500 years of protesting what?

[DeaconDean]

And sola scriptura is still provably false.
Nowhere do your quotes say "only scripture"
Which is logically, historically and scripturally false.

And nowhere, absolutely nowhere in scripture does it use the term "trinity" either.

So does that make it: "a falasy"?

But in reality, it is some "hard-core" Catholics, and some "hard-core" Protestants, (I include myself) that make any way of reconciliation impossible.

Now deep down, I truly believe that millions, indeed billions have been saved in the Catholic church. Up to the point of Salvation, I would say we are in complete agreement. But I have run into quite a few RCC's and Orthodox that wouldn't even admit that about Protestant churches.

Its what happens after that will forever separate us.

All I need to know for salvation and sanctification is contained in the scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BobRyan]

And sola scriptura is still provably false.
Nowhere do your quotes say "only scripture"
Which is logically, historically and scripturally false.
Nor was it the way the faith was passed on in the early church.

The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that none of these texts should exist!

should we then "imagine" something OTHER than "scripture" was inserted into 2 Tim 3:16 and Acts 17:11 and Luke 24??

"all scripture AND tradition inspired by God and to be used for doctrine" fake-tim-3:16???

I prefer the Bible the way it actually reads.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (APOSTLES), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that none of those texts should exist!


1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself.
2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.



Acts 17 highlights a detail that defeats the entire argument against sola scriptura.

The Jews in Berea had as their overlords their own Rabbi's their long standing traditions of men.
The "god fearing gentiles" in those synagogues had the same domineering overlords commanding them what to think.

Now as we all know - Paul and Silas come with a Bible-based message that is more Bible than overlord-of-the-Jews man-made-tradition.

 

[BobRyan]

Those who have driven this thread to a debate over "sola scriptura" seem to be arguing that the OP subject of compromise in Germany last month would need to get non-catholics to toss the Bible under the boot of man-made-tradition.

Are you serious? That is what you think they will do??

That is what you think is their only path to narrowing the gap?

well maybe... just maybe .. you are right about one thing. That would narrow the gap.

 

[bekkilyn]

2 + 2 = 0

 

[Mountainmike]

The two issues are not comparable.

Sola scriptura is easily proven false by simple Logic. History, and even scripture refutes it!

The trinity is not provable false.

Read my previous posts... I am through repeating them.

I can only suggest , as I did to last poster.
Follow the lead of thousands of theologians and pastors, who because of study of history of the early church came from every variety of protestant back to catholicism.

Journey Home series - Grodi or Reason to Believe series of books - Madrid a good place to start

You will discover as I did the foundations of the world of protestantism and evangelical - I came from - all crumble on study of early church, and leave you only the choice to return to catholic. For sure, there has been lots of corruption , because a church is made of people, and people are corrupt - as there have been in every branch of christiantity, more so in catholic church because of the sheer scale of it.

.But that just proves the church is needed!

Scripture does not say - "all you need for salvation is in scripture".
You added that along the way.

Answer a question - for you not me - on what basis do YOU think YOU have the right interpretation of scripture as regards salvation? And without authority or tradition you can have no idea. You just have an opinion on it. The meaning of scripture is carried by tradition , and disputes are resolved by authority.
Those are the mechanisms Jesus gave...apostles to hand on the faith, and the power to bind and loose.

And nowhere, absolutely nowhere in scripture does it use the term "trinity" either.

So does that make it: "a falasy"?

But in reality, it is some "hard-core" Catholics, and some "hard-core" Protestants, (I include myself) that make any way of reconciliation impossible.

Now deep down, I truly believe that millions, indeed billions have been saved in the Catholic church. Up to the point of Salvation, I would say we are in complete agreement. But I have run into quite a few RCC's and Orthodox that wouldn't even admit that about Protestant churches.

Its what happens after that will forever separate us.

All I need to know for salvation and sanctification is contained in the scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BobRyan]

The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that none of these texts should exist!

should we then "imagine" something OTHER than "scripture" was inserted into 2 Tim 3:16 and Acts 17:11 and Luke 24??

"all scripture AND tradition inspired by God and to be used for doctrine" fake-tim-3:16???

I prefer the Bible the way it actually reads.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (APOSTLES), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


The argument against "sola scriptura" is essentially that none of those texts should exist!


1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself.
2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.



Acts 17 highlights a detail that defeats the entire argument against sola scriptura.

The Jews in Berea had as their overlords their own Rabbi's their long standing traditions of men.
The "god fearing gentiles" in those synagogues had the same domineering overlords commanding them what to think.

Now as we all know - Paul and Silas come with a Bible-based message that is more Bible than overlord-of-the-Jews man-made-tradition.[/QUOTE]

It seems you need a course in Logic
Nowhere in your quotes does it say scripture alone

So then you are going with the fake version?

"all scripture AND tradition inspired by God and to be used for doctrine" fake-tim-3:16???

I posted the bulletproof logical proof earlier

Must have been pretty impressive.

 

[BobRyan]

"all in scripture is (valuable? necessary?) truth" (what you defend) and "all (valuable? necessary?) truth is in scripture" (sola scriptura) are not the same proposition. There is truth about faith outside scripture - even scripture says so!
It tells you the "foundation of truth is the church"!

The Bible tells us "no OTHER foundation can anyone lay than has been laid - and that is the foundation of JESUS CHRIST" 1 Cor 3.

Bible details matter.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (APOSTLES), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

The point remains

 

[BobRyan]

Please - Please - Study the early church, and find out what Christian doctrine is, as handed by Jesus to the apostles

Please please study the Bible to find out what Christian doctrine is 2 Tim 3:16 and what Jesus said in Luke 24 when he directed the Christians "back to the Bible"



Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which nowhere contradicts a word I said
or the simple logical , historical and scriptural proofs that sola scriptura is false
"all that is in scripture is valuable truth" (what your quotations say)
Is not the same as
"all valuable truth is in scripture" - which is sola scriptura and provable bunk!!


So None challenge the simple irrefutable proofs that the sola scriptura is false.
And with it the foundation of the reformation collapses
Sola scriptura IS A MAN MADE TRADITION!!!!!!
Luther and others invented it out of thin air - and have handed it down to generations after (which is the meaning of paradosis - translated as tradition) . And have deluded armies of would be Christians ever since. So the reformationists are the purveyors of manmade tradition - including all the "confessions" and "articles" THEY added to scripture!

It doesn't matter how many words you throw at a page Or how many bible quotations you use. There is truth outside scripture - even scripture says so - and scripture was not the way the early church passed the faith on. I have shown you the simple logic that proves sola scriptura is the same as 2+2=5. It is false.

NOW YOU STUDY HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH, FIND OUT WHAT IT ACTUALLY TAUGHT!!!

Hint. There was no new testament till centuries later. They cannot have been sola scriptura!


Now tell me. Is your church sacramental and liturgical with bishops in succession> Does your church practice a eucharist of the real presence - the real flesh of Jesus, as the catholic church has done since the time of Christ.
Only at the reformation did anyone seriously challenge that!

If your church does not practice that (and hint...you must be catholic or orthodox for that to be so) you got lost somewhere along the way. Since you no longer practice Christianity as it was taught by the apostles. Read the earliest fathers taught by the apostles and find out what the early church really was.

Anyway...As a Bernadette Soubirous once said: "I am obliged to pronounce the truth. I am not obliged to make you believe it."

So with that and a repeat of what Cardinal Newman said, and many thousands of theologians and pastors after him echoed

"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"

And with that I will leave you all to propagate the anti-Catholic myths -....but pause a while before you repeat them. You are responsible for the souls you mislead. Since you have no valid argument to contest what I say, you are diverting on souls on a disprovable opinion. So be careful.

Please please study the Bible to find out what Christian doctrine is 2 Tim 3:16 and what Jesus said in Luke 24 when he directed the Christians "back to the Bible"



Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[BobRyan]

Please please study the Bible to find out what Christian doctrine is 2 Tim 3:16 and what Jesus said in Luke 24 when he directed the Christians "back to the Bible"

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.

1. Step1 ignore every detail in the texts above
2. Step 2 -- imagine that this next statement is true.

Which nowhere contradicts a word I said or the simple logical , historical and scriptural proofs that sola scriptura is false

3. Step3 EDIT the texts to say nothing more than "there is some valuable truth in the bible if you like"

"all that is in scripture is valuable truth" (what your quotations say)

It doesn't matter how many words you throw at a page Or how many bible quotations you use.

True - you have free will and can choose to ignore every Bible detail posted to then circle back to "that just says the Bible has some valuable truth in it" as if it is merely a "nice to read" and not an actual TEST of doctrine the RULE of faith and practice .

Very very different from "to SEE IF those things were so"!!
sadly

There is truth outside scripture - even scripture says so

True -- but that is simply another either-or logical fallacy -- a straw man

- and scripture was not the way the early church passed the faith on.

Until you read what the early church of the NT actually wrote... 2Tim 3:16, Acts 17:11

I have shown you the simple logic that proves sola scriptura is true the same as 2+2=4. It is true.

But I will grant you that you have made some 2+2=5 arguments that I keep debunking

NOW YOU STUDY HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH, FIND OUT WHAT IT ACTUALLY TAUGHT!!!

We call it the "New Testament" -- the early church Bible writers tell you what they were teaching and show their sola scriptura methods to be God-ordained.

Irrefutable.

Hint. There was no new testament till centuries later. They cannot have been sola scriptura!

Now tell me. Is your church sacramental and liturgical with bishops in succession

That is the sort of nonsense one can freely resort to after tossing the Bible under the boot of man-made tradition.

> Does your church practice a eucharist of the real presence -

The false doctrine that priests have the "powers" to "confect the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the mass" is not in the Bible and is not in any Bible-based church.

And we all know it.

the real flesh of Jesus, as the catholic church has done since the time of Christ.

The Catholic church did not even exist at the time of Christ.

Anyway...As a Bernadette Soubirous once said: "I am obliged to pronounce the truth. I am not obliged to make you believe it."

"To be steeped in man made tradition over the Bible is to cease to be protestant"

 

[DeaconDean]

Scripture does not say - "all you need for salvation is in scripture". You added that along the way.

So, you are telling me that the scriptures lie when it says:

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." -Acts 16:30-31 (KJV)

That right there tells me what I need to know for salvation! And I could throw in Romans 10:9

As far as "sanctification is concerned, Paul wrote:

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." -Rom. 8:14 (KJV)

If I am led by the Holy Spirit, sanctification will follow.

Answer a question - for you not me - on what basis do YOU think YOU have the right interpretation of scripture as regards salvation? And without authority or tradition you can have no idea. You just have an opinion on it. The meaning of scripture is carried by tradition , and disputes are resolved by authority.
Those are the mechanisms Jesus gave...apostles to hand on the faith, and the power to bind and loose.

A tradition huh.

Can you prove to me that what is taught today is the exact thing Peter taught 2000 years ago?

Word for word?

No you can't.

As far back as Clement of Alexandria, we see that quoting scripture, he got it wrong:

"Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 4, 36, where Matt. 5:16 is given τὰ ἀγαθὰ ὑμιν ἔργα λαμψάτω, "Let your good works shine."

Justin Martyr:

"Matt. 5:22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6:29. In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read τῷ τυπτόντι σοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ τὸν αἴροντα σοῦ τὸν χιτῶνα ἢ τὸ ἱμάτον μὴ κωλύσῃς. ̔́Ος δὲ ἂν ὀργισθῇ ἐνοχός ἐστιν εἰς τὸ πῦρ, παντὶ δὲ ἀγγαρεύοντί σε μίλιον ἀκολούθησον. Here we have several verses massed, apparently from two Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, and the sense is changed in the words about the coat and the cloke.

Similarly Matt. 5:46 ; comp. Luke 6:27. Justin, 1 Apol. XV: εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; καὶ γὰρ οἱ πόρνοι τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν. Here, instead of "What reward have ye?" Justin has "What new thing do ye do?" For "publicans" he gives "fornicators."

"Clement of Rome was familiar with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and references to it occur frequently in his letter to the Corinthians; but in his citation of Heb. 1:3, 4, in Ch. 36, for δόξης "glory," we have μεγαλωσύνης "majesty"; for κρείττων "better," μείζων "greater"; and παρ ̓ αὐτοὺς "than they" is omitted."

"Renderings where the sense is given without strict regard to the text are found frequently in Irenæus, who is usually careful in quotation. He changes the syntax, or uses different words intended as equivalents, as εὐχαρίστησεν for εὐλόγησεν in Luke 2:28; ἀκολουθεῖ μοι for ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, in Luke 14:27; πεπλανημένον for ἀπολωλός in Luke 15:4. Similarly Origen, Cont. Cels. 8:43, gives the equivalent of Eph. 2:12 without exact quotation, τοὺς ξένους τῶν διαθηκῶν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀλλοτρίους τῶν εὐαγγελίων."

Source

So my Greek from seminary, is at least as good as these "perfect traditions".

You slay me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Thank God I'm not a Catholic.

Two semesters of Greek, gone!

Even by Catholic standards, I couldn't use it for fear of being ex-communicated.

And its ironic, that the prevailing attitude today, yes even today, they want us to go back 500 years to the way it was.

It reminds me of a quote from a certain movie:

"Dr. Zaius, this is inexcusable! Why must knowledge stand still? What about the future?"

MGM, Planet of the Apes, 1968

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BobRyan]

Thank God I'm not a Catholic.

Two semesters of Greek, gone!

Even by Catholic standards, I couldn't use it for fear of being ex-communicated.

And its ironic, that the prevailing attitude today, yes even today, they want us to go back 500 years to the way it was.

And are declaring the death of protestantism for this year and next as it supposedly began to end - in 1999.

 

[DeaconDean]

Kenneth Copeland makes me shiver.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

As always, we (Protestants) are beat over the head telling us about "tradition".



And almost 100% of the time it based upon 2 Thess. 2:15.

Funny we get bashed for "Sola Scriptura", but ultimately one group turns to scripture to back their beliefs.



Using the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Gerhard Kittel.

I have this set of books in my personal collection. They were a gift from a friend to further my seminary studies.

Lets address 2 Thess. 2:15:

in Volume II, page 146, Prof. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, writes the passage concerning the Greek word:"didaskw."

"didaskw"
Section 3: The didaskein of Early Christianity:

"In a setting where scripture was not known, "didaskein ta peri tou Insou" would be out of place, just as it was very much in place in the early community and in dealings with the Jews. Thus Paul speaks of "didaskein" only with reference to his own instruction of the communities at the time of their foundation (2 Th. 2:15; Col. 2:7; Eph. 4:21)[1] and in the sense of an internal function of Christianity. Even for Gentile congregations proof from scripture was an indispensable weapon against the attacks of Jews, as shown by the history of the Galatian church; and it had thus to be given by the apostles. On the other hand, it seems to have had no part in the churches themselves. When Paul in Rom. 12:7 summons the "didaskwn" to serve "en th didaskalia" of the community, he is not thinking of men who apply the scriptures to Jesus, but of those who give from scripture directions for Christian living,[2] and h admonishes them to place their better knowledge wholly in the service of the congregation."

On page 172, concerning "paradosiV" (tradition) Prof. Friedrich Buchsel writes:
paradosiV

"In the NT this means "tradition" only in the sense of what is transmitted, not of transmission. In this sense, it does not occur in the LXX, but is found in Philo and Josephus and in Greek generally, though less common than in the other sense.

• In the disputation in Mk. 7 (Mt. 15), Jesus calls Jewish tradition outside the Law the "paradosiV twn presbutepwn,Mk. 7:3,5 (Mt. 15:2). He also speaks of the paradosiV twn anqrwpwnin Mk. 7:8 or umwn in v. 9, Mt. 15:3,6" The Pharisees regarded unwritten tradition as no less binding than the Law. Even Philo claimed piety for such tradition. The Sadducees rejected it. So did Jesus. He agreed with the Pharisees that the good demanded obedience to God's commandment. As He saw it, however, men could not add to this commandment, since they were too seriously in conflict with God. Jesus did not argue for freedom in attacking tradition. His service of God, however, was not legalistic, and therefore He would not add to the commands of God. In Gal. 1:14 the paradoseiV are Jewish tradition generally, both written and verbal.

For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15; 3:6; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1-11), and he demands that the churches should keep it, since salvation depends on it (1 Cor. 15:2). He sees no antithesis between pneumatic piety and the high estimation of tradition.[3] The essential point for Paul is that it has been handed down (1 Cor. 15:3), and that it derives from the Lord (11:23). A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8). [emphasis mine] It is no contradiction that Jesus repudiates tradition and Paul champions it. Paul's tradition agrees with that Jesus’ rejection, since they both are opposed to human tradition. Paul's use of paradosiVand paradounai rests on the Jewish usage, and agrees with that of the Mysteries to the extent that this agrees with Jewish usage. On

[1] The last passage is put here because that edidacqhte and the accompanying hkousate point to a mediation of the knowledge that alhqeia is en tw Insou, this being the basis of the obligation to walk in purity.

[2] The context demands an interpretation of didaskein in relation to the up building of the life of the community rather than its faith.

[3] F. Buchsel, Der Geist Gottes im NT (1926), 275 ff.

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

the other hand, Paul does not recognize the sacraments as objects of paradounai and paradosiV.[1] In the days of Paul tradition is in the process of acquiring a fixed verbal form.[2] In 1 Cor. 15:3 ff. we have a fairly settled christological formula, as also in 1 Cor. 11:23 ff. The same cannot be said, however, of other passages like the lists of vices. The paradosiV of 1 Cor. 15:3ff. is older than Paul and rests on the Jerusalem tradition, even if it does not originate in Jerusalem. The same is probably true of 1 Cor. 11:23ff.; the apo tou kupiou implies that the Lord’s Supper, its celebration and the appropriate words come from the Lord, not that Paul received the formula in visionary instruction by the ascended Lord.” In Volume III, p. 911-912, Prof. Wilhelm Michaelis writes concering:

kpatew
“…The point in Rev. 2:25; 3:11 is holding on to a possession. The idea of holding a view, of taking ones stand on it, is found in connection with didach in Rev. 2:14f., though with paradosiV at Mk. 7:3-4, 8 and 2 Th. 2:15 the sense is more than that of keeping or following a tradition, cf. Heb. 4:14: kratwmen thV omolgiaV (hold fast), whereas the sense in Heb. 6:18: kpathoai ths prokei,enhV, is more “to grasp.”

In Volume IV, on pages 101-102, Gerhard Kittel writes:

legw

“…Along with negative estimation we should mention the many occurrences in which there is no judgment. The account of something, whether spoken by Jesus, the disciples, or another, refers to “these words” (Mt. 7:28; Ac. 2:22; 16:36). Or collectively “this word” (Mk. 7:29;10:22), or “many words” (Lk. 23:9). Paul distinguishes between a letter and the spoken word (logoV, 2 Th. 2:2, 15; 2 Cor. 10:10; cf. Ac. 15:27), though even in the same sentence (2 Cor. 10:11) he can call a letter the bearer and reproduction of the logoV (2 Th. 3:14; cf. Heb. 5:11; 13:22). An address (Ac. 2:41; 20:7), an account (Ac. 11:22), a rumor (Lk. 5:15; 7:17), can all be called logoV, and the partial record embodied in a book (Ac. 1:1)…It is obvious that the main emphasis of the term is always on saying something. This is why there is such a wide range of possibilities and such a notable vacillation in sense. The word can contain gnwsiV or true sojia (1 Cor. 12:8). It can also be opposed to them(2 Cor. 11:6). Or it can be set along side them (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 8:7). In the same way word or act, or word and power, can be mutually exclusive ( 1 Th. 1:5; 1 Cor. 4:19 f.), or complementary (Lk. 24:19; Rom. 15:18; 2 Th. 2:17; Col. 3:17). The emphasis of the sentence will decide whether the word intended is empty sound or whether it carries within it a content which impels towards and necessitates action. This multiplicity of possibilities can express anything said or spoken; it may embrace any content of words.

Finally, in Volume VII, pp. 637-638, Gunther Harder, writes:

sthkw

Paul uses the verb mostly in the imperative form sthkete, so that the question arises whether it is for him imperative for esthka ”to stand” as distinct from sthte ”approach.” …Hence Paul can also give the admonition: sthkete en kupiw Phil 4:1. “To stand in faith” is “to stand in the Lord,” for faith looks to

[1] We have only partial knowledge of the use of paradounai and paradosiVin the Mysteries. It can be shown that teleth and muothpion (and therefore things of a sacramental nature) were objects paradounai and paradosiV(cf. Ranft., 181-185). Teaching occurs less frequently, cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 290 f.

[2] A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristeneit (1903); P. Feine, Die Gestalt des apost. Glaubenkensbekenntnisses im NT (1925)

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

Lord and unites with Him. The choice of kurioV shows that the one who stands in Him is determined by Him and receives from Him the standing which is given to him as faith by God’s saving work in Jesus Christ; he now has to listen to the Lord and follow Him. sthkete en kuriw might thus be translated: “Stand in obedience to the Lord” 1 Th. 3:7f. shows plainly that the comforted life and work of Paul and his companions depend on this standing in the Lord…Because the Lord gives freedom from the destructive powers of sin, law, and death, because faith in the promise of the Word grasps and attains this freedom, the Galatians are admonished: eh eleuqeria huaV CpistoV hleuqepwsen: sthkete oun kai palin zugw douleiaV enecesqhte,. All these connections must be taken into account when we read in 2 Th. 2:15: sthkete kai kpateite taV paradoseiV aV edidacqhte,”

In other words:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast (in the faith of the Lord), and hold on to (lay grasp of) the traditions (scriptures) which ye have been taught (through the teaching of Paul), whether by word (again Paul’s spoken teachings (scriptures)), or (whether) by our (written) epistle. –2 Th. 2:15

Paul was admonishing them to stand fast in their faith in the Lord that they had been taught by him whether it is in the words of scripture or in the letter (epistle). It made no difference for both were equal. There it is, plain and simple. Like it or not, believe it or not. Paul gave the church at Thessalonica the option of standing fast in the faith of the Lord by using either his teaching from scriptures (words) or by using the epistle he wrote. And since we don’t have his words other than what is recorded in the Bible, that is what we are to follow now, his epistle or written word. And in light of what is said about Paul’s view of the traditions of men and: “A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8) (Kittel’s, Vol. II, p. 172) For here we read: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” So I doubt very highly that the tradition Paul thought of and spoke of, and the tradition that you esteem so very much, are one in the same. I have showed you from The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, what a word means. Now I've disected 2 Th. 2:15 from Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. If you don't believe that, then I don't know what else can be said. Seems to me, that your being dogmatic in following after the "paradosiV twn anqrwpwn."

Now I’ve said my piece and proved my point, accept it or not, believe it or not, it really makes no difference to me. I’m going to stand fast in the faith of the Lord through His scriptures (words).


All reference work herein are from the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” By: Gerhard Kittel, Editor; Translated by: Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 2006; Volumes II, pp. 146, 172; III, pp.911-912; IV, pp.101-102; VII, pp. 637-638.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[GingerBeer]

Which bible are you talking about? My KJV has 79 books, my RSV has 73, my OSB has 76, and my NASB has 66.

Did the reformation leaders decide the canon of scripture for their followers and do you stick with their decisions. What exactly qualified a book for inclusion in the bible? Given that some of Ellen G White's writings are said to be inspired why are they not included in the bible? Are they less inspired than bible books?

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: Q" 500 years of protesting what? "

A: Against the doctrinal untruths arising out of the RCC's:
1. Sacred Tradition and/or
2. Papal Magisterium
which are clearly contrary to Supreme Scripture, all of which was the divinely inspired and superintended "word of God".

 

[Mountainmike]

None of which altars the fact that Sola scriptura is provably false.
Proven from basic logic. As well as history and scripture prove it wrong.

None of your quotes challenge that at all.

Nowhere do they say scripture alone, and without that sola scriptura is a self refuting logical proposition,and so provably false.

The Catholic Church was the ONLY church. And also the authority that decided your New Testament! Without the Catholic Church you have no bible. You reel out all the usual myths. So sad none of you study the early church.

Ignatius - disciple of John the apostle uses just those words " Catholic Church" at the turn of the first century- in a letter to the smyrneans. Read it, if you want to know what the early church was like! It mentions succession bishops appointed to replace apostles empowered a Eucharist of the real flesh. Which rules out 99.9 percent of denominations at a shot!

Indeed " catholic" didn't even need the adjective Roman till the easterns split away after a millinenium. And even those orthodox who split away believe much as we do on most doctrine,

It is not just sola scriptura that is a wholly false man made tradition and foundation of the reformation.

Take "sola fideii"
Another battle cry of the reformation. Equally provable FALSE!!
You just need one verse in scripture to prove that!

Because The only place the words " faith alone" appear together in scripture is specifically to state that faith alone is NOT enough. Check it out!

Does that not concern you? The bible states clearly that another pillar of the refirmation is FALSE!

To show how far reformationists were willing to go to distort the faith - Luther tried to edit it that verse and book out at one point in history. Historical fact,Check it out. Luthers "epistle of straw"

Luther was not interested in conforming his Doctrine to scripture. He wanted instead to change scripture to support his doctrine! The temerity of a man who thought he could choose which scriptures he liked, and could throw out or alter others if they did not suit him.

It is strange that bible alone folk, then wholly disagree with what the bible says, as Luther did and they do on sola fidei!

Indeed our Lord clearly states many things as necessary for salvation, and others you must avoid. Faith alone is not enough - not if you believe what the bible says!

But as the bible says " by their fruits you will know them" and the fruits of sola scriptura and Protestantism is endless division and thousands of mutually exclusive doctrines. Most of which churches must be false because they believe in mutually exclusive things: and truth is unique, Protestantism is the a house divided that cannot stand. You still have not explained how it is that if scripture is enough... you all come to so many opposing beliefs on what it means?

Enough. I tire of repeating myself.
Study journey home series or reason to believe- Madrid - if you want to understand why study of history forced many Protestant pastors and theologians to go back to Rome.

The reformation was built on falsehoods. Easily demonstrated so.

All I can say is study the early church. It was nothing like Protestant churches and Poles apart from modern day evangelical biblical churches. I was both at one time. I know.

As Newman said to " be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"

He was right.

Please please study the Bible to find out what Christian doctrine is 2 Tim 3:16 and what Jesus said in Luke 24 when he directed the Christians "back to the Bible"

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.

1. Step1 ignore every detail in the texts above
2. Step 2 -- imagine that this next statement is true.



3. Step3 EDIT the texts to say nothing more than "there is some valuable truth in the bible if you like"






True - you have free will and can choose to ignore every Bible detail posted to then circle back to "that just says the Bible has some valuable truth in it" as if it is merely a "nice to read" and not an actual TEST of doctrine the RULE of faith and practice .

Very very different from "to SEE IF those things were so"!!
sadly



True -- but that is simply another either-or logical fallacy -- a straw man




Until you read what the early church of the NT actually wrote... 2Tim 3:16, Acts 17:11

I have shown you the simple logic that proves sola scriptura is true the same as 2+2=4. It is true.

But I will grant you that you have made some 2+2=5 arguments that I keep debunking



We call it the "New Testament" -- the early church Bible writers tell you what they were teaching and show their sola scriptura methods to be God-ordained.

Irrefutable.

Hint. There was no new testament till centuries later. They cannot have been sola scriptura!



That is the sort of nonsense one can freely resort to after tossing the Bible under the boot of man-made tradition.



The false doctrine that priests have the "powers" to "confect the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the mass" is not in the Bible and is not in any Bible-based church.

And we all know it.



The Catholic church did not even exist at the time of Christ.

Anyway...As a Bernadette Soubirous once said: "I am obliged to pronounce the truth. I am not obliged to make you believe it."

"To be steeped in man made tradition over the Bible is to cease to be protestant"