Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*


We may use tradition to discern what's scriptural and what's not.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.;

Beware the yeast of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Chief Priests!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7328728-3/#post50081446
John 14 and the "ruler/chief" of World

John 14:30 "Not still much I shall be talking with ye, for is coming the Chief/Ruler/arcwn <758> of the world and in Me not he is having anything.
[John 18:3/1 John 2:18]

John 16:11 "About yet judging, that the Chief/Ruler/arcwn <758> of the world has been judged

John 18:3 Judas therefore having taken the band and officers out of the Chief-Priests/arc-ierewn <749> and Pharisees, doth-come thither with torches and lamps and weapons

 

[Hentenza]

We may use tradition to discern what's scriptural and what's not.

I believe that it is the other way around. We us scripture to discern what is tradition or what is not.

 

[brinny]

i think i understand the "yeast"....it's putting more there than was put there originally...kind'a what satan did, isn't it?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I believe that it is the other way around. We us scripture to discern what is tradition or what is not.

Didn't the ECFs also go by Scripture?

Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better? - Christian Forums
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Didn't the ECFs also go by Scripture?

Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better? - Christian Forums
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

Didnt Jesus overthrow their tradition using scripture? They say why do YOUR disciple trangress the tradition of the ELDERS (obey your elders type thing, his disciples are shown trangressing them) and he turns it around on them and asked them why do they trangress the commandment of God (and full well reject it) that ye make keep your own tradition.

(Doing many things like that)

 

[Standing Up]

I believe that it is the other way around. We us scripture to discern what is tradition or what is not.

Yes I agree. What I mean is the use of tradition is simply a trace back to scripture. Like the very early church asked, who's teaching it? When did it begin? For example 'praying to deceased saints'. That's a tradition, but when did it arise? Trace backward and there's eventually a disconnect to apostles or scripture or first few elder/bishops, hence the very early church would reject that tradition as spurious. Or start from scripture and move forward. They had two perfect examples in Stephen and James to teach the concept, but they didn't. Hence the very early church would reject that tradition as spurious.

Hope that helps.

 

[Standing Up]

i think i understand the "yeast"....it's putting more there than was put there originally...kind'a what satan did, isn't it?

Wow

Mt. 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wow

Mt. 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Maybe that is where this poster got the idea for this thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t5445935-10/#post35263889
For the Last Time, Roman Catholics Aren't the Pharisees!

 

[MamaZ]

That's not the point. Why you interject in a conversation I'm having with Standing Up when you're missing the point is beyond me.

You asked me if Luke witnessed Jesus Birth. I answered and asked why you asked..

No one is disputing that a baby would have been born, because I'd be able to see it, just as say, the Apostle John would have been able to see Jesus.

And Luke wouldnt?

However the details of the birth were not witnessed by me therefore I would need to have that information passed on to me. If you're a sola scriptura buff, then to continue the analogy my sister would have written down an account and passed it on to me rather than just tell me.

LOL.. We read the account in the scriptures. We do not have the Apostles nor early witnesses alive today to pass it down orally. So therefore what we have is the written.

Had you actually read what I wrote you'd have noted that I said that Mary must have passed the details of Jesus' birth on to the writers of the Gospels. I'm not disputing that John, for instance was a 'witness' to some aspects of Jesus' life. I was not arguing against someone not being there, but was refuting StandingUp's claim about them being a witness.

So Jesus would not have known the details of His birth since He is Eternal.. He could not have passed this on to those who witnessed Him?We see in the OT scripture some of the birth of Jesus.

StandingUp said that they had to be witnesses to be chosen. If you'd read this you might well have regarded further what you were going to say in interjecting in our conversation.

They are eye witnesses to the Prophecies fulfilled. They were Jews and knew the scripture.

IF as you now put it that one only need be a witness to the 'result' of an event - as your put in your analogy of me and my sister* then ANYONE who saw people preaching that Christ has risen could be called a 'witness'.

LOL.. Even the Disciples had a hard time believing that He was Risen.. He showed Himself to them.. A little different with the birth. It was prophecied in the OT and witnessed in the NT..

Is this the point you wish to make?

They were witnesses to the Prophecy fullfilled.. They knew Him face to face. Some probably grew up with Him.

Also, when you can find some evidence for sola scriptura from the Bible itself, that would be really handy - as it's part of the OP

Scripture tells us to not go beyond what is written. Therefore if it is not in the written why should we go beyond what is?

If you'd like to address how the books of the bible chose themselves that would be great too.

They did not choose themselves. God chose them. They were all ready authorative. Men didn't make them that way. Peter tells us this where He states that no scripture was made up of mens interpretation but were written by men moved by the HS.
*-by the way she never had children and she's passed on.

I am sorry you do not have your sister with you any longer. Bless you

 

[Standing Up]

Beware the yeast of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Chief Priests!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7328728-3/#post50081446
John 14 and the "ruler/chief" of World

John 14:30 "Not still much I shall be talking with ye, for is coming the Chief/Ruler/arcwn <758> of the world and in Me not he is having anything.
[John 18:3/1 John 2:18]

John 16:11 "About yet judging, that the Chief/Ruler/arcwn <758> of the world has been judged

John 18:3 Judas therefore having taken the band and officers out of the Chief-Priests/arc-ierewn <749> and Pharisees, doth-come thither with torches and lamps and weapons

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.;

That word spoil is interesting.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Interesting. That word also appears to have the word "gog" in it. [Same as in the word for "snynagogue".

Young) Colossians 2:8 See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil/sulagwgwn <4812> (5723) through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,

Reve 3:9 Behold! I-am-giving out of the synagogue/sunagwghV <4864> of the Satan, to-the ones saying them-selves Judeans to-be and not they-are, but are false.

4812. sulagogeo soo-lag-ogue-eh'-o from the base of 4813 and (the reduplicated form of) 71; to lead away as booty, i.e. (figuratively) seduce:--spoil.
4864. sunagoge soon-ag-o-gay' from (the reduplicated form of) 4863; an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue" (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:--assembly, congregation, synagogue.
4862. sun soon a primary preposition denoting union; with or together (but much closer than 3326 or 3844), i.e. by association, companionship, process, resemblance, possession, instrumentality, addition, etc.:--
1136. gog gogue gog, a symbolic name for some future Antichrist

 

[Standing Up]

.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The term "Solo Scriptura" was brought up on another thread in conjunction with "Sola Scriptura".
My own definition and view of "Solo" implies Scripture only and not going outside of what is Written while "Sola" means subscribing to both what has been Written and the Oral "traditions" of the ECFs and others that claim they were orally taught by the Apostles themselves.
So I would like to here from other Christians of all denominations on how they view the difference and I would like to quote a verse from Paul:

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brethren, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the other.

Sola or Solo Scriptura are strictly man made theology and has no basis in Christianity other than many men through the ages have misunderstood God's teachings and used Sola or Solo Scriptura.

Fact is that Scripture is part of Apostolic Tradition and without all of the Apostolic Tradition that Christianity has upheld for 2000 years we would be Lacking and even Misled.

 

[Fireinfolding]

.

What a wonderful point

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sola or Solo Scriptura are strictly man made theology and has no basis in Christianity other than many men through the ages have misunderstood God's teachings and used Sola or Solo Scriptura.

Fact is that Scripture is part of Apostolic Tradition and without all of the Apostolic Tradition that Christianity has upheld for 2000 years we would be Lacking and even Misled.

Can't argue wit dat bro

2Peter 2:1 There became yet also False-Prophets in the people as also in ye shall be False-Teachers whoany shall be carrying in sects of destruction, and the One buying them, Owner/Master/despothn <1203> disowning-- bringing on them swift destruction.
[Jeremiah 14:14,15/Matt 24:11/Jude 1:4]

Reve 6:10 And they cry out to a voice, great, saying: "Till when the Owner/Master/despothV <1203> the Holy and True not Thou are judging and avenging the blood of us out-of the ones homing upon the land?".

 

[Montalban]

I've started a thread on that. Paul signed his letters, providing a token (sign) that they were authentic.

You've not addressed the problem.

How would a church, say in Alexandria know that they're genuine?

No. You said you could provide an oral tradition not written down. They argued about the trinity for hundreds of years hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth.

I agree, that's an oral tradition.

You didn't say you wanted an oral tradition that continues on to today.

I took it to mean when you said "not written down" as in the Bible. You should be more clear

What's your point anyway, even if it's NOW written down, you don't accept that as scripture anyway so it in no way negates sola scriptura either as you practice it, or as I believe it.

 

[Montalban]

Jn. 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

From his birth? From the time when he was begotten not made?

Still doesn't solve how you know what was written down was as he commanded it

If you don't want to answer that, I won't press you any further. Simply shifting the problem doesn't solve it

 

[Montalban]

Again.

Quite happy to.

hat's only what they only did.

I agree that's all we have evidence of. Where's it say that that's all we should do. That's what I keep asking you for evidence. That's what you keep missing.

Happy to go over it again.

Difference between
a) they used scripture
and
b) we should ONLY use scripture

continually exampling a) doesn't prove b)

If you have any evidence for b) you'd have presented it by now. And I've evidenced
c) that Paul tells us to keep to lessons taught by tradition

I don't argue that this means we should ONLY use tradition.

Not a difficult concept

We know. We also know using anything else subjegates scripture to whatever else.

I've no idea what subjegates is

No pretense here. You're asking for a repeat of your repetitious contentions.

And you just keep saying I don't get it.

I at least endeavour to explain things. You seem happy to simply tell me I don't get it. We come from different approaches on even how to discuss things

 

[Hentenza]

Sola or Solo Scriptura are strictly man made theology and has no basis in Christianity other than many men through the ages have misunderstood God's teachings and used Sola or Solo Scriptura.

Fact is that Scripture is part of Apostolic Tradition and without all of the Apostolic Tradition that Christianity has upheld for 2000 years we would be Lacking and even Misled.

Just because you say it does not make it so.

Hi Jack

 

[Montalban]

Just because you say it does not make it so.

I see you subscribe to the Rick Otto School of debate.

Try actually coming up with reasons for your opinion. Then we can discuss where you're wrong.