Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Root of Jesse said:

We don't know what Scripture was at the time, do we? Much of it wasn't written yet. But Paul also tells the Thessalonians "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

Click to expand...

Of the NT I agree. However the TaNaKh (OT) was widely heard, circulated and memorized in the time of Christ and His apostles.

We do know the NT authors quoted TaNaKh extensively in their writings.

Root of Jesse said:

The Contents of which were determined by the Magisterium under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Okay. That doesn't mean that the Bible is what it is only because of the theory of Holy Tradition. All the church did was to recognize Scripture for what it is.

Root of Jesse said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is first hand testimony from witnesses who had heard, which had seen with their eyes, which had looked at and their hands had touched the Word of Life Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1).

Sure the written testimonies were written after the fact, but it would be no different to a person writing a witness statement for a court proceeding some several months or even several years after the fact.

Religious institutions have written doctrine as an extension to the FACT of first hand eye witness account, by making claims as if it is the FACT that has been both endorsed by the first hand eye witnesses who are the disciples and that it had been authorised by the first hand eye witnesses as an authority equal to or greater than them.

Once a religious institution takes it upon themselves to act in a legalistic pharisaical spirit, that is in the image of their mother relgious institution the pharisaical institution that Paul abandoned, then they make fraudulent claims based on hearsay by falsely saying that that their doctrine is both endorsed and authorised by the disciples themselves.

We have to reject their claims as baseless and since no evidence can be provided by those relgious institutions making those claims, that the apostles both endorsed their doctrine and authorised them to be of equal or greater authority than them, then we must again reject doctrine that is outside of the details of the written first hand testimony of the disciples who established the faith and who had completely taught what was required for one to be saved.

If religious institutions that make up doctrine some hundreds of years later claim that extra salvatory requirements are necessary for one to be saved, that is not written by any apostle, then it should be rejected. Therefore take all the alleged oral tradition and with a red pen cross out any doctrine that is not present in the writings of the first hand eye witness accounts such as ie purgatory, penance, salvation through relgious institution, forgiveness through relgious institution, Chief Priesthood outside of the non transferable Melchizedek of Christ, God the Father had sworn in their Chief Priest with an oath equal to Christ, religious institution is the way, the truth and the life, reglious institution is guarantor of a better covenant, institution is sinless and infallible equal to Christ and the list goes on.

If you only understood what claims are made through oral tradition of men who have assumed endorsement and authority from the apostles, then we really have a completely different faith and relgious institution as compared to the 1st century Ekklesia/Church. The claim of succession to the original faith looks rather implausible as what was pure and original had been altered to suit the hierarchical structure and mechanisation of a legalistic institution that would encompass the globe and involve itself in political matters completely outside of the great commission and outside of what the apostles were involved in back in the 1st century.

As Jesus said you will know them by their works and since a relgious institution has been made an idol to look up to, as being infallible by those making such claim, then we have to look at the works and policies of the institution from a historical point of view and not blame the fallible men who through the institution's policies made horrendous crimes against humanity and all in the name of religion.

I am sure that the apostles administration had nothing to do with the relgious institution that has evolved today from its inception until now. We have a completely different entity as compared to the 1st century relgious institution that was headed by the disciples.

Albion said:

Okay. That doesn't mean that the Bible is what it is only because of the theory of Holy Tradition. All the church did was to recognize Scripture for what it is.

Click to expand...

My theory on this is, that the letters had been censored and held back some 400 years from the congregations, so that the religious institutions would have a generational head start in establishing overiding oral tradition. Notice most oral tradition was already in place before they released the letters in the form of a biblios.

This action was no different to the CIA publishing its reports after much public pressure. The CIA would only give the letters that would give a general concensus of information that would not undermine their administration. Offcourse once it was published the protestanism emerged some hundreds years later to object to vast contents of oral tradition.

It is my belief that there may be more letters archived by the religious institutions that have not been published because they would undermine the establishment. The CIA just blackened areas of reports, as compared to the religious institutions who continue to censor them.

I haven't seen any evidence of that "not been published" idea, but Protestants certainly did not object to oral tradition. They objected to anything (Papal decrees, theologians' speculations, folklore, pious legends, etc.) else being made the equal of Scripture when it came to determining what the church could require, belief-wise, of the members.

Albion said:

I haven't seen any evidence of that "not been published" idea, but Protestants certainly did not object to oral tradition. They objected to anything (Papal decrees, theologians' speculations, folklore, pious legends, etc.) else being made the equal of Scripture when it came to determining what the church could require, belief-wise, of the members.

Click to expand...

It is as I said just an idea that I am speculating about.

Oral tradition through Papal decrees, theologians' speculations, folklore, pious legends, etc is part and parcel of the religious institution.

If you agree on certain aspects of oral tradition as I do, then we should not confuse people or try to give credit to oral tradition, rather we should say it is biblical instruction.

We should make distinctions between what is scriptural and what is oral tradition and to credit what is scriptural to scripture, the Holy Text.

The motive of withholding the letters for hundreds of years before publication, is reason but not evidence that would lead me to believe that if a religious institution has hid something in the past, why should we be believe that they have handed over all of the letters. The CIA has withheld documents, even after they released some, does their original motive indicate a further concealment?

Certainly.

So if a religious institution has historically shown to have concealed apostolic writings for hundreds of years, is there reason behind their original motive to have concealed more documents from being published?

I would think that I am not naive enough to believe that they have published everything in that regard.

So the question I have, is what has been concealed and/or destroyed that would expose today's religious institution for what it is.

Hmmmmmmm......

Root of Jesse said:

Selling indulgences was a practice, not Sacred Tradition. An illegal practice, not approved by the Church, I might add.

Click to expand...

How long was it practiced?

Did the hierarchy promote and act the part?

Did the hierarchy from the pope down to the least of the clergy cite institution's policy to merit their actions?

If all these men who ran the religious institution practiced and cited policy to justify the practice over many generations, then how is it not counted as sacred tradition?

Do we wipe out what the institution represented across a period from 1095 to 1343 and some more.....

2. How did the practice of dispensing indulgences begin?

The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sins. Later, the indulgences were also offered to those who couldn't go on the Crusades but offered cash contributions to the effort instead. In the early 1200s, the Church began claiming that it had a "treasury" of indulgences (consisting of the merits of Christ and the saints) that it could dispense in ways that promoted the Church and its mission. In a decretal issued in 1343, Pope Clement VI declared, "The merits of Christ are a treasure of indulgences."

Click to expand...

It is fair to say we had several hundred years of what you say illegal practice carried out by all the hierarchy of the institution from the pope down to the least clergy in a cash cow that brought truck loads upon truck loads of tangible gifts like a cash converter ready to be converted to wealth and then power.

If several hundred years of this practice is not considered sacred tradition, then what is that the institution does that is in comparison????????

3. How were indulgences used in Luther's time?

In Luther's time, the pope delegated the privilege of dispensing indulgences. The Castle Church in Luther's Wittenberg, for example, was delegated the rare privilege granting full remission of all sins. Frederick the Wise, elector for the region of the Holy Roman Empire that included Wittenberg, took pride in a large collection of relics (over 19,000 holy bones and 5,000 other items*) of saints that supposedly provided the basis for granting indulgences that could reduce stays in purgatory by over 1.9 million years. These treasures were made available to believers on All Saints Day, November 1. By viewing the relics and making the stipulated contribution, the believer could reduce a stay and purgatory while providing much needed financial support for Castle Church and the University of Wittenberg.

Leo X, the pope in 1517, needed funds to complete the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Leo entered into an arrangement that essentially sold indulgence franchises that allowed the franchisee to retain about half the funds raised by selling indulgences in return for sending to Rome the other half for Leo's construction project. To encourage indulgence sales, Albert of Brandenburg, one winner of the privilege of selling indulgences, advertised that his indulgences (issued by the pope) came with a complete remission of sins, allowing escape from all of the pains of purgatory. Moreover, Albert claimed, purchasers of indulgences could use them to free a loved one already dead from the pains of purgatory that he or she might presently be experiencing. The going rate for an indulgence depended on one's station, and ranged from 25 gold florins for Kings and queens and archbishops down to three florins for merchants and just one quarter florin for the poorest of believers.

*The items in Frederick's collectionincluded bones, teeth, hairs, and pieces of cloak and even a girdle from various saints. They also included a piece of straw and some strands of swaddling clothes from Christ's manger, a chunk of gold brought by one of the three Wise Men, a strand from the beard of Jesus, a twig from the burning bush of Moses, bread served at the Last Supper, and seven shreds from a veil sprinkled with blood of Christ. [Bainton, p. 53.]

Here read it yourselves and weap.........

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/lutherindulgences.html

Cash cow sacred tradition......Hmmmmmm......
interesting!

Do you see the 1st century apostolic church doing this?

1One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. 2Now a man who was lame from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. 3When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. 4Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!” 5So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them.

6Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” 7Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. 8He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God. (Acts 3:6-8)

We have a Church that is so poor and gives gifts from God as compared yo another religious institution that takes and takes and relies heavily on silver and gold and monetary means to bolster its institution, much like governments do when collecting taxes.

Can we say that these penances were a form of religious taxes?

Yes. Because it was compulsory to make penance otherwise you would be singled out as an avoider of penance tax.

Give every to pope/patriarch that belongs to pope/patriarch.

Time that we took back what belongs to God. You and I mean all of you are conscripted and thereby obligated to take back what belongs to God.

The very people serving as prisoners of the mind need freeing. So all you soldiers of Christ get off your rears and do your job, rather than feeding and feeding institutions that take, take and take, for none of them can absolve your sins, neither can they absolve their own sins that are piling up from earth to heaven.

Berean777 said:

Firstly I don't buy your circular reasoning that without the canon, you don't have a bible.

Click to expand...

Not circular reasoning. Just basic logic. The bible is a collection of books. The canon is a list of books. You can't have a collection of books if you don't know which books to include. That's common sense.

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.

Click to expand...

Jesus NEVER once condemned tradition. He only condemned the Pharisees man-made traditions that contradicted sacred tradition. God's word say to follow sacred tradition, not ignore or despise it.

Prove that your oral tradition is endorsed and authorised by the 1st century apostolic witnesses.

Click to expand...

Glad you asked. Jesus said the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church in Matthew 16. If Jesus isn't enough for you, the ECF Tertullian provided an excellent proof of it in his Prescription against Heretics which I recommened all Protestants and other heretics read if they care about the truth.

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.

Click to expand...

If you can't prove your books are endorsed and authorized by the same 1st century eye witnesses who saw, who heard and who touched the Word and transmitted to the bishops in the churches they founded, then I can't accept your claim no more than I can't accept the Gnostics and their books.

I must therefore reject your written tradition as it is grounded solely on hearsay from non endorsed sources since you reject the church and her authority.

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.

Click to expand...

Post your first hand witness that says the book of Hebrews and the Revelation of St John the Divine is scripture.

South Bound said:

Don't care

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised. That's the response I get from most Protestants.