Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Root of Jesse]

No, that's just oral transmission of the same information that is available to us in Scripture--the same thing we do around here when we cite a passage or verse from the Bible but aren't actually holding a copy of it up to the other person to read while we make our points.

Paul didn't quote Scripture, at least the New Testament, because it wasn't available to quote. He taught the concepts Christ Himself taught Paul, also by word of mouth, as did the Gospel writers, before they wrote, and all the apostles. Paul taught his people first, converted them, then left after some time. Later, he wrote to them to correct errors they had fallen into. Before he wrote the letters, he taught them by Tradition, which is the same thing we do to this day, in the Catholic Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Good afternoon great to see you about again. Hope all is well brother.

I agree Paul did tell his followers to abide by the traditions he taught them.

What exactly was he referring to? What were the traditions he was teaching them to uphold that we do not have revealed in the NT?

We don't really know, except by the writings of other Christians. So when Ignatius of Antioch uses the word Catholic for the first time in writing, the context is that others knew what he was talking about, therefore the Catholic Church is the original Church Christ created. One thing is true about Tradition: It does not contradict Sacred Scripture.

Good to see you again, too.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Indeed, and a SS preacher can as well, presuming such preaching was Scriptural, subject to testing by the only substantive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God.

Yet as said in my above post, apostolic preaching could include new revelation, and by spoken as wholly inspired of God, neither of which (even) Rome claims to do.

Where does "Rome" come into this equation? As far as I know, a SS preacher can be ignored, because his spoken words aren't Scripture. So if he's not reading the Bible to his audience, he can just be ignored, right?

 

[JohnRabbit]

Paul didn't quote Scripture, at least the Old Testament, because it wasn't available to quote.

interesting, given that he quoted from Deuteronomy, Samuel, and The Psalms, in romans 15 for starters.

 

[Albion]

Paul didn't quote Scripture, at least the Old Testament, because it wasn't available to quote.

Of course, but you can't just assume that every teaching done by people prior to the Scripture being available is totally different from what you and I have in the Bible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, that's just oral transmission of the same information that is available to us in Scripture--the same thing we do around here when we cite a passage or verse from the Bible but aren't actually holding a copy of it up to the other person to read while we make our points.

No, it's not. Your understanding proves that you don't understand what Sacred Tradition is. http://www.totustuus.com/SacredTradition.pdf
Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a Dogma of the Church from Sacred Tradition.

One of the most common is the canon of books that make up the Christian Bible.
Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Of course, but you can't just assume that every teaching done by people prior to the Scripture being available is totally different from what you and I have in the Bible.

That of the Apostles is completely the same as the Bible. Not "every teaching done by people". The Apostles and their successors, in agreement with the successor of Peter, are the only ones capable of discerning Sacred Tradition.

 

[Albion]

No, it's not. Your understanding proves that you don't understand what Sacred Tradition is.

On the contrary, I do. It's not just passing along what's otherwise in the Bible except by word of mouth instead of the printed word.

 

[Albion]

That of the Apostles is completely the same as the Bible. Not "every teaching done by people". The Apostles and their successors, in agreement with the successor of Peter, are the only ones capable of discerning Sacred Tradition.

Actually, no. Tradition is not just what we think may have been said by the Apostles, although we have no evidence of it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yeah, they sold indulgences. Amazing how some try to spin out of it. http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his101/web/37luther.htm

Some people sold indulgences, but not with knowledge of the Curia. The Church has never TAUGHT that indulgences could be sold to get out of Purgatory-that's the myth. It is true that some people made it seem like they could buy their way out. But it's a big difference. I have hear of Catholic parishes that have their own recipe for communion wafers which include eggs, yeast, butter, sugar, and so on. That's not what the Church allows, though. In the case of indulgences, some Catholics sold indulgences in the name of the Church, but they had not the authority or the permission to do so. The Church asked for donations to build the new St. Peter's Basilica. Some thought it would sound good to offer something in return for making donations, but that wasn't the case.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And yours is just an opinion. But it seems as though you acknowledge the practice of selling indulgence by the church.

Nope, his is historical fact. Even Luther got it wrong, among many other things. It wasn't the Church selling indulgences. Indulgences are specific things-you do some charitable work with a certain intention, and go to Mass, and give alms, and go to confession, and then you might lessen your purgatory time. Christ told us to give alms, and pray, did he not, in order to go to heaven?

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's true that the RCC granted--and still does grant--indulgences for good deeds. But an indulgence has meaning ONLY as it relates to Purgatory, which is NOT a tradition but was invented during the Late Middle Ages, shortly before it became an issue in the German states and with Dr. Luther.

You were doing so good until you went off the rails with the bolded. St. Paul speaks of Purgatory in a couple of his letters.

 

[Albion]

Some people sold indulgences, but not with knowledge of the Curia.

Oh, please. Tetzel, who was the indulgence peddler in the German states had been sent out to get money for the building of St. Peter's basilica! He gave out certificates and paid kickbacks to the local prince for the privilege of soliciting there and the rest was sent to Rome.

The Church asked for donations to build the new St. Peter's Basilica. Some thought it would sound good to offer something in return for making donations, but that wasn't the case.

You'd be a good apologist for the Clinton Foundation, if they still need any.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Can you list a single tradition/doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture? If you can't do that than, complete it is.

I have asked Catholics this and they can't. Maybe you can.

The Canon of Scripture.

 

[Albion]

You were doing so good until you went off the rails with the bolded. St. Paul speaks of Purgatory in a couple of his letters.

No, he doesn't. You know better than to say something like that.

 

[Albion]

The Canon of Scripture.

That's not a doctrine.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Is he speaking new information that corrects or supplements what he revealed in Scripture, which itself tells us that what is revealed there is sufficient?

Where does it say that it, itself, is sufficient?

There's quite a difference between new revelation given to all mankind...and speaking, as needed, to individuals without altering the testimony of Scripture.

No Tradition alters the testimony of Scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

On the contrary, I do. It's not just passing along what's otherwise in the Bible except by word of mouth instead of the printed word.

Where is the Canon of Scripture, in the Bible?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, no. Tradition is not just what we think may have been said by the Apostles, although we have no evidence of it.

That's just it. We have evidence of it, which is how we know about it. The Canon of Scripture, for example.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Oh, please. Tetzel, who was the indulgence peddler in the German states had been sent out to get money for the building of St. Peter's basilica! He gave out certificates and paid kickbacks to the local prince for the privilege of soliciting there and the rest was sent to Rome.


You'd be a good apologist for the Clinton Foundation, if they still need any.

Watch it with the personal attacks.