended SS as "the’ practice. Please show me those documents,so I too can believe in the Protestant belief of SS.

 

[Nicea325]

No, not only what is written is to be taught but everything needed is written clearly enough to be understood. It is not that nothing is unclear, It is not that nothing outside Scripture can be taught. It is not that the Church has no authority but it is subject to what is in Scripture. It wasn’t disputed until Trent because it had not been necessary.

The church is subject to God…not simply what is written. God’s Word is strictly and only what is written? Protestants have the belief the church developed out of the Bible, it did not. Jesus founded His church and Christianity is about the person-Christ,not a book. Are we Muslims?

 

[Nicea325]

Not that everything must be written but that what is written is enough.

Not everything was recorded but he tells us that from what he wrote we may be believe and have life.

Augustine views these verses in the same way.

Augustine (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate 49]
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.l.html

And if John’s Gospel is sufficient, how much more all of Scripture?

Luke gives the reason he wrote his Gospel. If oral teaching was sufficient why did Theophilus need a written Gospel to know the certainty of what he had been taught orally?

Really? What is written is enough? Says who? Protestants?

Again,where does God explicitly teach:

It must be written and said in the Bible to be true or valid

I never knew all of Christianity and life in general revolved solely from the Bible.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl:

And? You act as though Catholics have not seen or read your argument before? I have read the Protestant dream of trying to make the ECF’s appear Protestant. Quote all you want,I have seen it and read it all. Does not matter…no ECF was a Protestant. Tell me which denomination did Augustine belong to? Give me the name of his work defending SS to no end so I too become Protestant.

And with respect to your argument, been there and done that a million times. News Flash: Augustine was Catholic.

Once I am convinced the Church conclusively (West & East) has confirmed the ECF’s taught,believed and defended SS as "the’ practice. Please show me those documents,so I too can believe in the Protestant belief of SS.

I am not saying Augustine was not Catholic. If I had been alive at that time I probably would have been one too because I believe that both present Catholic and Protestant views were acceptable at that time.

 

[marywarfield]

I am not saying Augustine was not Catholic. If I had been alive at that time I probably would have been one too because I believe that both present Catholic and Protestant views were acceptable at that time.

It hs never nor was it acceptable to the ECFs that
the Last Supper is not a literal re-presentation- not a
memorial but a literal transubstantiation. So if the
ECF did not hold with the Protestant view of
simply eulogizing about the Last Supper, what in the
world makes you think they would hold ANY Protestant
view including Sola Scriptura? For once you get
the Last Supper wrong all errors flow from that.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not saying Augustine was not Catholic. If I had been alive at that time I probably would have been one too because I believe that both present Catholic and Protestant views were acceptable at that time.

Carl,

You seem to be a well read individual, but you are really stretching what is acceptable at the time.

It’s one thing to venerate Scriptures, it is another to support Sola.

 

[Nicea325]

I am not saying Augustine was not Catholic. If I had been alive at that time I probably would have been one too because I believe that both present Catholic and Protestant views were acceptable at that time.

You believe,but history says otherwise. We cannot twist and pervert history simply to suit our own views. As I said Carl,if SS was acceptable at that time,I find it extremely odd within 1000 years not one ECF ever writes exhaustively on the “common” practice of SS. More important,you would think SS would have been mentioned at least once at one of the 7 ecumenical councils. Complete silence on such a huge and vital practice or the so-called highest authority.