You can't have it both ways - #2

[Jimmy_B]

**You can’t have it both ways - #2 **

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?
Quote:
Westminster Confession of Faith which states:

VII. *All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. *

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?

Maybe someone here could an explain how Sola scriptura works and if it does work then why so much division in Protestantism? .

The previous thread here, was closed for going over a thousand posts.

Your thoughts?

 

[Araninski]

Hi shalom (peace) to all, well another one of this.

This has been debated for so long, it always goes the same way. I hope that with this post you can understand my point of view.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other,** that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.**

Catholics respond that you need the authority to teach you the correct interpretation.

The essentials are clear it is said “you shall not murder, commit fornication…, etc”

Anyone can understand this.

To get saved you must acknowledge you are a sinner , and believe in Jesus to get saved, that He can clean you from your sins and live your life holy while telling everyone the good news.

This is clear. Anyone can understand this.

Now that there is people hidden in sheep suits is another thing.

There are many denominations but most agree that which is “necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation.”

The ones who do not agree on this things are in denial, haven’t read the bible so they can’t know this or just want to do the will of Satan. And this does not happen only to Protestants, non-Catholics, or whatever, this happens to Catholics too. Being under the influence of “the perfect authority able to interpret the bible correctly” , a lot of Catholics and not just laity but Catholics in high positions, fathers, bishops and deacons also have “disagreements” on abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Being under Catholicism does not mean you are going to always have unity (not even in essentials) with all Catholics, nor the non-Catholics with other non-Catholics.

That statement says that the bible is clear in what is essential and anyone can understand this. What isn’t essential is not clear and people will disagree over some things. This is the reason there are a lot of protestant denominations. It doesn’t mean everyone is going to agree in everything , just in that which is “necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation.”

“In essentials unity, In doubtful things liberty, But in all things love.” -St Augustine.

In (Good) Protestantism there is unity on essentials, liberty on doubtful things, and love in all things. Now this doesn’t apply to the ignorant. Just as in (Good) Catholicism there is unity on essentials, lib…not, love in all things.

The denominations which do not agree in essentials are just evildoers, wolfs hidden in sheep suits. Just like the Catholics who don’t believe that abortion, homosexuality, etc is bad.

So to answer your question, this disagreements do have sense, this statement does not mean everybody is going to agree in everything, only in essentials. Those who don’t agree on essentials ignore what the bible says, or haven’t read it,so they are not following this statement.

Not all Protestants/non-Catholics follow this statement either. Another reason for more denominations.

Have a nice day, shalom! Yahweh loves you.

 

[schaick]

I wanted to answer a couple of questions asked on part 1 without cluttering part 2 of this thread.

This definition lists “things” as capable of being infallible. Can you give an example of this, besides the Bible? Or do you think this dictionary was thinking of only One Thing?

Some infallible things - language of math can be infallible, perfect squares, circles, etc.

Yes. And to the degree that they reject Christ and His Body is the degree that they could not be saved.
*Do you really believe differently?
Let’s take a heretic who states, “I was once Christian and now I say that Satan is my Lord and Savior.”
You believe that without repentance he’s destined for Eternal Life? *

I think I confused you - I was speaking of the heretics that believe Jesus is their Lord and Savior but were excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

OK back to the question:

You can’t have it both ways - #2

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?
Quote:
Westminster Confession of Faith which states:

VII. *All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. *

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

Do all trinitarian Christians disagree on what is need for our salvation?

If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?

Maybe the question should be - Do Catholics believe there is more then one way to celebrate the one true faith in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour?

The Disciples and Apostles left us a rule of measure on what we need for our salvation in the Holy Bible. The Bible tells us how we can walk towards a holy life, a good relationship with GOD.

The Bible can defend itself. I use extrabiblical [is that a word?] books to get example of how to apply the Bible to my life.

Has anyone read The Pursuit of Holiness, by Jerry Bridges? This is a great book.

 

[JonNC]

=Araninski;7106276]Hi shalom (peace) to all, well another one of this.

This has been debated for so long, it always goes the same way. I hope that with this post you can understand my point of view.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other,** that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.**

This is contradicted by Martin Chemnitz, the second genereation Lutheran reformer, who said: *“This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages…” *

“In essentials unity, In doubtful things liberty, But in all things love.” -St Augustine.

In (Good) Protestantism there is unity on essentials, liberty on doubtful things, and love in all things. Now this doesn’t apply to the ignorant. Just as in (Good) Catholicism there is unity on essentials, lib…not, love in all things.

I guess it depends on what one considers “essentials”. I consider it essentials that, “Baptism saves”, and infants should be Baptized, and that in the Eucharist, the bread and wine are the real and substantial body and blood of Christ.

So to answer your question, this disagreements do have sense, this statement does not mean everybody is going to agree in everything, only in essentials. Those who don’t agree on essentials ignore what the bible says, or haven’t read it,so they are not following this statement.

I wouldn’t say that those who don’t discern the real body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist ignore what the Bible says, or that they haven’t read it. I just think they have misunderstood it.

Have a nice day, shalom! Yahweh loves you.

and His peace also with you,
Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

It seems to me that Protestantism (non-Catholic Christianity), doesn’t work without a certain amount of “Sola scriptura” or “Bible alone”… Obviously, if all Christian history and all Christian traditions and the Church, past and present, were incorporated (as they should be), into Christianity today, then “Sola scriptura” wouldn’t work by anyone’s definition… Am I wrong?

John Henry Cardinal Newman, one of history’s most famous and learned scholars to convert to Catholicism, summed it up with these words -

“to be steeped in history, is to cease to be protestant.”

Am I wrong? Was Cardinal Newman wrong?

Your thoughts?

 

[Ginger2]

You can’t have it both ways - Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?

I do not hold to the definition of SS as given by Catholics.
I had never even heard of Sola Scriptura until after becoming a Protestant - and then** the first I heard was from Catholics claiming that is what I believe.**

I had to research SS to find out what they were talking about and discovered there is no such doctrine among Protestants. At least not in the sense claimed by Catholics.

Catholics use a definition that I agree is false doctrine. I have never met a Protestant who believes that doctrine according to the Catholic definition.

Catholics mistakenly got the idea Luther created a new doctrine which is a false assumption. Then they came up with a definition of Sola Scriptura - “all knowledge is contained in the Holy Scriptures”.

It appears to me that Protestants began trying to define SS as a way to explain they don’t agree with the doctrine and clarify what we do believe.

In a way I find it rather amusing, because it would be simpler just to state we don’t have any such doctrine.

It became very confusing because everyone was trying to come up with and accurate definition for a non-existent doctrine.

Here are the results:
To the Protestant it means the Holy Scriptures are the Written Word of God and thus our “rule of faith”.

The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The Apostles were prophets who spoke for God.
Galatians 1:11-12
Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated the importance of Christians to depend on the Scriptures and not what men teach:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The church fathers confirmed it:
What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)

Conclusion
This is what Protestants believe:

1. If it is in the Holy Scriptures, I am bound to believe it
2. If it is not in the Scriptures I am not bound to believe if
3. If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures I am bound to reject it

I hope this helps.

 

[reteeks21]

I do not hold to the definition of SS as given by Catholics.
I had never even heard of Sola Scriptura until after becoming a Protestant - and then** the first I heard was from Catholics claiming that is what I believe.**

I had to research SS to find out what they were talking about and discovered there is no such doctrine among Protestants. At least not in the sense claimed by Catholics.

Catholics use a definition that I agree is false doctrine. I have never met a Protestant who believes that doctrine according to the Catholic definition.

Catholics mistakenly got the idea Luther created a new doctrine which is a false assumption. Then they came up with a definition of Sola Scriptura - “all knowledge is contained in the Holy Scriptures”.

It appears to me that Protestants began trying to define SS as a way to explain they don’t agree with the doctrine and clarify what we do believe.

In a way I find it rather amusing, because it would be simpler just to state we don’t have any such doctrine.

It became very confusing because everyone was trying to come up with and accurate definition for a non-existent doctrine.

Here are the results:
To the Protestant it means the Holy Scriptures are the Written Word of God and thus our “rule of faith”.

The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The Apostles were prophets who spoke for God.
Galatians 1:11-12
Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated the importance of Christians to depend on the Scriptures and not what men teach:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The church fathers confirmed it:
What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)

Conclusion
This is what Protestants believe:

1. If it is in the Holy Scriptures, I am bound to believe it
2. If it is not in the Scriptures I am not bound to believe if
3. If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures I am bound to reject it

I hope this helps.

Tertullain was not even around when there was an established Canon. “Scripture” to the first Christians was the Old Testament. This was true even for Paul.

 

[Tomster]

I do not hold to the definition of SS as given by Catholics.
I had never even heard of Sola Scriptura until after becoming a Protestant - and then** the first I heard was from Catholics claiming that is what I believe.**

I had to research SS to find out what they were talking about and discovered there is no such doctrine among Protestants. At least not in the sense claimed by Catholics.

Catholics use a definition that I agree is false doctrine. I have never met a Protestant who believes that doctrine according to the Catholic definition.

Catholics mistakenly got the idea Luther created a new doctrine which is a false assumption. Then they came up with a definition of Sola Scriptura - “all knowledge is contained in the Holy Scriptures”.

It appears to me that Protestants began trying to define SS as a way to explain they don’t agree with the doctrine and clarify what we do believe.

In a way I find it rather amusing, because it would be simpler just to state we don’t have any such doctrine.

It became very confusing because everyone was trying to come up with and accurate definition for a non-existent doctrine.

Here are the results:
To the Protestant it means the Holy Scriptures are the Written Word of God and thus our “rule of faith”.

The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The Apostles were prophets who spoke for God.
Galatians 1:11-12
Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated the importance of Christians to depend on the Scriptures and not what men teach:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The church fathers confirmed it:
What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)

Conclusion
This is what Protestants believe:

1. If it is in the Holy Scriptures, I am bound to believe it
2. If it is not in the Scriptures I am not bound to believe if
3. If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures I am bound to reject it

I hope this helps.

Tell that to these guys:

www.familyradio.com

Ah, private judgment at work again.

 

[Ginger2]

Tertullain was not even around when there was an established Canon. “Scripture” to the first Christians was the Old Testament. This was true even for Paul.

The Scriptures were not yet bound together in one collection which is today referred to as the “Holy Bible”, however, when speaking of Inspired Scriptures, both Paul and Tertullian included New Testament writings as such.

Tertullian’s New Testament list includes all the books of today’s NT, with the exception of II Peter, James, II John, and III John.

So, when he said,
“What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.”
he was indeed referring to both Old and New Testaments.

Both Paul and Peter claimed Paul’s writings were indeed Inspired Scriptures:

Paul clearly stated his teaching was from God.
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord

Paul’s authority is supported by more than his own testimony. Peter also claims Paul’s writings are inspired.
2 Peter 3:16 as also in all (Paul’s) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction…

If Paul’s writings are considered Inspired Scriptures, I would think Peter’s writings would also be considered inspired by the Apostles, wouldn’t you?

 

[Ginger2]

Tell that to these guys:

www.familyradio.com

Ah, private judgment at work again.

Well, thank you for pointing us to some wacko cult! That was sooo very helpful to our dialog!

You do realize I can point you to crazy “catholics” to support my points, too. And just why don’t I do that? Because it would not be an accurate representation of the RC and would also be counter productive.

But I still like you Tomster! :flowers:

 

[Tomster]

I do not hold to the definition of SS as given by Catholics.
I had never even heard of Sola Scriptura until after becoming a Protestant - and then** the first I heard was from Catholics claiming that is what I believe.**

I had to research SS to find out what they were talking about and discovered there is no such doctrine among Protestants. At least not in the sense claimed by Catholics.

Catholics use a definition that I agree is false doctrine. I have never met a Protestant who believes that doctrine according to the Catholic definition.

Catholics mistakenly got the idea Luther created a new doctrine which is a false assumption. Then they came up with a definition of Sola Scriptura - “all knowledge is contained in the Holy Scriptures”.

It appears to me that Protestants began trying to define SS as a way to explain they don’t agree with the doctrine and clarify what we do believe.

In a way I find it rather amusing, because it would be simpler just to state we don’t have any such doctrine.

It became very confusing because everyone was trying to come up with and accurate definition for a non-existent doctrine.

Here are the results:
To the Protestant it means the Holy Scriptures are the Written Word of God and thus our “rule of faith”.

The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The Apostles were prophets who spoke for God.
Galatians 1:11-12
Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated the importance of Christians to depend on the Scriptures and not what men teach:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The church fathers confirmed it:
What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)

Conclusion
This is what Protestants believe:

1. If it is in the Holy Scriptures, I am bound to believe it
2. If it is not in the Scriptures I am not bound to believe if
3. If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures I am bound to reject it

I hope this helps.

Hate to burst your bubble, Ging, but the Bible is not the rule of faith.

 

[Ginger2]

Hate to burst your bubble, Ging, but the Bible is not the rule of faith.

You know something, Tomster. I really like it when you call me “Ging” No one has ever called me “Ging” before.

Usually, when Catholics called me by some other name, they are trying to insult me or be disrespectful. I really hope that is not what you are trying to do…but even if you are, I am going to believe you are doing it because deep down inside you really like me!

You do like me, don’t you! I like you, too! :hug3:

What were we talking about?..

Oh yeah! What to you does “rule of faith” mean?

I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before I respond.

 

[Tomster]

Well, thank you for pointing us to some wacko cult! That was sooo very helpful to our dialog!

You do realize I can point you to crazy “catholics” to support my points, too. And just why don’t I do that? Because it would not be an accurate representation of the RC and would also be counter productive.

Wackos they are, no doubt about it. But they are interpreting Scriptures to their liking just like Protestants do. I’m sure they would consider your interpretations of Scriptures wacko as well as the Catholic Church’s.

The point is, and it is one that you miss entirely, is that your, Ginger’s, interpretations of Scripture holds as much weight as these wackos. If, by Protestant standards, everyone is free to read the Bible and interpret it as they deem fit the question becomes which interpretation is correct and who decides, ultimately, which interpretation is correct?

I’ll give you some time to consult your pastor.

 

[Tomster]

You know something, Tomster. I really like it when you call me “Ging” No one has ever called me “Ging” before.

Usually, when Catholics called me by some other name, they are trying to insult me or be disrespectful. I really hope that is not what you are trying to do…but even if you are, I am going to believe you are doing it because deep down inside you really like me!

You do like me, don’t you! I like you, too! :hug3:

What were we talking about?..

Oh yeah! What to you does “rule of faith” mean?

I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before I respond.

You’re my favorite heretic, Ging! No doubt about it.

 

[Ginger2]

Wackos they are, no doubt about it. But they are interpreting Scriptures to their liking just like Protestants do. I’m sure they would consider your interpretations of Scriptures wacko as well as the Catholic Church’s.

I want to apologize for the harsh tone of that post, Tomster. I didn’t look to see who I was speaking to. :imsorry:

The point is, and it is one that you miss entirely, is that your, Ginger’s, interpretations of Scripture holds as much weight as these wackos. If, by Protestant standards, everyone is free to read the Bible and interpret it as they deem fit the question becomes which interpretation is correct and who decides, ultimately, which interpretation is correct?

All true Christians believe in the same basic doctrines which are found in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
born of the Virgin Mary, Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name [was] Mary.
suffered under Pontius Pilate, Luke 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and release [him].
was crucified, Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. …24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
died, Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
and was buried. Luk 23:52 This [man] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
He descended into hell. Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Etc.,…

I’ll give you some time to consult your pastor.

I would much rather keep talking with you, Tomster. :blushing:

 

[Ginger2]

You’re my favorite heretic, Ging! No doubt about it.

LOL

 

[Tomster]

You know something, Tomster. I really like it when you call me “Ging” No one has ever called me “Ging” before.

Usually, when Catholics called me by some other name, they are trying to insult me or be disrespectful. I really hope that is not what you are trying to do…but even if you are, I am going to believe you are doing it because deep down inside you really like me!

You do like me, don’t you! I like you, too! :hug3:

What were we talking about?..

Oh yeah! What to you does “rule of faith” mean?

I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before I respond.

It is not correct to place the Bible in contrast to the Church as the rule of faith. The Bible is a rule of faith of Catholics, but not their sole rule of faith, as it is of Protestants. The Bible is to Catholics the inspired source book for the elucidation of faith, but first things come first in the religion of Catholics. The Church is historically first, the Bible second. Therefore, Catholics avoid the tail-wagging-the dog attitude, by holding the Church and the Bible to be the true Christian rule of faith, the Bible as traditionally interpreted by the Church that selected the Divinely inspired writings within its covers.

The Bible as the sole rule of faith in the Christian world is of the 16th century, Martin Luther origin, and not of first century Christian origin. Luther had no more right to make the Bible the sole rule of faith than he had to change St. James Epistle to read that “justification comes by faith alone.”

The Protestant rule of faith is a denial of the faith of the early Christians, who accepted no such Protestant standard of religious judgment.

 

[Tomster]

The Scriptures were not yet bound together in one collection which is today referred to as the “Holy Bible”, however, when speaking of Inspired Scriptures, both Paul and Tertullian included New Testament writings as such.

Tertullian’s New Testament list includes all the books of today’s NT, with the exception of II Peter, James, II John, and III John.

So, when he said,
“What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.”
he was indeed referring to both Old and New Testaments.

Both Paul and Peter claimed Paul’s writings were indeed Inspired Scriptures:

Paul clearly stated his teaching was from God.
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord

Paul’s authority is supported by more than his own testimony. Peter also claims Paul’s writings are inspired.
2 Peter 3:16 as also in all (Paul’s) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction…

If Paul’s writings are considered Inspired Scriptures, I would think Peter’s writings would also be considered inspired by the Apostles, wouldn’t you?

Was Tertullian, the father of Christian Latin literature, lacking in 'brains" when (before there was a formally codified Christian Bible) he called Tradition, the tradition of the Church, “the only rule of faith.” “The rule which the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God”? It was the Church that made the Bible a rule of faith in the days after Tertullian, when a final agreement was reached regarding the Canon of Holy Scripture. But it was the Bible explained by and subject to the traditional teachings of the Church, for the written word must be defined by the authoritative and living voice of the infallible teaching Church and not by www.familyradio.com or worldwide Protestantism for that matter.

 

[reteeks21]

Was Tertullian, the father of Christian Latin literature, lacking in 'brains" when (before there was a formally codified Christian Bible) he called Tradition, the tradition of the Church, “the only rule of faith.” “The rule which the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God”? It was the Church that made the Bible a rule of faith in the days after Tertullian, when a final agreement was reached regarding the Canon of Holy Scripture. But it was the Bible explained by and subject to the traditional teachings of the Church, for the written word must be defined by the authoritative and living voice of the infallible teaching Church and not by www.familyradio.com or worldwide Protestantism for that matter.

Excellent response. Thank you for putting it so well. I love how Protestants use the Church Fathers, but they don’t use ALL of what they say. It’s just like when they take parts of Scripture to back-up their own beliefs. It never holds water.

 

[Tomster]

Excellent response. Thank you for putting it so well. I love how Protestants use the Church Fathers, but they don’t use ALL of what they say. It’s just like when they take parts of Scripture to back-up their own beliefs. It never holds water.

You’re welcome.

I get some flack from time to time when I use the heretic on these message boards, but, you know what, it’s a perfectly good word to use especially in discussions like these. Picking and choosing, in and out of context, is another characteristic of Protestantism with private judgment being the most poisonous.