- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,631
- 12,072
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do you know that scripture is unquestionably true? Who gave you the books which most call scripture today?
Did Jesus question the traditions of the Pharisees? Did Jesus not say they were man's traditions?Why do you know that scripture is unquestionably true? Who gave you the books which most call scripture today?
If you doubt those that came together to choose the writings which make up most Christian Bibles, then why do you trust those writings?
We are well past the time where the oral has not been recorded.Writings which the early Church, using oral and written tradition, said were worthy of being called scripture
Since Sola Scriptura isn't taught in scripture then it is contradictory to claim the doctrine. Scripture says that we are to use the teachings handed down by the Apostles, whether written or spoken, so to reject the oral traditions of the Apostles is the same as rejecting the written.
The problem is that this is circular logic, akin to saying "Scripture is true because Scripture is true". Don't get me wrong, of course I agree with you that the Scriptures are true and the word of God. But frankly, a Muslim could use the excact same argument for the Qur'an: "The Qur'an is true because it is from God, and we know it is from God because it is true."
We should be able to bring more rigid arguments to the table when the world asks us why we should believe the Bible instead of the Qur'an or the Vedas or whatever. That's the point being made.
There were multiple things that testified to the truth that what the apostles said was special, so special that their letters were read in church, passed around to other churches and preserved. Even Jesus spoke of things that testified to his authority. Show me any other doing what Jesus and the apostles did and I will grant you the authority of a prophet. Regardless, scripture is closed with John's book of Revelation and everything we need to know for salvation is sufficiently contained in the Bible.The Bereans can actually be used as an argument against Sola Scriptura. They studied the Scriptures, and when they understood that Paul was preaching the truth, they accepted the unwritten apostolic traditions Paul brought - the preaching of the apostles, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and so on (cf. v.12 "Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men."). Now, I might be exaggerating, but there is still something to this point.
The Bible writers handed the writings and the Oral Tradition which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those they trained to feed the sheep when they had passed. They didn't hand anyone Sola Scripura.The Bible writers and copyists.
As i said, the NT reiterates the same message over and over agains, so there is no missing out of the truth. Why do you want to argue over whos bible is bigger?
And? Just what does the tradition of the Pharisees have to do with the Christian Bible? Oh yeah, they decided to devise their own canon of the Jewish writings which removed several of the books which the Apostles handed to the Church, the Septuagint, and whom many Protestants embraced their traditions and followed suit and removed those books from their Bibles around 400 years ago.Did Jesus question the traditions of the Pharisees? Did Jesus not say they were man's traditions?
Yes, I would much rather trust the Oral Traditions handed down by the Apostles than those of the Pharisees.Somehow you think those that tabulate, bind and preserve for a time the books of scripture are to be some greater authority and guaranteed to always remain in complete truth. Learn from Jesus words to those of Jesus' time that did what you think is important.
Well, just what is believing in Christ? Do you follow all of the teachings handed down by the Apostles about how to follow Christ?What doctrine exists that is necessary for salvation,
that is not recorded in scripture?
No - you have to find "scripture" in the Bible to support the teaching of "sola scriptura"
1 Cor 4:9
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"
You would have found the words in the Bible to prove sola scriptura.
Good luck with that.
One can't argue truth vs the devil. He's too powerful as he can twist truth into lies. Now, I'm not saying one side is the devil, but if one let's the truth be obscured whatever their denomination, then they would have lost.
First, what you stated is different from the title of this thread.
Second, let's keep things in context. Both Acts and Corinthians that you quote are the journeys of apostle Paul.
If the catholic church built its church upon the teachings of Peter as they claim, then we should be able to find the journeys of apostle Peter to back up their claim.
AFAIK, there is no record of Peter's travels to Rome in the Bible.
Finding "scripture" to support sola scriptura seems fruitless because one can take the context out and "find" the earth is flat.
The other warning that one must take to heart is one can't just argue the truth. The demon Satan is too clever and too powerful.
The Bible gives him the title of god of the Earth and prince of the air. He'll twist the truth and convince people of his lie. What is the purpose of demonstrating sola scriptura?
Yes, and Irenaeus was only using the Roman church as the prominent example, not the only example.St Iranaeus wrote
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorantof tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: Adversus Haereses Book 3 Chapter 2 Paragraph 1
Before someone points out Iranaeus’ comments on the authority of the Roman church I would like to point out that Iranaeus can only testify as to the validity and authority of the Roman church at the time when he wrote this in 180AD. The East West schism of 1054AD, and the many changes in Roman doctrines however were not known to Iranaeus which means the Roman Church’s validity and authority today cannot be assumed to be confirmed by him. The scriptures however have not changed so his views on the validity of the scriptures and one’s ability to interpret scriptures without knowledge of traditions still stands.
He lists the bishops of Rome, successors of Peter no other! And identifies Rome as having primacy on doctrine. No other.Yes, and Irenaeus was only using the Roman church as the prominent example, not the only example.
Below is the text of Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, paragraph 2:He lists the bishops of Rome, successors of Peter no other! And identifies Rome as having primacy on doctrine. No other.
KJV says : That you might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written ! : Not impressed with that new translation !1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
If you don1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
If you don’t stay with scripture you open the door to a literally endless amount of doctrines of men : If they don’t have a doctrine for the situation they will simply make up a new one : So this will never end which is why you must stick with scripture : Sola Scripture : Amen !1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
Amen. I have the Lord's commands and teachings. I dont need any divisive theology.If you don’t stay with scripture you open the door to a literally endless amount of doctrines of men : If they don’t have a doctrine for the situation they will simply make up a new one : So this will never end which is why you must stick with scripture : Sola Scripture : Amen !
If you don’t stay with scripture you open the door to a literally endless amount of doctrines of men : If they don’t have a doctrine for the situation they will simply make up a new one : So this will never end which is why you must stick with scripture : Sola Scripture : Amen !
Yes divide believers from unbelievers. Believers however are exhorted to have no divisions. I blame denominational tradition.Matthew 10 Christ said he was bringing in "divisive" and no question we see that division in the Jewish nation church to which he belonged - as a result of his teaching and the rejection of leadership - to it.
Same thing with the Protestant Reformation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?