Does this verse disprove Sola Scriptura?

[ChrisB]

http://christianforums.com/t34458 #2

But this was before the break-up of PRE, now we have people with their own forums (Catholics and Lutherans) debating in the non-denom forum.......

 

[BBAS 64]

But this was before the break-up of PRE, now we have people with their own forums (Catholics and Lutherans) debating in the non-denom forum.......

Good Day, Chris

Non-Denominational Protestant Forum Rules

1) This forum is open to all Christians. Non-Christian members are not allowed to post here.

2) Protestant, Evangelical and Reformed members, as well as Non-Denominational Christian members can post fellowship threads here as well as debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations (including the Catholic church), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Protestant members (eg. Catholic members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Protestant or Evangelical doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Protestant. Any debate posts by Non-Protestants will be deleted or moved to the Interdenominational Doctrine Debate forum. In other words, only Protestant members can debate here.

P/R/E's can still debate in Non-denom.

Bill

 

[ChrisB]

P/R/E's can still debate in Non-denom.

Bill

The opening of the Fundamentalist Forum (which I've only seen today) takes the problem away for me at least. The definition of fundamentalist is still being thrashed out there but so far I feel I can subscribe to what is emerging. I still feel that some members want to have their cake and eat it though - having Lutheran/Anglican Forums is fine but they should be like OBOB and not seek to dominate a forum which I believe was intended for members of independent non-hierarchical churches.

 

[ChiRho]

The opening of the Fundamentalist Forum (which I've only seen today) takes the problem away for me at least. The definition of fundamentalist is still being thrashed out there but so far I feel I can subscribe to what is emerging. I still feel that some members want to have their cake and eat it though - having Lutheran/Anglican Forums is fine but they should be like OBOB and not seek to dominate a forum which I believe was intended for members of independent non-hierarchical churches.

If you dont pipe down, I'll steal your lunch money too!!

but they should be like OBOB

I agree.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Carlos Vigil]

No it doesn't. Since there was not yet a New Testament, believers received the teachings of the Apostles by epistle or word of mouth. The Apostles put their teachings in writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is what our New Testament contains.

Hi Brian,
Is it possible that the Holy Spirit foresaw the coming of "sola scriptura" and so inspired St. Paul to write 2 Thess. 2:15 ?

I have come to believe that IS so...and I realize that (my belief) does not bring it about, only The Holy Spirit makes it so... and it looks to me like He prepared us for "sola scriptura".......what do you think?

To say that God's word also includes some nebulous oral tradition from this verse is to make it say more than it really does.

Is it also possible that Tradition is only NEBULOUS to you, (and to other unbelievers),
but it is NOT NEBULOUS to those of us who believe it, obey it, enjoy it,... and most of all , it is NOT NEBULOUS to The Holy Spirit who encourages it and CONFIRMS it, since it is He who put the IDEA in St. Paul's heart in advance so that it could be read by quibbling Christians for all time?

Please don't take my exploring possibilities as "a debate" but as a caution to NOT LEAVE OUT (1) of the precious foundation stones from the CITY OF GOD in Rev. 21: 19-20...(provided thatThe Holy Spirit put TRADITIONS in there for the purpose he intended.)

Have a CONFIDENT JOURNEY into
"The City of God"
Carlos

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Is this a fellowship thread or are you guys debating?

We are not debating. .....we are disgusting, I mean,DISCUSSING!... as the men on the road to Emmaus. (Luke 24:14)

And we are aware that "THERE IS ONE AMONG US WHOM WE DO NOT KNOW," ..... very well.

you are welcome to join us,
you may be the unrecognized one.
Carlos

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Good Day, Carlos

I am still waiting on your imput as the the historical record of this other part of your "package Deal". We have gone a round and around on many issues, with you making assertions with out backup them up with the historical record.

Hi Bill,
(1) The best short-cut to recorded "Tradition" is in the Gospels even though they are "after the fact"; Jesus wrote very little, he read very little to his disciples, the only time I can find where he read the scripture is in
Luke 4:16-20, (although He quoted O/T scripture a lot)...but if you read with your mind open (to Tradition) you will see that most of what and how He trained the disciples IS THROUGH TRADITION. (...handing down orally of stories, parables, beliefs, customs, authority, miracles. etc.) they were awed and "magnetized by The Spirit in Him, Who He Is , What He Says, and What He Does. all of this THROUGH TRADITION. Have you seen or read where He said to them; Let Me read to you out of the Bible???.....NO.

Keep in mind ; ALL He said and did was between 0-33 a.d....HOW DID HE DO IT without the Bible???...the Gospel of Mark was not written til around 70 a.d. I know you can see that "Tradition" was happening ... all through His life. but if you DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT, God won't force it on you.

(2) I am not a Historian, I am a didciple, and I know that The Church has kept a record of all that has transpired right up to this very day , before, during and after the Bible was written, that is why Catholics are based IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. your Church came AFTER the Bible had been around for 1500 years, that is why you call yourselves "bible (only)based"
Martin Luther himself admits, "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists. [Catholics]- that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.",Luther is admitting that Christians owe their bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church,...(commentary on St. John, ch.16.)
Carlos

[QOUTE=]You started out with a gross over simplified attack on Sola Scriptura, then moved on to Sola Fide. AB has given you ample refences and you have not, backed away from your un historical view of this issue. One starts to wonder why? [/QUOTE]

I cannot agree on "Sola Scriptura " because it would have to disqualify all the Early Christians who came IN BEFORE there was any "scriptura". (Mary, all the Apostles, and all who were in the upper room on Pentecost.) +++
The only Authority available in those years was "APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY"
that is;, Men Guiding The Church, as in ACTS 15: 1-35 (please notice that even in verse 35, THEY STILL DID NOT HAVE BIBLES, only O/T scripture in the synagogue.... I have already said too much I may get another warning.
Carlos
(if I haven't been been booted, I'll write more tomorrow)to be continued...


Do you believe that the disciples were deprived of the bodily presence of the Lord? How about the disciples to the end of the world?

Peace to u,

Bill[/QUOTE]

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Don't know why they do. We Lutherans do cherish tradition as long as it doesn't conflict with Scripture. http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.html#traditions

Where did Rome get the authority to place extra mediators in the path of Christians and Jesus?

http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.html
http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.html#article4

I will let others speak for themselves. We have an altar in our churches so this does not apply to me.

http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/12_sacraments.html

All I have time for, my weekend begins!

Hi Recht. :o
Whew!!!, that looks like 700 lbs. of doctrine!

SO..... shall we fellowship on the basis of;
(A) "my doctrine vs. your doctrine ? or
(B) "How shall I make a return to the Lord, for all the GOOD HE HAS DONE FOR ME? ; He carries away our sin,...How can we THANK HIM?
(C) other

Carlos

 

[BBAS 64]

Hi Bill,
(1) The best short-cut to recorded "Tradition" is in the Gospels even though they are "after the fact"; Jesus wrote very little, he read very little to his disciples, the only time I can find where he read the scripture is in
Luke 4:16-20, (although He quoted O/T scripture a lot)...but if you read with your mind open (to Tradition) you will see that most of what and how He trained the disciples IS THROUGH TRADITION. (...handing down orally of stories, parables, beliefs, customs, authority, miracles. etc.) they were awed and "magnetized by The Spirit in Him, Who He Is , What He Says, and What He Does. all of this THROUGH TRADITION. Have you seen or read where He said to them; Let Me read to you out of the Bible???.....NO.

Keep in mind ; ALL He said and did was between 0-33 a.d....HOW DID HE DO IT without the Bible???...the Gospel of Mark was not written til around 70 a.d. I know you can see that "Tradition" was happening ... all through His life. but if you DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT, God won't force it on you.

(2) I am not a Historian, I am a didciple, and I know that The Church has kept a record of all that has transpired right up to this very day , before, during and after the Bible was written, that is why Catholics are based IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. your Church came AFTER the Bible had been around for 1500 years, that is why you call yourselves "bible (only)based"
Martin Luther himself admits, "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists. [Catholics]- that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.",Luther is admitting that Christians owe their bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church,...(commentary on St. John, ch.16.)
Carlos

[QOUTE]You started out with a gross over simplified attack on Sola Scriptura, then moved on to Sola Fide. AB has given you ample refences and you have not, backed away from your un historical view of this issue. One starts to wonder why?

I cannot agree on "Sola Scriptura " because it would have to disqualify all the Early Christians who came IN BEFORE there was any "scriptura". (Mary, all the Apostles, and all who were in the upper room on Pentecost.) +++
The only Authority available in those years was "APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY"
that is;, Men Guiding The Church, as in ACTS 15: 1-35 (please notice that even in verse 35, THEY STILL DID NOT HAVE BIBLES, only O/T scripture in the synagogue.... I have already said too much I may get another warning.
Carlos
(if I haven't been been booted, I'll write more tomorrow)to be continued...

Do you believe that the disciples were deprived of the bodily presence of the Lord? How about the disciples to the end of the world?

Peace to u,

Bill

Good Day, Carlos

This will be my last post here as we have gone around and around. The clear indications of history do not support many of the assertions you have made here. You said you are not an historian, neither am I though I may be a student of history. You may do yourself wonders if you take the study of history more to heart, and view that history as history instead of what some one tells you it is.

You have stated that you have some 2000 yrs of history for some "package", but then admit you give little credance to that history as history. Until you can historic standards to back up your claim they remain baseless assertions on your part lack any authority from an historical Point of view.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[ChiRho]

Martin Luther himself admits, "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists. [Catholics]- that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.",Luther is admitting that Christians owe their bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church,...(commentary on St. John, ch.16.)

In one post you want to paint Martin Luther as a lunatic and an heretic, then in another post, you seem to twist his words for support of your argument.

Which is it Carlos...are his words credible or not?

Lutheranism does not throw out tradition, and in fact, upholds and encourages tradition that agrees with Holy Writ.

Here is my question:

If one was to place Scripture and tradition on the same plane, what does one do when Holy Scripture and tradition are in conflict?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Carlos Vigil]

In one post you want to paint Martin Luther as a lunatic and an heretic, then in another post, you seem to twist his words for support of your argument.

Which is it Carlos...are his words credible or not?

He is like the rest of us; some of his words are credible and some are not.
we all know in part and we prophecy in part.
We all have at least (2) opinions on every subject, (just like we all have (2)armpits.)...But Jesus Christ is building ONLY (1) CHURCH.

Lutheranism does not throw out tradition, and in fact, upholds and encourages tradition that agrees with Holy Writ.

Amen. Alelluia!...so when we throw away what is not scriptural, let us be careful not to throw out WHAT IS!.....There are "churches" who in throwing away all traditions, have thrown away the NEW COVENANT.
Hopefully, you are not one of them.

Here is my question:

If one was to place Scripture and tradition on the same plane, what does one do when Holy Scripture and tradition are in conflict?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

We keep the Traditions that are supported by scripture and by the Authority to Bind and Loose.

Carlos

 

[ChiRho]

Amen. Alelluia!...so when we throw away what is not scriptural, let us be careful not to throw out WHAT IS!.....There are "churches" who in throwing away all traditions, have thrown away the NEW COVENANT.
Hopefully, you are not one of them.

Could you define NEW COVENANT for me, to avoid equivocation.

We keep the Traditions that are supported by scripture and by the Authority to Bind and Loose.

Authority to Bind and Loose? Again could you explain this in detail so I know we are talking about the same thing?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[ChiRho]

He is like the rest of us; some of his words are credible and some are not.
we all know in part and we prophecy in part.
We all have at least (2) opinions on every subject, (just like we all have (2)armpits.)...But Jesus Christ is building ONLY (1) CHURCH.

Ok, I guess. The armpit thing is way weird...ummm, I am not sure that it even relates outside of the number 2?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Could you define NEW COVENANT for me, to avoid equivocation.

Exodus 24:3-8 is the Old Covenant, which POINTS TO The New Covenant.
3. Moses builds an ALTAR
4. Sacrifices a PEACE OFFERING.
3. Sprinkles 2/2 of the blood ON THE ALTAR.
4. Reads The Covenant to the people assembled.
5. People COMMITTED to OBEY.
6. Sprinkles 1/2 of the blood ON the people.
7. The blood on the ALTAR and on the PEOPLE =
God's Covenant according to the WORDS Moses RECEIVED,
SPOKE, WROTE, and READ.

Jer.31:31-34 / 2 Cor. 3:6

The NEW COVENANT is similar but more ELOQUENT (Heb. 12:24)
1. The ALTAR continues, (Lev. 17:3-7)and (Heb.7:12)
2. Jesus Christ sacrifices HIMSELF as the PEACE OFFERING (into perpetuity)
3. 2/2 of HIS BLOOD on the Cross to God as ATONEMENT.
4. Reads the Old Covenant, & THE NEW COVENANT to the people assembled.
5. People commit obedience and lives to God; Nicene Creed & Rom. 12:1.
6. 1/2 The FLESH & BLOOD OF CHRIST is offered INTO the people.Mt.26:28
7. God's NEW COVENANT according to Matt. 28:20 & Heb. 10:9 +++
Which The Apostles received, spoke, wrote and and read.

Not many people know GOD'S GREATEST SECRET in this present generation,
but this is perpetuated IN EVERY MASS.

Carlos

Authority to Bind and Loose? Again could you explain this in detail so I know we are talking about the same thing?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Matt. 16:18,19 & 18:18 / John 20:20-23

Carlos