How do we know . . . .

[Uphill Battle]

I think you missed the point. I wasn't speaking of legality, but spiritually. Once joined, there is no unjoining. The two have become one. Choosing another partner at any time after that would be to violate that marriage which God had joined.

Dating is practice for divorce. Get it?

God did not make Adam five wives. Were they legally married?

The ceremony is just ceremony. The two becoming one happens at consumation. From there on out we are to have no other above the person we are married to.

Forgive me...

ah, all those poor people that had sex before marriage, before they were believers.... and then later became Christian, and married a good Christian woman or man.... turns out, they ain't married after all.

 

[Uphill Battle]

wow ... what a twist... turning the resposibility on others...just wow...

what ARE you on about?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Neither is mine.

not far off, though!

I'm asking you to clarify. Are you... Baptist? Methodist? Presbyterian?.. I doubt it. Where is the uniforminty, the oneness of mind?

oneness of mind in what?

the people I worship with are of one mind. Christ. He is God and our saviour.

I guess my point is... well, you seem to disagree with a lot... but most of all with the things that don't matter.

Forgive me...

really? Not believing EO is "one true church" is a "doesn't matter" for you? not believing in real presence, is a "doesn't matter" for you?

hmm.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

ah, all those poor people that had sex before marriage, before they were believers.... and then later became Christian, and married a good Christian woman or man.... turns out, they ain't married after all.

Mat 5:32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I am among them. But I can not deny it.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

ah, all those poor people that had sex before marriage, before they were believers.... and then later became Christian, and married a good Christian woman or man.... turns out, they ain't married after all.

Mat 5:32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I am among them. But I can not deny it.

Forgive me...

 

[Hentenza]

I would say "The Church", which of course is given authority by God.

That's why Christ God established the Apostles and the Bishops.

Forgive me...

I wouldn't expect you to answer differently. Of course, you know who I believe "The Church" actually is.

 

[Hentenza]

Seriously, i could pick up a Bible and interpret it to what i liked...[without using the Catholic reasoning] and it would be sola scriptura, because i can believe whatever i like.

Does that make me right?

So since Jesus said to the woman at the well..
'You have 5 husbands'...
Does that mean we are legally married to the first man we are with?



No. [unless we had wedding vows]

Figured i would answer that. Since fornication is wrong. BUT the Bible seems to tell us otherwise...IF we can interpret it ourself.

Sola Scriptura doesnt work.

But that is not what Sola Scriptura" means. ALL it means is that ALL tradition and teachings must be scripturally sound. That's it nothing more and nothing less.
The RCC has already interpreted the bible by themselves and several non scriptural dogmas and teachings have developed. So, yes, sola scriptura does work quite well.

 

[Trento]

But that is not what Sola Scriptura" means. ALL it means is that ALL tradition and teachings must be scripturally sound. That's it nothing more and nothing less.
The RCC has already interpreted the bible by themselves and several non scriptural dogmas and teachings have developed. So, yes, sola scriptura does work quite well.

John 21:25
"There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of these things were written down, I think the whole world would not be big enough for all the books that were written."


When your Church's age goes back to the Apostles what is not written is heald in Tradition so we don't have scriptural restrictions.

 

[Hentenza]

John 21:25
"There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of these things were written down, I think the whole world would not be big enough for all the books that were written."


When your Church's age goes back to the Apostles what is not written is heald in Tradition so we don't have scriptural restrictions.

LOL!!! Hey Trento, how many times do you thing we have argued that point. You know that I disagree with you. John 21:25 does not in any way suggest extrabiblical traditions being inspired and/or profitable for rebuke or teaching.

 

[Trento]

LOL!!! Hey Trento, how many times do you thing we have argued that point. You know that I disagree with you. John 21:25 does not in any way suggest extrabiblical traditions being inspired and/or profitable for rebuke or teaching.

Nowhere does scripture proclaim that "it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.
We agree that there is one written and inspired, "God-breathed" revelation. As for "one basis of truth" (as opposed to "one truth") this truth is not limited to the Bible, but also includes prophetic and apostolic proclamation and oral tradition, as well as teaching not included in the Bible itself, as seen in the following biblical passages.

Mark 4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them . . .​

In other words, by implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture.

Mark 6:34 . . . he began to teach them many things.​

None of these "many things" are recorded here.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.​

Perhaps these many things were spoken during His post-Resurrection appearances alluded to in Acts 1:2-3 (see far below). Very few of these teachings are recorded, and those which are contain only minimal detail.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.

Here are instances where the Bible espouses true tradition (RSV):

Luke 1:1-2 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses . . .
1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
​

The Apostle Paul explicitly grants oral proclamation or teaching the same authority as written:

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. 2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
​

Most shocking of all (to a Protestant sola Scriptura mindset) is the fact -- established by a simple biblical cross-referencing -- that Tradition, Word of God, and the Gospel are regarded as essentially identical in Scripture. All are conceived as predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received.

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.
1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .
Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.
1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.
Acts 8:14 . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .
1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .
2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.
Jude 3 . . . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. [cf. Acts 2:42] In St. Paul's two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably. Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then gospel and word of God are also bad words! Thus, the commonly-asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically-minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men. da
​

​

 

[Philothei]

Good post Trento...

 

[sunlover1]

Does that mean we are legally married to the first man we are with?

No. [unless we had wedding vows]

FWIW ~ If you have intercource, you are married... the two become one.

Sola Scriptura doesnt work

It works for me.

 

[Montalban]

LOL!!! Hey Trento, how many times do you thing we have argued that point. You know that I disagree with you. John 21:25 does not in any way suggest extrabiblical traditions being inspired and/or profitable for rebuke or teaching.

So when Paul asked us to keep to the teachings sent by both word and epistle he had a dichotomy (that's not stated) in mind?

He really meant "Keep what I've written to you in higher esteem than anything I've said to you, because although they both come from me and say the same thing, one's more an authority than the other"

Is this in the Gospel of Hentenza?

 

[Montalban]

It works for me.

Why settle for half the story?

 

[Montalban]

But that is not what Sola Scriptura" means. ALL it means is that ALL tradition and teachings must be scripturally sound. That's it nothing more and nothing less.

Where does it say this, in scripture?

That's the problem you and all Protestants keep avoiding

 

[Montalban]

It works for me.

Sunlover1, another thing too, I note you've still not shown how the message becomes infallible only once it's written.

 

[sunlover1]

He really meant "Keep what I've written to you in higher esteem than anything I've said to you, because although they both come from me and say the same thing, one's more an authority than the other"

Say the same thing?
What DID he say orally that
wasnt recorded?

 

[Montalban]

Say the same thing?

It's not the 'same' given you think it's only infallible when it's written down. It's a miracle.

What DID he say orally that
wasnt recorded?

Everything was kept. Not all was written down.
“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge…,"
Irenaeus - "Against Heresies" Book III.I.I

As they began to preach at Pentecost, and not everything was written down then, this fits in with our idea of knowledge, not yours

There's an oral tradition too. I should note here that anyone interested in history should note that it's only recently that people have been taking into account oral histories. I saw recently a documentary on the Battle of Little BigHorn and there was the long-overlooked oral history of the victors that was only now being taken into account

By the way, why do you ask me questions and you don't bother answering mine?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Why settle for half the story?

because sometimes the other half looks like it's been ad-libbed.

 

[lionroar0]

How do we know . . . .

If we are being taught a "false Gospel?"

Objectively speaking we don't.

Peace