Ok then, tell me what led you to believe he is referring solely to the written word in this context, and why the distinction from the other forms of word?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan
- Thread starter Ortho_Cat
- Start date
- Status
Ok then, tell me what led you to believe he is referring solely to the written word in this context, and why the distinction from the other forms of word?
God always blesses us THROUGH men.
The Scriptures were even given 'through' men.
WE are His BODY in every sense of that word...
Christ's (many membered) body.
He has nothing else to use but us.. well and donkeys i guess.
kidding ya know.
Agreed, yes, but if we are able to discern the meaning of scripture individually (i.e. it is self-explanatory), then why the need for councils to formulate doctrine, and why didn't everyone agree with these decisions? (e.g. heresies were developed while using scripture to support them)?
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Other posters have asserted that that church doesn't exist anymore. Shall we go through the changes?
Upvote
0
Dorothea
One of God's handmaidens
- Jul 10, 2007
- 21,649
- 3,636
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Does this mean you think Christ lied about the Church being led by the Spirit until His return? That the gates of hades will not prevail against it? If we do not have the true Church, we do not have the faith preserved from the beginning. And that would be quite a travesty and would make Christ's work and teachings that He entrusted to the Apostles to hand down to the Church worthless. Why would God go through all of that just to have the Church fall apart?
Upvote
0
<playing the protestant> well that is why we have a bible which contains all that is necessary which was handed down by the apostles.
Upvote
0
Dorothea
One of God's handmaidens
- Jul 10, 2007
- 21,649
- 3,636
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
<playing the protestant> well that is why we have a bible which contains all that is necessary which was handed down by the apostles.
Yes, except taking the Bible out of its proper place in Holy Tradition is not biblical.
Upvote
0
also note that the above statement (by me) is purely a faith statement based on an "a priori" assumption. I find that many protestants adhere to similar 'faith statements' which have neither historical nor biblical support.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 36,136
- 4,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Nah
Certainly He uses scripture and of course He goes beyond it. After all, He is the author of the NT.
The Greek conjunction δὲ rendered here as "but" is a weak adversative not for contrast but for development. If the strong adversative αλλα would have been used then you could have a point.
Secondly, here Jesus opposes the traditional teaching and enunciates a more demanding ethic. Christians must love their enemies. Jesus uses the tax collectors, one of the most despised because they collected for Rome, as an example. He continued past the "but" merely to show that Lev. 19:18 is correct but not as the Jews of the day practiced it. Jesus is teaching from scripture NOT tradition. In fact, He despises their traditions.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 36,136
- 4,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Verse please?
*you knew that was coming*
Upvote
0
Verse please?
*you knew that was coming*
We're not the one's claiming that everythi8ng required to live a christian life is found explicitly in the bible...
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 36,136
- 4,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
That is not what she said.
Upvote
0
She is merely stating here that sola scriptura is not biblical. Therefore, it is up to the sola scripturian to show that it is biblical.
Upvote
0
One thing I am curious about.
If Paul truly meant by saying:
that scripture (OT) alone is all that is required for the believer to become righteous/perfect, then why did he go around preaching things that were not found in scripture? Why didn't he just stay a faithful Jew if he thought that everything necessary for salvation was already found in the old testament? Is he preaching one way and behaving another? Further, why aren't sola scripturians practicing jews instead? Why do you need the NT at all if the OT is sufficient?
It is obvious that he is referring to the OT here, as there was no other writing that was considered to be scripture outside of the OT that he could possibly be referring to at the time he penned this letter. To assume otherwise is to assert evidence that simply does not exist.
If Paul truly meant by saying:
that scripture (OT) alone is all that is required for the believer to become righteous/perfect, then why did he go around preaching things that were not found in scripture? Why didn't he just stay a faithful Jew if he thought that everything necessary for salvation was already found in the old testament? Is he preaching one way and behaving another? Further, why aren't sola scripturians practicing jews instead? Why do you need the NT at all if the OT is sufficient?
It is obvious that he is referring to the OT here, as there was no other writing that was considered to be scripture outside of the OT that he could possibly be referring to at the time he penned this letter. To assume otherwise is to assert evidence that simply does not exist.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 36,136
- 4,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The bible doesn't have a "proper" place in Holy Tradition, it transcends it. Only the bible is the authority. You have a misunderstanding regarding the relationship between scriptures and tradition. There is nothing wrong with tradition as long as it is biblical. When traditions deviate, as they have, then they are to be discarded. Jesus tried to teach the Pharisees that since tradition is easily corrupted.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 36,136
- 4,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
If it was referring to just the OT then the verse would have been explicit but is not by claiming that "ALL scripture......". Paul knew that he was writing scripture. There are only 2 scriptures, the OT and the NT. Paul did not recognize any other "scripture". The book of 2 Timothy is generally recognized as Paul's last words. It was written near his death (probably 67ad) so a vast majority of the NT(except for some of John's books) was already written.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
