Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura
- Thread starter AnticipateHisComing
- Start date
samir
Well-Known Member
That also applies to the apostles' oral tradition.
Church tradition is based on apostolic teaching. I think what you meant to say is the apostles' oral teaching must be in submission to your 21st century personal interpretation of what the apostles wrote. The problem with that is it makes your opinions and human reasoning (your personal interpretation) the highest authority and the apostles' teaching subject to your opinions.
To say it another way, the book of Acts says the apostles founded churches and taught the faith orally to the bishops in those churches. What they taught orally explained what they meant in their writings which was passed along to their successors. Therefore, rejecting the apostles' oral teaching is the same as rejecting scripture and replacing it with your own opinions because you are interpreting it in opposition to what the apostles meant. That makes yourself the highest authority and scripture subject to your opinions.
Using that criteria you'd have to reject the canon of scripture as hearsay. Without the canon, you don't have a bible.
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Firstly I don't buy your circular reasoning that without the canon, you don't have a bible. I think Jesus told the Phatisees where they can go when he said.....
And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
You make the same circular reasoning as the Pharisees in that you claim...
That you have canon of scripture through oral tradition.
Prove that your oral tradition is endorsed and authorised by the 1st century apostolic witnesses.
If you can't prove your oral tradition is endorsed and authorised by the same 1st century eye witnesses who saw, who heard and who touched the Word, then I can't accept your claim no more than I can't accept the Bahai faith claim of their oral tradition.
I must therefore reject your oral tradition as it is grounded solely on hearsay from non endorsed sources, who have not been endorsed nor authorised by the 1st century apostles. Unless you can show evidence of authority, then much of what is claimed is conjecture. Sorry I must reject hearsayers as hearsay is not grounds for evidence, unless you are a first hand witness who can give a witness statement, that will stand up in a court of law.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
If you seek Jesus you will find him.
Faith has nothing to do with oral tradition. Faith is ground in the 1st century message that was complete and did not require further additions by hearsayers.
The 1st century faithful did not require oral tradition in addition to what was instructed by the written letters, then faithful from 1st century to when Christ returns need not oral tradition outside of what is written in order to complete their faith in Christ.
You can choose to continue in your oral tradition if so you desire, though faithful who do not are not by any means obligated to abide or be bound by them.
Your oral tradition is your reward as Jesus said for men give to each other gifts, but the gift of God is faith and faith is not something that needs to be taught or followed for it is a gift from God.
Faith has nothing to do with oral tradition. Faith is ground in the 1st century message that was complete and did not require further additions by hearsayers.
The 1st century faithful did not require oral tradition in addition to what was instructed by the written letters, then faithful from 1st century to when Christ returns need not oral tradition outside of what is written in order to complete their faith in Christ.
You can choose to continue in your oral tradition if so you desire, though faithful who do not are not by any means obligated to abide or be bound by them.
Your oral tradition is your reward as Jesus said for men give to each other gifts, but the gift of God is faith and faith is not something that needs to be taught or followed for it is a gift from God.
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Which cannot be purgatory due to the fact that,
1. The judgment event of 1Co. 3 is the judgment seat of Christ, with its giving of rewards and loss thereof, which does not occur until the Lords return and the believers resurrection. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which (typically prolonged) suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10)
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; (2 Timothy 4:1)
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)
[ The judgment of 1 Cor. 3:15 will reveal what manner of workmanship they were building church with, for “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,” and while saving faith is one that characteristically walks in the obedience of faith, (Heb. 5:9) believers may suffer loss of rewards due to their manner of workmanship.
The fire burns up the fake stones, which like the tares of Mt. 13:40 at the end, are represented here as wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness. Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)
2. Wherever NT Scripture manifestly deals with the next life location for believers, it is to be with the Lord . (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
Not only did the penitent criminal go to "paradise" at death (Lk. 23:43; cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7) as did Stephen, (Acts 7:59) but so would Paul and co. be with the Lord once absent from the body (Phil. 1:23,24) - even though Paul told the Philippians that was he not “already perfect.” (Phil. 3:12). Likewise he stated to the Corinthians, "We [plural] are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8) and so would every believer if the Lord returned in their lifetime: “to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1Thess. 4:17; 1Cor. 15:51ff - even though many believers were in need of greater holiness. (2Cor. 7:1)
Paul confessed he was not already practically perfect, (Phil. 3:12) but he earnestly desired to become as much in this life (to "know him, and the power of his resurrection, being made conformable unto his death" - Philippians 3:10) as he would via the resurrection, yet he knew that if he died before that then he would be with the Lord.
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight). We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: (Philippians 1:21-23)
I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (Philippians 3:14-15)
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (Philippians 3:17)
For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)
3. And as expressed in that verse and others, the resurrection is the only transformative event the believer manifestly looks forward to after this life (Rm. 8:23; 2Co. 5:1-4; Phil 3:20,21; 1Jn. 3:2) — not purgatory, which suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.
4. Furthermore, Scripture only reveals growth in grace and overcoming as being realized in this world, with its temptations and trials, (1 Peter 1:6-7; 1Jn.2:14; 5:4,5; Rv. 2.7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21) where alternatives to submitting to God can be made (suffering itself does not make one mature) and thus it was here that the Lord Himself was made “perfect,” (Heb. 2:10) as in being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15)
Thus what Scripture teaches is that it is on earth that testing and overcoming takes place, and that the elect go to be with the Lord upon death, or at His return, whichever comes first, and then they are judged as to the manner of works, reflecting their faith, and rewarded or suffer loss of rewards.
While perfection of character in this life. Mt 5:48 is invoked in support of this perfection being needed to be with God (which in context refers to treating your enemy benevolently), yet this does not teach that the achievement of absolute moral perfection in this life is a perquisite for salvation, which idea requires redefining salvation as to mean progressing to a state of being just enough by moral perfection to be with the Lord, and that being absent from the body means present in purgatory, not with the Lord, contrary to what is expressly stated. And which is akin to placing one under the Law, (Gal. 3:10) versus justification by imputed righteousness (justifying the unGodly by faith: Rm. 4:5) appropriated by a faith, but a faith which effects holiness.
For while salvific faith is one which characteristically effects the “obedience of faith” toward its Object (which faith in any moral authority will do), and which is an overcoming kind of faith, (Rv. 2,3), and grows towards the maturity which is called perfection, (Col. 1:28; 4:12; Ja. 1:4; 3:2; 1Jn. 4:17) and which faith has “great recompense of reward,” (Heb. 10:35), yet Scripture states that believers (being of true faith) are presently saved (Titus 3:5), and positionally perfect (Heb. 10:14) and seated in Heaven. (Eph. 2:6) And thus Christ can dwell with them now - "Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27) - and as shown, they can and will go to be with the Lord at death, or at the Lord's return.
Finally, your own interpretation of 1Co. 3 is not one which is even officially taught by Rome as requiring assent, and is contradicted by the notes in your own NAB states,
The text of ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this. - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ8.HTM#$4AC
Upvote
0
ChristsSoldier115
Mabaho na Kuya
- Jul 30, 2013
- 6,765
- 1,601
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
That is what I am talking about. If "God" told me that wearing big foam cowboy hats was the only way to salvation. I would question whether that is God at all, since scripture clearly states otherwise.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Right. I wasn't quite sure what position you were taking in that previous post, but I'm always wary of people saying that they heard God last night and he told them something that reverses Scripture, as though God changes the revelation given to the whole of Mankind by whispering something in the ear of one person somewhere.
If is it something that would apply only to that person, well, maybe then. But I don't really think that God works that way except in extraordinarily important situations such as with Saul on the road to Damascus.
Upvote
0
Is the "canon" a tradition/teaching passed down from Christ? Is it a teaching of Christ that is absent from the Bible? An unanswered claim by sculleywr was the discussion. He argued that Jesus taught more than what was recorded in our scripture/canon. I just ask for one simple example of something that Jesus taught that is required for salvation and is not stated in scripture. I argue for a point, not just to "win" an argument.
Samir, your answer is just asinine. It skirts the point of the question in the most legalistic way. You fail to defend your belief.
If the canon is the only "tradition" you can come up with, then there is no difference between SS and Catholics.
Samir, You follow SS.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Selling indulgences was a practice, not Sacred Tradition. An illegal practice, not approved by the Church, I might add.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The Canon of Scripture (Table of Contents) is not in Scripture.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Right. But his complaint was with the local church, not the Church in general. Priests need to complain locally before they go up the chain of command, as Christ suggested.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The Church was allowing no such thing. The Church allowed fund raising for the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica.
I make no claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching. My claim is that selling indulgences is not part of Church teaching.
Where does this say that selling indulgences is permitted???
Right. Just try to understand what an indulgence is, and how it is obtained:
From Wiki:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as "a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".[2]
The recipient of an indulgence must perform an action to receive it. This is most often the saying (once, or many times) of a specified prayer, but may also include the visiting of a particular place, or the performance of specificgood works.
Indulgences were introduced to allow for the remission of the severe penances of the early Church and granted at the intercession of Christians awaiting martyrdom or at least imprisoned for the faith.[3] They draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints.[4] They are granted for specific good works and prayers[4] in proportion to the devotion with which those good works are performed or prayers recited.[5]
By the late Middle Ages, the abuse of indulgences, mainly through commercialization, had become a serious problem which the Church recognized but was unable to restrain effectively. Indulgences were from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation a target of attacks by Martin Luther and all other Protestant theologians. Eventually the Catholic Counter-Reformation curbed the excesses, but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life. Reforms in the 20th century largely abolished the quantification of indulgences, which had been expressed in terms of days or years. These days or years were meant to represent the equivalent of time spent in penance, although it was widely taken to mean time spent in Purgatory. The reforms also greatly reduced the number of indulgences granted for visiting particular churches and other locations.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Oh, I answered the question, unless you're saying that the canon of Scripture is not necessary for salvation. I believe, and my Church believes, that the Sacred Word of God is necessary for salvation. If you don't, I wonder many things about you...
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
We seem to be making some progress. Previously you claimed that this fundraising was a purely local matter.
It's not. It's a practice or policy. However, the church does and did teach that an indulgence would get your future time in Purgatory shortened or eliminated or that you could apply it to someone else.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
There are lots of texts without 'official teaching' by "Rome" although, what Rome has to do with anything, I don't understand.
1 Cor 3 speaks of the judgment of God where the works of the faithful will be tested after death. It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively speaking. In Scripture, “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal. 3:2-3; Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49); and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential “quality” (Gr. hopoiov - of what sort).
What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be “burned up” (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13). It cannot be hell because souls are being saved. So what is it? The Protestant calls it “the Judgment” and we Catholics agree. We Catholics simply specify the part of the judgment of the saved where imperfections are purged as “Purgatory.”
What is Purgatory???
"All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (CCC1030)."
Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter heaven" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong..." How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.
In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).
For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in ca. AD 208, this teaching is parabolic, using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the “kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
It is a teaching of God, the Holy Spirit, that is absent from the Bible.
I believe, we Catholics and Orthodox believe, that Jesus taught more than what was written. John even tells us this. We also believe that God continues to reveal himself to us. I think what you need to do is define what "necessary for salvation" means. I believe that the Word of God as spoken in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and taught through the Magisterium, is all necessary for salvation.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,910
- 3,646
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
What do you mean by "first-hand?" Matthew was written at least 10 years after the Ascension, Mark, 25 years after the Ascension, Luke later than that, and John later than that. St. Paul wrote his first letter in the 50's. The Christian Word of God was proclaimed by oral means for at least 10-20 years.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
