Sola scriptura

[yeshuaslavejeff]

baaa baaa bareh!

sick sheep ? lost sheep ? deceived sheep ? lonely sheep ? hurt sheep ?
all the above ?
Yeshua came to heal.
Let Him.

(not trusting in 'church' men who lead astray).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I apologize for misreading this. Welcome to the side effect show. lol

No worries.

Anyways, I would not know of the Scripture were it not for the Church, and there were millions who heard the gospel without a single word of written text. Take, for example, the people of gaul in the second century, to whom Irenaeus was sent as a missionary. They had no written language, and yet, in the absence of written texts, they proved themselves wiser than those who had access to written texts, for they turned away the heresies of Marcion and Valentinus, while those who had written texts did not. And so we see those who had Scripture turning away the gospel and those who had no Scriptures turning TO the gospel.

Notice that the text even says that faith comes by HEARINg the Word of God, not by reading them. A person can hear the message of Scripture without it having been written, for the Word of God, being Christ, is not limited to the Scriptures. I would not have the Scriptures, however, if it had not been for the Church, for the Church was the method whereby the Spirit preserved the Scriptures, along with their proper understanding. The Scriptures are all well and good, but Arius had the same Scriptures and ran along into heresy despite that, for his understanding of the Scripture was different. I am certain he believed he was properly teaching the Scriptures. He was, by all accounts, sincere in his belief, and aside from his doctrine, he lived a highly moral life. But he was still a heretic. He thought he had the Spirit, but he did not. The way by which the Church knew this was not by Sola Scriptura. They did not use Scripture alone to disprove Arius. They spoke built on the same faith of their forefathers, rejecting the innovations of Arius because it violated the Tradition of the Church. As John Chrystostom said: "Is it Tradition? Seek no further."

Traditions can change by men and they are unreliable. But the written Word is a little harder to change and manipulate. For example: Did Moses receive stone tablets from God in regards to His Word (i.e. commands) or did he receive it by oral tradition? The thing is that a group of people in another church could think that Moses received the Ten Commandments by oral tradition. They would only have the church's word that such a thing was so. However, if it was written in God's Word, I could verify if such a statement was true, by checking to see if God's Word was in fact divine by the evidences that back up God's Word. You really can't do this with tradition because it can change thru out time (with nobody being the wiser). Also, are your traditions truly proven themselves to be tested in the same way that the Bible is tested to be true? I am gonna have to say that would be a big.... "no."

Hence, why we have a more sure word of prophecy (2 Peter 1:19).

Side Note:

As for your life experience: Well, you cannot base your life experience as being the standard for truth. Truth has to take into consideration the lives of others. A person has easier access to God thru a Bible than say a building with a group of people in it that just happens to just believe as you do. They also will be held accountable to God's Word more easily if they read the Bible cover to cover over a week.... than say just attending your church once.


...

 

[sculleywr]

Traditions can change by men and they are unreliable. But the written Word is a little harder to change and manipulate. For example: Did Moses receive stone tablets from God in regards to His Word (i.e. commands) or did he receive it by oral tradition? The thing is that a group of people in another church could think that Moses received the Ten Commandments by oral tradition. They would only have the church's word that such a thing was so. However, if it was written in God's Word, I could verify if such a statement was true, by checking to see if God's Word was in fact divine by the evidences that back up God's Word. You really can't do this with tradition because it can change thru out time (with nobody being the wiser). Also, are your traditions truly proven themselves to be tested in the same way that the Bible is tested to be true? I am gonna have to say that would be a big.... "no."


...

Seemed quite easy to manipulate and change it when they decided that since an entire portion of the Scriptures that Christians had called Scripture for 16 centuries disagreed with their doctrines, they would remove it.

The problem is that every single thing taught in the Ten Commandments weren't new. They were already things that God was enforcing in action throughout his actions prior to the time of the Exodus. Many of them were simple common sense rules. Do not kill isn't exactly a groundbreaking law, because it was a law that already existed in other preceding legal documents. In point of fact, aside from the first four commands, each and every command in the Ten Commandments had already been put into one code or another, such as Hammurabi's Code. Those that weren't, such as coveting, were enforced by God Himself prior to that.

And yes, I can say with confidence that the Apostolic Tradition has been tested completely, both in the written Scriptures, and in the unchanging nature of that Tradition. It's actually quite well tested, since it managed to survive without alteration for longer than the New Testament has. It was the Apostolic Tradition that Athanasius used to define what is in Scripture. It was the Apostolic Tradition that the Council of Carthage used to accept that definition of Scripture as the Canon. It wasn't the Scripture they used to do that.

Take away what Tradition has given you, and you have to give up your Bible, because Tradition was the tool God used to preserve the Bible.

 

[sculleywr]

sick sheep ? lost sheep ? deceived sheep ? lonely sheep ? hurt sheep ?
all the above ?
Yeshua came to heal.
Let Him.

(not trusting in 'church' men who lead astray).

responding to a joke with an irrelevant and disjointed post. Classic.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Seemed quite easy to manipulate and change it when they decided that since an entire portion of the Scriptures that Christians had called Scripture for 16 centuries disagreed with their doctrines, they would remove it.

The problem is that every single thing taught in the Ten Commandments weren't new. They were already things that God was enforcing in action throughout his actions prior to the time of the Exodus. Many of them were simple common sense rules. Do not kill isn't exactly a groundbreaking law, because it was a law that already existed in other preceding legal documents. In point of fact, aside from the first four commands, each and every command in the Ten Commandments had already been put into one code or another, such as Hammurabi's Code. Those that weren't, such as coveting, were enforced by God Himself prior to that.

And yes, I can say with confidence that the Apostolic Tradition has been tested completely, both in the written Scriptures, and in the unchanging nature of that Tradition. It's actually quite well tested, since it managed to survive without alteration for longer than the New Testament has. It was the Apostolic Tradition that Athanasius used to define what is in Scripture. It was the Apostolic Tradition that the Council of Carthage used to accept that definition of Scripture as the Canon. It wasn't the Scripture they used to do that.

Take away what Tradition has given you, and you have to give up your Bible, because Tradition was the tool God used to preserve the Bible.

Yes. I agree. The 10 Commandments were not new. They were already in existence. The Written Word merely confirms the Spoken Word. This is how it was then and how it is now. God does not change. Even Jesus will have words written upon Him when He returns.


...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

responding to a joke with an irrelevant and disjointed post. Classic.

No.
Responding to you,
as Yhwh the Healer leads me in Truth according to His Word and His Spirit.
He always has desired to heal you.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I know a person who truly loves Christ and truly does want to follow Him, but cannot bring himself to believe in the Trinity. I do think he is sincere in his desire, but something in him is preventing him from accepting that fundamental Truth. Will he be saved? I do not know, for salvation is not something I can know of a person.

But he truly believes he is led by the Spirit into rejecting the Trinity. I actually know several people who believe this. They are all extremely sincere, extremely moral people. But they are, for all of their sincerity, sincerely deceived into following a doctrine of Satan, for that is what the heresy of Arianism is. What they believe to be following the Spirit is, in truth, following Satan in disguise. So when you claim to be following the Spirit, and what you are preaching is something that is only 500-ish years old, I'll keep my doubts, because we must preserve some skepticism for all new teachings, for there is nothing new that is true. All that we needed was delivered to the Apostles by Christ Himself. Anything that was not there in the beginning can only ever be something that is harmless to the Faith. It can never be part of the Faith.

Is there anything in scipture or tradition that requires belief in the Trinity for salvatiion? I can say in scripture no. What says tradition and who wrote it?
As for needing the Holy Spirit in an individuals life....this is far better than I could ever write:
Using the bible, the Spirit teaches and convicts us of the truth and assures us that they are saved (1Jn 3:24, 2Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13; 4:30)

It is the Spirit in our lives that unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom 6:1-11, Gal 2:20). Being ‘in Christ’ by the Spirit secures our completeness (Col 2:9-10). Being ‘in Christ’ by the Spirit unites us with others (1 Cor 12:12-13, Eph 4:4-6)

He empowers us to do what is right, live in faith and do good works (Ro 7:18, Eph 2:4-10). It is always God’s work in us that means that we are saved in Christ and living new lives for him. It is the Spirit that makes Christians aware of their sin and empowers them to turn away in repentance.

It is the Spirit who distinguishes us from unbelievers (Eph 2:12,1 Cor 15:21ff) and empowers us for mission in the world (Acts 2:1).

The Spirit is an essential part of the Christian life, the Spirit is how God works in his people until the second coming of Christ. The Spirit helps Christians to understand the word of God and live it out in their lives today.
http://christianity.net.au/questions/why_do_we_need_the_holy_spirit

 

[sculleywr]

Yes. I agree. The 10 Commandments were not new. They were already in existence. The Written Word merely confirms the Spoken Word. This is how it was then and how it is now. God does not change. Even Jesus will have words written upon Him when He returns.


...

This is the thing. The Scripture doesn't contradict the Apostolic Tradition. It confirms and lives alongside it as the heart lives alongside the rest of the body. Without the heart, the body cannot live, but the heart cannot live without the body, either. Without the oxygen from the lungs, the nutrients from the GI tract, and the electrical impulses sent from the brain, the heart cannot properly function. The Tradition is the whole of the Word of God, for it is the message of Christ. It is the written and oral Tradition together that we must live by. And if God is not powerful enough to preserve both so that we might follow them both as He commands us in the written Tradition in Scripture, or simply chooses not to preserve both, then He is not worthy of worship.

 

[sculleywr]

Is there anything in scipture or tradition that requires belief in the Trinity for salvatiion? I can say in scripture no. What says tradition and who wrote it?
As for needing the Holy Spirit in an individuals life....this is far better than I could ever write:
Using the bible, the Spirit teaches and convicts us of the truth and assures us that they are saved (1Jn 3:24, 2Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13; 4:30)

It is the Spirit in our lives that unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom 6:1-11, Gal 2:20). Being ‘in Christ’ by the Spirit secures our completeness (Col 2:9-10). Being ‘in Christ’ by the Spirit unites us with others (1 Cor 12:12-13, Eph 4:4-6)

He empowers us to do what is right, live in faith and do good works (Ro 7:18, Eph 2:4-10). It is always God’s work in us that means that we are saved in Christ and living new lives for him. It is the Spirit that makes Christians aware of their sin and empowers them to turn away in repentance.

It is the Spirit who distinguishes us from unbelievers (Eph 2:12,1 Cor 15:21ff) and empowers us for mission in the world (Acts 2:1).

The Spirit is an essential part of the Christian life, the Spirit is how God works in his people until the second coming of Christ. The Spirit helps Christians to understand the word of God and live it out in their lives today.
http://christianity.net.au/questions/why_do_we_need_the_holy_spirit

If salvation is a relationship with Christ, then yes, it most certainly does require belief in the Trinity. Can a person have a real relationship that is based on a false belief about the other person in the relationship? Could someone have a relationship with you if they believed you were a practicing homosexual and wouldn't change that belief despite what you said?

See, this is ignoring the point. The Spirit does not lead into false heresies. If salvation is about having a relationship with Christ, then yes, the truth about Who Christ is will be absolutely essential to that salvation, because you cannot have a real relationship with someone if you do not accept them as they truly are. See, the belief about Christ being a human led to fundamental differences in how Arians lived and worshiped. They would not received the Communion because of this belief.

True Doctrine effects true worship, and true worship effects right living.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If salvation is a relationship with Christ, then yes, it most certainly does require belief in the Trinity.

You are making a bold statement here so I am "calling you out" on it. I have asked at least twice for references from tradition that supports your view and have received no response to those requests. So, one more time. Nothing in scripture requires belief in the Trinity (I am Trinitarian BTW); what, if anything, in tradition supports your view that salvation requires belief in the Trinity? Please quote what supports your view and who wrote it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Amein, and shalom in Yeshua to you and your household TODAY.

That's very kind of you, grace to you and peace through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:

The Lord bless you
 and keep you;

the Lord make his face shine on you
 and be gracious to you;

the Lord turn his face toward you
 and give you peace. (Numbers 6:24-26)​

re "each trying to get as close as possible" .....
Amein again.
Instead of , as Yeshua warns, running after 'credentials' over there, or 'formula for salvation or healing' over here, or any such thing (false teachers/ false prophets/ deceivers ; very common then and also TODAY) ...

Unfortunately that is very much the case, certain men will always creep in unawares. It's one of those unpleasant facts of life for the believer.

i.e. sticking CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO YHWH'S WORD. Not disputing YHWH'S SPIRIT OR YESHUA OR TRUTH, not diluting it with worldly nor carnal nonsense and not going after anything that is not the Shepherd's VOICE.

Not going far and wide to 'discover' new evils to dabble in, nor traps to fall in...

Always sticking close to Yhwh, always every day seeking Yhwh's Kingdom and NOT the enemies treasures no matter how they attract the lust of the eye or the lust of the flesh or the pride of life.

REJECTING all that which is not of Yhwh. Renouncing it all.

Staying in the Truth, Yhwh Delighting, Yhwh Pleasing by Faith in Yeshua.

Indeed we are required to be unified in our faith:

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. (Ephesians 4:14-15)
​

By the way, that same preacher told us something about the rod and staff of the twenty third Psalm. The rod was used by the shepherd to deal with little lambs that would wander off:

Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice. (Psalm 51:8)
​

David was a shepherd so he had no doubt used the rod many times. Sometimes there is a lamb that likes to wander off. The shepherd will break that leg and nurse the lamb back to health, the relationship of the two after that is very close. This is a picture of the great shepherd who wandered off:

This is the shepherd after breaking the leg carrying the little wanderer.

​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[W2L]

Where does Scripture authorize its canon? Where does Scripture authorize the doctrine of sola scriptura?

The scripture itself defines the Cannon. Men used scripture to validate other scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

You are making a bold statement here so I am "calling you out" on it. I have asked at least twice for references from tradition that supports your view and have received no response to those requests. So, one more time. Nothing in scripture requires belief in the Trinity (I am Trinitarian BTW); what, if anything, in tradition supports your view that salvation requires belief in the Trinity? Please quote what supports your view and who wrote it.

I just stated the view of the Church, but I could refer to the fact that Scripture and Tradition teach the Trinity, and rejection of the Trinity is rejection of the Persons of the Trinity, which means rejecting the Trinity is rejecting Christ.

The fact is that salvation is up to God in the end, however, the only way that is revealed to man is the Trinitarian God, and specifically, the only place where the fullness of the Truth is revealed is in the Apostolic Tradition, which was given to the Church. We cannot say what God does outside of the bounds of the revealed Truth, however, we know that rejection of this Truth is harmful to our spiritual lives.

 

[sculleywr]

The scripture itself defines the Cannon. Men used scripture to validate other scripture.

It does? That must be in First Additions 21:2-5, right?

The Scripture doesn't define the Canon. There is no list of the books of Scripture in Scripture. God didn't provide a Table of Contents to the Apostles. Athanasius, whose canon you are using, openly stated that he did not use Scripture to validate Scripture. He stated point blank that he believed and relied on Tradition in ALL of his Faith, which would include the canon he formulated in the Paschal letter of 364 that you use today. Sorry, but the person who made your canon directly disagrees with you.

It's just like the KJV Onlyists who claim the KJV translators didn't believe in the use of the Septuagint, regardless of the high praise they directly gave the Septuagint in their note to the reader.

 

[civilwarbuff]

just stated the view of the Church, but I could refer to the fact that Scripture and Tradition teach the Trinity, and rejection of the Trinity is rejection of the Persons of the Trinity, which means rejecting the Trinity is rejecting Christ.

So, you really don't know if tradition states that salvation requires belief in the Trinity? You are simply repeating what the Church tells you?
If I believe something, I want to know it on my own (to the best of my ability) and not just depend on what some person or organization tells me to believe....I apply that standard to my own church regularly......I refuse to be misled.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is the thing. The Scripture doesn't contradict the Apostolic Tradition. It confirms and lives alongside it as the heart lives alongside the rest of the body. Without the heart, the body cannot live, but the heart cannot live without the body, either. Without the oxygen from the lungs, the nutrients from the GI tract, and the electrical impulses sent from the brain, the heart cannot properly function. The Tradition is the whole of the Word of God, for it is the message of Christ. It is the written and oral Tradition together that we must live by. And if God is not powerful enough to preserve both so that we might follow them both as He commands us in the written Tradition in Scripture, or simply chooses not to preserve both, then He is not worthy of worship.

If Scripture confirms the use of tradition today, then we should see the Written Word confirm such a thing. However, the opposite is what we see. Jesus actually condemned the traditions of the Pharisees and there is no mention of any new traditions that we are to follow outside of written Scripture. Meaning, there was no written command saying.... "Follow whatever new teaching the church tells you and consider it as sacred Scripture." Also, they should refer back and forth to each other (making it unmistakable that they are both necessary). But I get no indication in God's Word that this is the case.


....

 

[civilwarbuff]

I just stated the view of the Church, but I could refer to the fact that Scripture and Tradition teach the Trinity, and rejection of the Trinity is rejection of the Persons of the Trinity, which means rejecting the Trinity is rejecting Christ.

The fact is that salvation is up to God in the end, however, the only way that is revealed to man is the Trinitarian God, and specifically, the only place where the fullness of the Truth is revealed is in the Apostolic Tradition, which was given to the Church. We cannot say what God does outside of the bounds of the revealed Truth, however, we know that rejection of this Truth is harmful to our spiritual lives.

Lets try another one then. I asked this question in an earlier post but never got a response to my request.
You said:
sculleywr said: ↑
The Scripture never claims to hold everything we need to worship God, because it, quite frankly, doesn't.
I asked:

Then what is missing from scripture that is needed to worship God that is found in holy tradition? And who is the author of that tradition?

Can you answer those 2 questions?

 

[sculleywr]

So, you really don't know if tradition states that salvation requires belief in the Trinity? You are simply repeating what the Church tells you?
If I believe something, I want to know it on my own (to the best of my ability) and not just depend on what some person or organization tells me to believe....I apply that standard to my own church regularly......I refuse to be misled.

The problem is that you cannot know something that God has not revealed. He has revealed the Trinity to be true. Therefore if a person has been shown the Trinity and rejects it, it is something that could effect their salvation, but you can no more know the status of another person's salvation than you know the nature of what is beyond the event horizon of a black hole. For me, as myself, yes it is necessary for me to accept the Trinity because it has been revealed to me. But what of the person who lives in the jungle who never heard of the Church, of Christ, or any of the gospel, but knows that God exists, knows in his conscience the basic moral code which God gives us all, and lives by it to the best of his ability? Can I say anything of his salvation? No. His salvation is not revealed in Scripture or Tradition.

There are many things that are not revealed by God. But if God reveals it to us, then we must accept it, because God is the revealer. You can be misled much more easily trying to trust in your own perception, but there is wisdom in the council of many. This is why the Apostles set the example of holding a Council of the WHOLE of the Church, gathering leaders from across the entire reach of the Church as best they could in the book of Acts. This was not simply a special occassion. It was them showing us how leading the Church was to be done.

 

[sculleywr]

Lets try another one then. I asked this question in an earlier post but never got a response to my request.
You said:
sculleywr said: ↑
The Scripture never claims to hold everything we need to worship God, because it, quite frankly, doesn't.
I asked:

Can you answer those 2 questions?

Let's see a few things. Scripture tells us we must receive Communion. Does it ever tell us how? No. That is something that Tradition DOES show us and is practiced in the Divine Liturgy during the Liturgy of the Faithful every week and sometimes daily in some places.
Scripture tells us that we should be married, but does it ever tell us how to perform the marriage? Not in detail. Tradition does include that.

Scripture also includes no explanation of what the Leitourgia (word that is not translated properly in most New Testaments, but instead ends up doubling as Ministry instead of its historical use as reference to liturgy) is, despite its use of the word.

 

[sculleywr]

If Scripture confirms the use of tradition today, then we should see the Written Word confirm such a thing. However, the opposite is what we see. Jesus actually condemned the traditions of the Pharisees and there is no mention of any new traditions that we are to follow outside of written Scripture. Meaning, there was no written command saying.... "Follow whatever new teaching the church tells you and consider it as sacred Scripture." Also, they should refer back and forth to each other (making it unmistakable that they are both necessary). But I get no indication in God's Word that this is the case.


....

it does. Second Thessalonians even commands Tradition. But Tradition is not new teaching. That is, quite literally, the opposite of the meaning of Tradition. You may as well say that black is white.

The Tradition of the Church is defined by Irenaeus as "That Tradition, which was delivered by the Apostles, and preserved by the successions of the Presbyters in the Church.

You get no indication of your definition of Tradition because your definition of Tradition is a strawman that isn't the Orthodox Church's definition of Tradition.