Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Rick Otto]

Good morning Rick.

I do not know if you recall a thread from a couple of years ago about Sola Scriptura that was very long. It asked "what is Sola Scriptura" and a couple of things I got out of that thread were; 1. that Sola Scriptura has many different answers as to what it is and 2. I learned of Solo Scriptura.

I think I understand your definition of Sola Scriptura but there are many who disagree with you. I have a good friend who is Pentecostal and he will adhemently deny that anything else is used except scripture. We have many discussions and he always rejects anything that is not scripture. If you said that what he believes is Solo Scripture he would think you were making it up. He is adhemently Sola Scriptura.

I think that is what "Solo" means; only source versus the "only standard" of Sola Scriptura.

So now does my definition of Sola ~ as only standard sound more reasonable a process (tradition if you prefer) worth trusting than "Solo ~"
as per my definition of it as "only source"?

Now that we've sorted out what we're talking about, you can make a critical assessment that'll be good at least in discussions between you & me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hello Rick,

Yes, in discussions between you and I the understanding between Sola and Solo seems clear enough. I just hope I do not forget. I am in my forties now...


Jack

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=JacktheCatholic;All of these have been shown as having their roots from the beginning.

Tare roots, not wheat roots.

There have been numerous threads on these together and seperately. So many that things like Theotokos led to seperate forums being created for those topics. In a thread for Solo Scrptura it would not be fair to even spend a small amount of time on proving the Catholic Church as correct in these things, a simple search will provide tons of information.

Tons of error.

I am sure your arguments are not knew.

They don't have to be, they just have to be scripturaly correct.

The Catholic Church has survived 2,000 years and has smarter people than any of us try to prove her wrong.

It doesn't take smarts to do that.
I had it's number by 4th grade.

After 2,000 and with Billions of members there is bound to be those who deny the Church and find ways to dispute the Churche's teachings.

A brave & courageous few that paid for it with their lives.

Yet after 2,000 years abd many heretical groups and wars the Catholic Church is still here.

Satan has staying power too,...

We can see this continuity with the RCC and EOC and OOC only.

Sectarian continutity? A new oxymoron!

If there were any teachings that could not stand the test of time then they would have been disproven before today.

They have been. Not everyone has the same standards of "proof". The alleged "proofs" for the errors begun 2,000 years ago have been resisted & refuted by at least a remnant for that long.

I guess some may argue that the founder of their church was that person. Maybe Luther or Zwingli, or calvin or King Henry VIII or one of the many that have made their Church since these men. But only the RCC and EOC and OOC have a continuos line going back to the Apostles.

If that were true, wouldn't they be one organization instead of 3?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Rick,

We have been here for years and sometimes (I am sure you agree) it seems like we type the same thing in response over and over again.

I know you have heard many of the Catholic answers as I have heard of the arguments against Catholicism.

Currently I am only looking for new arguments and discussions. So, in regars to your last post I am happy with you having your point of view and me having mine. I see no need in repeating a response you have probably heard as much as myself.

But I do not want you to think I am ignoring you or disregarded what believe to be proofs so, if you want, I will give some answers and possibly some cut-n-pastes. As you know the Catholic Church has answers for all it does and hbecause these answers are used so often they are readily available at numerous sites.

I was thinking of starting a Thread regarding the differences between the Calvin and Luther Churches since I have been reading about Martin Luther so much these last few days. Please join.



In Christ,

Jack

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*

I was thinking of starting a Thread regarding the differences between the Calvin and Luther Churches since I have been reading about Martin Luther so much these last few days. Please join.

In Christ,

Jack

Hello Jack.
Some of us are waiting for M.L.'s birthday so we can throw a party for him like we did for his bro J.C.......

http://www.christianforums.com/t7382164-127/#post52293555
CALVIN's 500th Birthday Thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_calvin

John Calvin (Middle French: Jean Cauvin) (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564)

 

[Standing Up]

I know you have heard many of the Catholic answers as I have heard of the arguments against Catholicism.

Currently I am only looking for new arguments and discussions.

New? You admittedly heard one from Blandina. Have you followed up on her story? Eucharist is not literal flesh and blood she said about the time of her martyrdom and could have recanted.

How about Firmillian? But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles;29252925 [Apart from the argument, observe the clear inference as to the equal position of Stephen and his “primacy,” in the great Western See. For the West, compare Hilar., Ad Liberium, Frag.] any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names.
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Vainly pretend? Perhaps he knew of Irenaeus and Tertullian's contradiction on the apostolic lineage at Rome. Obviously he knew Rome formed a custom regarding Easter, rather than adhere to apostolic teaching. Many other sacraments? To what else does he refer?

I doubt you've heard even a 1/10th of it before.

So scripture alone versus HISTORICALLY VERIFIABLY fallen away.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I thought this was kool, still adding to it.

Heres an example of speaking contrary to Gods words expressed as teaching rebellion against God

Hananiah (a flase prophet) says...

Jerm 28:2 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the LORD'S house, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place, and carried them to Babylon: And I will bring again to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, with all the captives of Judah, that went into Babylon, saith the LORD: for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.

Then Jeremiah confronts this false prophet coming in the name of the Lord of hosts (the God of Israel) and reminds the people (of the prophets of old) here...

Jerm 28:5 Then the prophet Jeremiah said unto the prophet Hananiah in the presence of the priests, and in the presence of all the people that stood in the house of the LORD, Even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform ***thy words** which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD'S house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place.

Jerm 28:7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people; The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

Shortened for length, you can read in between as Hananiah repeating his lies after Jermemiah confirmed Gods words (as truth) in contrast to his lies

Jerm 28:15 Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie.

Jerm 28:16 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD.

So, To teach contrary to his words is to teach rebellion against the Lord and here below shows the same

Psalm 107:11 Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High:

And His counsel is his words

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Even as His counsel (likewise as scripture) is used interchangebly with the word "reproof" as all scripture is given for reproof

Prov 1:30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.

Even as all scripture is given for instruction

Psalm 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.

Just as they rebelled against His words, and Hananiah taught rebellion (speaking contrary to the words of God) rebellion here is as the sin of witchcraft

1Sam 15:23 For rebellion **is as** the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

And witchcraft in the above context is also equivilent in its definition to divination showing the same thing...

Ezek 13:7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken?

Jerm 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Jesus speaks of the same

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

In the above they show great signs and wonders

Deut 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

Duet 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;


Duet 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God (((( proveth you))) **to know** whether **ye love** the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Proven through words who loves him, as Jesus shows who does not love him through the same here...

John 14:24 He that **loveth me** not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

It appears we must love of the truth (inclusive of Christ, God sent) believing the record God gave of His Son, abiding in him and his words in us). Having a love for the truth. Whereas it speaks of those who receive not a love for the truth (who abide not in him or his words of truth) and elsewhere that God sends them a powerful delusion that might believe a lie. This too can be shown here...

1Kings 22:20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

1Kings 22:21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.

1Kings 22:21 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

1Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.


Ezek 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Which appears very much to connect in the same accord here...

2Thes 2:9-11 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie


John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The one from the beginning who spake contrary to Gods words (speaking a lie) over and against Gods words.

Jesus tells us, abide in Him (Who is The Truth) and let His words (which are without question, the words of truth) abide in you.

So if something is teaching against His words is shown as teaching rebellion against God as shown correct?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
I doubt you've heard even a 1/10th of it before.

So scripture alone versus HISTORICALLY VERIFIABLY fallen away.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7397815/

Reve 11:13 And in that the hour became a great quake and the tenth of the City falls and were killed in the quake names of men seven thousands
and the remaining affrighted became and they give glory to the God of the heaven.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Good afternoon Standing Up.

I have read many of the ECFs and have debated on their writings here in GT. I had several of my own threads on it. I admit that Blandina is new and have yet to read anything. But please do not feel like I am ignoring you.

I will try to look up one of my old threads or maybe you or I could start a new one. I do not think we should take over this thread on ECFs. I know some will not like that.

I hope you understand.



In Christ,

Jack

 

[Standing Up]

Good afternoon Standing Up.

I have read many of the ECFs and have debated on their writings here in GT. I had several of my own threads on it. I admit that Blandina is new and have yet to read anything. But please do not feel like I am ignoring you.

I will try to look up one of my old threads or maybe you or I could start a new one. I do not think we should take over this thread on ECFs. I know some will not like that.

I hope you understand.



In Christ,

Jack

No problem.

 

[MamaZ]

This point does not consider the fact that in 2,000 years the language chanes and nor does it consider the translations from one language to another. It also fails to recognize where scripture cannot interpret itself because something can be quite different if it is read literally or metaphorically. These are the obvious problems with scripture being the sole source.

The very first time Sola Scriptura was effectively declared by a man as being so was Martin Luther. Look what happened with Luther and Calvin. "Is it the real presense or the symbolic presense?" Yes, from the beginning of Sola Scriptura it has been the wedge that has caused divisions.

Ironically, Martin Luther used Apostolic Tradition even though he claimed Sola Scriptura. I guess that is why we are now seeing attempts at this new term of "Solo Scriptura."

Thing with all of this is that some like darkness instead of light. It does not matter to me what Martin Luther used. I don't follow after him.. I follow after Christ and the teaching of the Apostles that are a sure thing because they are written. Truth has a way of dividing..

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

NO! Baaaaaad Lamb!
"Solo" is fresh slang as far as I know, so its Solo" meant exactly as you've said (I've heard it used that way here before), that is 'the only source of truth', but "Sola" means 'the only standard of truth'.
get it? ECFs are out.
Nice verse from Paul, btw.

 

[Montalban]

Well since we no longer have the Apostles with us all we have is the written because as we all know word handed down seems to change as it goes through man after man.. So this is why we have the written that we can check daily to see if what is being taught or said is actually true. This is what sola scriptura is all about. We have the solid teaching of the Apostles and the Prophets and the Law that is solid ground. We can daily go to the scriptures and be fed Gods truth. Tradition on the other hand is different in the existance of it from one assembly to the next.

Still not providing evidence for your beliefs. Of course you believe your assumptions, but that's not much of a discussion - to write a series of 'just-so' statements.

Where does it say that "since we don't have the Apostles all we have is the written ( ? )...."?

If the Apostles thought it so necessary, how come they didn't compile the bible in their own time?

How come they didn't write in the Bible that the Bible was all that one should rely on?

 

[Montalban]

Self authorization bother you? Who authorizes God?

Where did I deal in absolutes?

The books are questioned by you when we present them as evidence based on their self-authorizing content.

They don't self-authorise. You might have a book saying "As Paul says..." and this would point to Paul's writing, but you don't know that a particular book we NOW ascribe to Paul is that book.

Take a hypothetical. There could be 10 books you have each claiming to be a work of Paul.

You have another book which for argument's sake we know is genuine. It might say "Paul said&#8230;"

Even in those circumstances the 'authorised' book does not point to another particular book and authorises it too.

Now you want to present them as church autrhorized, but you have nothing to offer to prove the church infallable or inerrant in it's authorization of its own founding documents.

The church wasn't founded by documents. However the church is the one who authorised the Bible.

...and you take yourself seriously!
Fool me once...

When you get around to presenting more than circular argument, that would be great.

Scripture gives us the Bereans as an example of how to verify legitimacy.

Scripture doesn't say that they're an example anymore than Solomon having many concubines is an 'example' or Lot sleeping with his daughter. It merely is an instance of something that happened. You add "It's an example for us to follow" based on your assumptions that it is.

Fin and wear it.d one for 'smug self satisfaction'
There WAS one?!?!?!
Who says they followed Him? How? Why?

Proper sentences would help here.

Did anyone witness Him using the bathroom? How do we know He needed to? Is there a tradition that confirms it?

Then you accept that scripture is not alone sufficient and we need to make assumptions? There are assumptions we can make logically. Ones such as breathing, etc. one would assume to be true because of our own experiences of living. Going to the toilet would also fit into this.

Your assumption about the Bereans is something you've offered no reason for, other than you believe it to be so. You believe it, endlessly repeat it but nevery offer any reason for it other than you repeat it

You're the only strawman here. Stay on the yellow bricks.

Problems with mixing metaphors doesn't help either

Where does scripture say there is more authority?

I cited where Paul said to keep to the teachings by word and tradition. You may have missed the many times I've posted it

Also, read the very last verse of the last chapter of the Gospel of John.

Most of everything except the chance to impress yourself.

Most of your rebuttal is aimed at me.

 

[Montalban]

Internal evidence is not circular logic and neither is external evidence.

You've offered no evidence.

Here is what Peter said of Paul's writings.

2 Peter 3
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter refers to Paul as writing with the wisdom given to Him by God (1 Cor. 3:10, Eph. 3:3. The writings are that of "all" of his epistles. All of Paul's epistles in scripture are Paul's (based on both internal and external evidence).

There is no evidence to suggest that 1 & 2 Peter are not genuine. You are reaching here.

Firstly you assume 1 & 2 Peter are genuine based on what? What internal evidence?
Secondly even if we take them as being genuine how do you know that a book that says "Written by Paul" is in fact the one Peter's referring to?
That's another assumption. If I had twelve books each allegedly by Paul it would not mean that Peter's referring to one or all, or another now lost.
The reason we know that Peter's referring to a particular book is that we know that book is by Paul BECAUSE the church has guaranteed that.
You've offered no 'internal' evidence for Paul and your 'external' evidence is assumption.

1 Tim. 5:8 and 1 Cor. 9:14 quote Luke 10:7. Luke was a companion and teacher of Paul. Most likely most of what Luke knew about the detail inner workings of the temple came from the teachings of Paul.

There's very little by way of correlation

You are again reaching. The early ECFs often quoted from them and they were not in question including inclusions by Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the much earlier Muratorian canon.

No. You've missed the point. I don't deny the authority of the gospels. I would expect that the ECFs would quote from them. Simply because they quoted from them does not mean that they accepted them based on some concept of self-authorisation. Odd that you want to cite them as 'authorising' books you think are self-authorising.

The authorship of Clement has been in question since the early church. No internal evidence exists that he actually wrote them.

Odd again you again cite as 'evidence' the opinion of the church. The problem with sola scriptura is you keep wanting to cite 'church' and 'ECFs' as evidence. That's because the sola scriptura process is so devoid of evidence.

The Didache is dated to early to middle 2nd century which is decades most of the canonical books were written. No authorship is established.

The Didache has been dated earlier. How do we know it's date? Is there evidence in the Didache saying "Weitten in the 2nd century"?

Yes it does. Look at the requirements for canonicity.

Requirements based on the knowledge of the church that certain books fit it?

No. Are you denying the omniscience of God? Do you deny that God is perfectly capable of preserving His word?

His word wasn't just written. Jesus was the living Word.

Where do you think the canonical books where in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. centuries?

That doesn't answer my question

Ask Him when you see Him.

Ditto

Paul was a witness of Jesus evidenced by Acts 9.

So you're saying that Jesus filled Paul in about everything about Jesus without reference to Scripture?

Montalban:Luke wasn't a witness to events at the time of Jesus' birth
Hentenza:.By that logic, neither were any of the 12 apostles.

That is indeed my point. They were taught those events, without them having ever been written down.

Your church along with the RC have developed doctrines not found in scriptures.

So you say. However I'm not arguing about anything other than this. You want to widen the debate, that's up to you. However this is what underlies your real objection to tradition

2 Tim 3,

It doesn't say it's the ultimate authority.

I've gone over this mistake of reasoning with so many on this thread. There's a difference between saying
"God's written word is God-breathed" to
"All of God's word is written"

Matt. 22:43,

This I don't get how it refers to scripture being ultimate

1 Cor. 2:13,

Doesn't say teaching only by written word

Romans 3:2,

Same. You continue the error of thinking that a praise of 'the word' means only scripture based on the reason that you do, because you do, because you do.

 

[Montalban]

Generaly you don't deal at all, so ya got me there, too.

Your rebuttal fails. I disapprove of 'self-authorisation' with respect to the Bible so you think that I must do so for another case.

Why not?

Because you wouldn't have known that the other book claiming to be of Paul was of Paul

Take reality. There was a fake letter claiming to be a work of Paul.
I can't accept for argument's sake that we know anything according to you, so it would just be arguing for arguing's sake, not for the sake of knowing anything.

Straw-man. I didn't say we can't know anything. I've argued that we've got the church as guarantor &#8211; so you've missed that too

That sentence doesn't make sense.

One book doesn't automatically point to the other as being genuine. If we accept that say Peter's book is genuine and it says "I applaud the writings of Paul" then it doesn't necessarily mean that the book you hold claiming to be of Paul is genuine

Not the body of Christ, not that church, but the apostate harlots that call themselves such.

??

That's self authorization. A closed circle of logic.
The keepers authorize what they keep

No. Jesus picked the Apostles. He authorised them. Others were picked to replace them; Apostolic Succession

When you get around to being logical, that will be even greater.

I know. It does presume some intelligence on the part of the reader,

Then the book's not sufficient.

It doesn't preface each passage with "This is an example of ~, or follow it with "& that was a great example of ~". Sorry you have that difficulty.

I agree it doesn't. Therefore one's basis for believing something is an example must be based on something else other than the scripture. You have shown the weakness of sola scriptura, whilst still avoiding showing why you think this particular incident is an example, other than it just is.

And as I delight in repeatedly answering that hollow statement that sounds like an allegation of substance, my assumption is based on the scripture saying the example shown by the Bereans was MORE NOBLE.

Which doesn't say as an example. They are better than the Thessalonians. You mix a comparative with the superlative

What part of more noble do you not get?

Just because you think it is doesn't make it right. If you can show why you think it is so, let me know.

Sufficient for what? Assuimptions about what? Complete thoughts here would help.
Then you accept that tradition & scripture are not enough & that we need to make assumptions?

You've already demonstrated it's not sufficient

You make making assumptions look easy.

The problem with your argument is that you think that you can retort against a point of using something in one case with another &#8211; such as your attempt here that if we use 'assumption' based on reason in one case (such as that they must have gone to the toilet), then assumptions can be made all over.

Vague allusion is your forte'. "My assumption about the Bereans"?
Is anybody but you supposed to know what you mean by that?

I believe I stated it sufficiently. Odd you claim not to know what I mean, but you retort against it above.

If you mean my CONCLUSION that the Bereans are an example to follow, it is based (I repeat for the upteenth time) on the Praise they got for searching the scriptures daily to see if what the apostle was telling them was so.

See differences in comparatives with superlatives. Saying something is better doesn't say it's best.

IF that were so then we should act as the prodigal son and go and spend all our money and live with prostitutes and then when we are out of money return home &#8211; because this evoked 'praise' of the return of the son.

Sure, it's better that he returned home in the end, but it's best had he not gone and done what he did in the first place. What he did (in the end) was worthy of praise but it doesn't mean we should follow ONLY his example. We know this because of other instances.

Likewise there's no issue with reading scripture as the Bereans did. And that's worthy of praise. But you take this to mean that we should ONLY base our beliefs on scripture and it doesn't say that. It's a massive assumption based on some belief that praising something worthy of praise means that we should do that and ONLY that and ignore where Paul commends people to keep to the teachings that they were given by word, and by scripture.

You consistantly show no reason for why you believe this praiseworthy action is all we should do.

Boy was THAT fun. How long before you ask me again?

Now. If you can provide evidence, other than misunderstanding grammar that would be terrific.

 

[Montalban]

We have Paul commending two ways of accepting teaching; by word and by scripture.

Apparently however another passage praising the reading of scripture means we should ONLY accept written teachings.

 

[Fireinfolding]

What part of more noble do you not get?

 

[sunlover1]

We have Paul commending two ways of accepting teaching; by word and by scripture.

Apparently however another passage praising the reading of scripture means we should ONLY accept written teachings.

The written 'teachings' ARE the oral teachings in written 'form'.
So we're all set.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Montalban;Your rebuttal fails.

Not my fault.

I disapprove of 'self-authorisation' with respect to the Bible so you think that I must do so for another case.

I do?

Because you wouldn't have known that the other book claiming to be of Paul was of Paul

Why not?

Straw-man. I didn't say we can't know anything. I've argued that we've got the church as guarantor – so you've missed that too

Double straw-man!
How do you know the church is guarantor. It couldn't even keep from splitting, no matter who you blame. Some guarantor you picked there.

One book doesn't automatically point to the other as being genuine. If we accept that say Peter's book is genuine and it says "I applaud the writings of Paul" then it doesn't necessarily mean that the book you hold claiming to be of Paul is genuine

So what? It does it manualy, not automaticaly.
btw, how do you know anything is genuine?

??

!!

No. Jesus picked the Apostles. He authorised them. Others were picked to replace them; Apostolic Succession

Who authorized Jesus? Self authorized? God authorizes God? Dang circles again!
Others were not picked to replace them. There were
& are no more apostles.

Then the book's not sufficient.

Worse.
It is foolishness to those who are perishing.

I agree it doesn't. Therefore one's basis for believing something is an example must be based on something else other than the scripture. You have shown the weakness of sola scriptura, whilst still avoiding showing why you think this particular incident is an example, other than it just is.

Then just what is it? Something that didn't need to be there? Something we can ignore because it "just is"?

Which doesn't say as an example. They are better than the Thessalonians. You mix a comparative with the superlative

How so? What superlative?
Doesn't matter to the point. Both are good for setting examples.

Just because you think it is doesn't make it right. If you can show why you think it is so, let me know.

I do & you miss, ignore, & mis-interpret it until it fails like you want it to.

You've already demonstrated it's not sufficient

No, you've already demonstrated it is.

The problem with your argument is that you think that you can retort against a point of using something in one case with another – such as your attempt here that if we use 'assumption' based on reason in one case (such as that they must have gone to the toilet), then assumptions can be made all over.

Assumptions ARE made all over regardless. Sola Scriptura would have us check scripture to see if those assumptions are so.

I believe I stated it sufficiently. Odd you claim not to know what I mean, but you retort against it above.

You're believing it doesn't make it so. Odd you that you would continue to be vague & exploit ambiguities by shading terms.

See differences in comparatives with superlatives. Saying something is better doesn't say it's best.

It is saying it is best between doing it & not. When only two examples are suggested, the better one IS best.

IF that were so then we should act as the prodigal son and go and spend all our money and live with prostitutes and then when we are out of money return home – because this evoked 'praise' of the return of the son.

You're just being childish now.

Sure, it's better that he returned home in the end, but it's best had he not gone and done what he did in the first place. What he did (in the end) was worthy of praise but it doesn't mean we should follow ONLY his example. We know this because of other instances.

Now you're just trying to insult me by having me entertain malicious ignorance. You're probably to calloused to actualy feel the malice as you spew this drivel, but it is plainly contention for contention's sake.

Likewise there's no issue with reading scripture as the Bereans did.

I don't believe it for a second.

And that's worthy of praise.

But just because it's praisewortyh doesn't mean it's an example to follow? To search the scriptures to see if things are so? pffft

But you take this to mean that we should ONLY base our beliefs on scripture and it doesn't say that.

No I take other things to mean that, not this. What I base my beliefs on are a different discussion. Sola Scriptura is how I keep my beliefs in line with scripture. This is you shading terminology with ambiguities while posing like you can read my mind.

It's a massive assumption based on some belief that praising something worthy of praise means that we should do that and ONLY that and ignore where Paul commends people to keep to the teachings that they were given by word, and by scripture.

Its a massive assumption that I believe we should ONLY do that & ignore where Paul writes that checking the scriptures to see if oral content is true, is more noble than not checking.

You consistantly show no reason for why you believe this praiseworthy action is all we should do.

You consistently make that false claim that I believe it is all we shoud do.

Now. If you can provide evidence, other than misunderstanding grammar that would be terrific.

Now, if you can accept evidence & not simply deny it when it's in your face, that would be realy keen.