A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

[ripple the car]

Most of the problems with those threads you mention is because some want to believe they have to do something in addition to the Works of Christ.

Not necessarily. Most are started by folks who already believe that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone, and still, debate rages.

 

[redleghunter]

According to you, yes, but according to another? I have heared Calvinists arguing pedobaptism based on Scripture, too. Just saying.

Actually what I gave you is a summary of how actual believers in Christ acted on in Holy Scriptures. A classic example of why we must test all doctrines with the only infallible source which is Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.

 

[ripple the car]

Actually what I gave you is a summary of how actual believers in Christ acted on in Holy Scriptures. A classic example of why we must test all doctrines with the only infallible source which is Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.

Which just kind of leads to a myriad of interpretations of the same Scriptures by individual Christians who all hope and / or presume that the conclusions they draw as they read Scripture are being guided by God.

 

[redleghunter]

Not necessarily. Most are started by folks who already believe that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone, and still, debate rages.

Indeed because that is what Scriptures teach.

 

[redleghunter]

Which just kind of leads to a myriad of interpretations of the same Scriptures by individual Christians who all hope and / or presume that the conclusions they draw as they read Scripture are being guided by God.

That is due to the venue here. This forum has limited space to write and as such most don’t bother with exegesis and try to argue via proof texts. This is jigsaw puzzle theology without any systematic approach.

And this proof text approach is error, ignores context and in most cases pits verses against verses and creates self made contradictions which atheists readily point out. Yet we know our God is not a God of confusion.

One must take in the whole counsel of God in Holy Scriptures.

More tomorrow Gracia as it is late here. God Bless!

 

[ripple the car]

That is due to the venue here. This forum has limited space to write and as such most don’t bother with exegesis and try to argue via proof texts. This is jigsaw puzzle theology without any systematic approach.

And this proof text approach is error, ignores context and in most cases pits verses against verses and creates self made contradictions which atheists readily point out. Yet we know our God is not a God of confusion.

One must take in the whole counsel of God in Holy Scriptures.

More tomorrow Gracia as it is late here. God Bless!

Night! Sleep well!

 

[GingerBeer]

Again you have not argued an alternative but have just asserted traditions which you cannot define from your one proof text. Show me.

again you've misunderstood; 2 thess 2:15 is present as an observation about Paul's teaching. it isn't a proof text. the idea of proof texts is foreign to my messages.

 

[gordonhooker]

No did not suggest that at all. Was questioning categorizing what direct eyewitnesses saw and heard and not much later writing it down as “oral tradition.” For it to be oral tradition it would have continued to be passed orally. But as Irenaeus confirms the apostles proclaimed the gospel in public and then wrote down later what they taught. He calls this Scriptures and says such is the pillar and foundation of the faith.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

Got it thanks.

But as an Anglican it is Bible, Tradition and Reason that form my faith. The 39 Articles of Religion outline my view of the sufficiency of Scripture.

VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION

HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So I’m confused.

Are you stating your beliefs or someone else’s beliefs

I see you must have just jumped in here. I was complimenting what RedLegHunter said in exposing and opposing what Catholicism teaches.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Because CF, friend. Just look at the countless threads attempting, seriously, and with good faith and an eye for detail, to do just that. On every conceivable issue. Look at the huge plurality of individually drawn, irreconcilable conclusions.

And look at just some of the things Catholics can disagree on due to not being defined, or due to RC teaching itself being subject to interpretation by Catholics, and whom Rome overall manifestly considers members in life and in death. Then compare them not with whatever you can place under the umbrella called "Protestantism," but those who strongly hold to Scripture being the accurate, basically literal wholly inspired word of God .

It is not official assertions that constitute the evidence of what a church, people or a person believes, but what they overall profess in word and deed. (James 2:18)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

redleghunter said: ↑
You mean you did not see the posts where Sola Scriptura is the only infallible authority to test truth claims?

But it isn't. Wikipedia is a source for truth claims sometimes. Fact Checking web sites are too. And my dictionary works well for deciding on what a word means.

I never knew Wikipedia was the only infallible authority to test truth claims. You might as well argue against the pope being the only supreme (conditionally) infallible head of the church on earth because there are other heads of government.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Rome? Is that what you think you're discussing?

If Catholics are going to contend against SS, or at least their concept of it, then they must have an alternative, and thus that is a valid part of this discussion.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I do know the NABRE Study Bible (I have a digital copy) has some footnote comments mostly of the JEDP variant but not official teaching. Interesting though that not even those footnotes support some of the Roman Catholic distinctives like Revelation 12 Mary is the woman. In fact those footnotes deny that.

Notes in official RC Bibles are actually required and these are sanctioned by Rome. "Study helps" in the study version have for decades taught liberal errors .

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You could go back to my earlier post and see the rest of what it says.
A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

That post

"That's a rash conclusion to reach. How did you manage it. It isn't implied by anything in the Thessalonian letters or in anything written in my messages"

is simply a denial of what you said.

The post at issue is your reply to RLH on "what exactly" are "the traditions that he passed on to the Thessalonians" to which you responded, "You could read the two letters to the Thessalonians if you want to know what Paul says."

Which thus means, as said but denied by you, that the traditions that he passed on to the Thessalonians is in what we see written, versus being a distinct unwritten mode of transmission, providing revelation not specifically recorded in Scripture, or clearly if at all (like prayer to created beings in Heaven).

 

[GingerBeer]

If Catholics are going to contend against SS, or at least their concept of it, then they must have an alternative, and thus that is a valid part of this discussion.

I have no idea what Catholics are contending against. Do you?

 

[GingerBeer]

is simply a denial of what you said.

Well no. It is contradiction of what somebody else said.

 

[GingerBeer]

The post at issue is your reply to RLH on "what exactly" are "the traditions that he passed on to the Thessalonians" to which you responded, "You could read the two letters to the Thessalonians if you want to know what Paul says."

Which thus means, as said but denied by you, that the traditions that he passed on to the Thessalonians is in what we see written, versus being a distinct unwritten mode of transmission, providing revelation not specifically recorded in Scripture, or clearly if at all (like prayer to created beings in Heaven).

That's not right! That isn't what the two letters say or what I said. It's that bad reasoning thing that you did again.

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-17​

Now if Paul spelled exactly what traditions he meant then you'd likely say "see, right there! Paul wrote the traditions down in the bible!!" which would be helpful for you and not for me but Paul was more clever than that. He didn't write the traditions down and now you're all upset because you can't say that. He left them unwritten in his letter. Consequently we're left with traditions whose content is accessible only by means of sources outside of the bible.

 

[chilehed]

Begs the question? You asked for evidence from Scriptures.

The task is to prove, from Scripture alone, that the Epistle of James is Apostolic. Only Apostolic works can be in the canon of Scripture, so quoting James itself begs the question. Like it or not, sola scriptura demands that in order to accomplish the task, you must rely only on works that you've been able to prove, from scripture alone, are supposed to be a part of the canon.

As PeaceByJesus said earlier:

"Knowing books are though to be from Moses or apostles comes is part of historical knowledge, in which everything from parents to magisterial offices are instrumental in passing this knowledge of attribution on."​

The only way we know which documents are Apostolic is through the testimony of the Church. But the testimony of the Church on that matter isn't Scripture, and since one of the controversies of religion is "what works are Apostolic", adherence to sola scriptura demands that one not rely on that testimony and go to the documents themselves. As the Westminster Confession says:

"8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."​

 

[BobRyan]

Yes but Jesus' teachings were initially passed on via the oral tradition and were later written down

Sola Scriptura - before the time of Christ - Isaiah 8:20
Sola Scriptura - AFTER the time of Christ - Acts 17:11
Sola Scriptura - AT The time of Christ - Mark 7:6-13

The fact that someone "said something" does not delete the principle of testing what people say "sola scriptura".

 

[redleghunter]

That's not right! That isn't what the two letters say or what I said. It's that bad reasoning thing that you did again.

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-17​

Now if Paul spelled exactly what traditions he meant then you'd likely say "see, right there! Paul wrote the traditions down in the bible!!" which would be helpful for you and not for me but Paul was more clever than that. He didn't write the traditions down and now you're all upset because you can't say that. He left them unwritten in his letter. Consequently we're left with traditions whose content is accessible only by means of sources outside of the bible.

But you told us to read the epistles to find out what he meant by the traditions taught.