Sola Scriptura defined....

[Meowzltov]

Gods Canon is his he revealed it to men and he did so infallibly.

How when and where did this revelation take place? How can we know that this event is of God?

 

[Major1]

Let me try to give more detail so that what I'm saying will become clear to you.

Joe accept the standard Bible. Sally doesn't. She believes that what is God breathed are the gospels, and she includes some of the Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas. Therefore Joe thinks that Romans is inerrant and Sally does not, and Sally thinks that the Gospel of Thomas is inerrant and Joe does not. Each of them builds their theology on a different set of authoritative books and they end up with very different theologies.

Yes, that is really, really helpful!

My dear, I clearly understand what you are saying. I just do not agree with you.

Let me be just as clear to you.

YOU accept and believe what the Roman Catholic Church says is doctrine. If a man says that there is something we want to do even if it is not in the Bible, we are going to do it.

I believe what the Bible says is doctrine. If the Bible does not say it, and does not validate what it is I want to do, then I do not do it.

Your theology then comes from men.

My theology comes from God.

So then I guess we can build as we go.

 

[Major1]

No, a French monk did not say “This is my body.” Jesus said “This is my body.” You refuse to believe that Jesus meant what he said. Simple as that.

Oh YES IT DID!!! Do the work. Investigate where it came from and who thought it up. PLEASE do not accept what I say. YOU do the work.

Again, Yes Jesus said those words but a MAN changed their meaning for your RCC belief to mean something that Jesus never meant.

 

[Major1]

How when and where did this revelation take place? How can we know that this event is of God?

PLEASE do the work yourself. PLEASE look up things in real history. When YOU do you will find that by 96 AD, the early church had accepted the 27 New Testament books as canonical, as seen from early church writings. The early church accepted the scriptures because it believed them to be from God. The early church saw itself as subject to the Bible's authority, not the other way around.

The Catholic church maintains that the books comprising the New Testament Canon were determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. THIS IS INCORRECT.

This council simply affirmed and restated what the early churches had always accepted.

We must not make the mistake of thinking that the Scriptures received their authority because some council made a public statement of their acceptance. The early church of pastors, deacons and people all submitted to the Bible as authority because it came from God.

Though the church existed before the New Testament was written, this does not give the church authority over or equal to the Scriptures. The church must always be subject to the authority of God's written Word.

 

[PeaceB]

Oh YES IT DID!!! Do the work. Investigate where it came from and who thought it up. PLEASE do not accept what I say. YOU do the work.

Again, Yes Jesus said those words but a MAN changed their meaning for your RCC belief to mean something that Jesus never meant.

No, you changed the meaning.

Jesus meant “This is my body”. That is why he said “This is my body.” It’s not that difficult. You simply refuse to take Jesus at his word.

You change his words to “This represents my body.” There is nothing good about changing the words of our Lord.

 

[PeaceB]

Yes, that is really, really helpful!

My dear, I clearly understand what you are saying. I just do not agree with you.

Let me be just as clear to you.

YOU accept and believe what the Roman Catholic Church says is doctrine. If a man says that there is something we want to do even if it is not in the Bible, we are going to do it.

I believe what the Bible says is doctrine. If the Bible does not say it, and does not validate what it is I want to do, then I do not do it.

Your theology then comes from men.

My theology comes from God.

So then I guess we can build as we go.

No, God said “This is my body” but you refuse to believe him. So your theology does not come from him.

Zwingli developed the symbolic view of the last supper. Your theology comes from Zwingli.

 

[Meowzltov]

PLEASE do the work yourself. PLEASE look up things in real history. When YOU do you will find that by 96 AD, the early church had accepted the 27 New Testament books as canonical, as seen from early church writings. The early church accepted the scriptures because it believed them to be from God. The early church saw itself as subject to the Bible's authority, not the other way around.

The Catholic church maintains that the books comprising the New Testament Canon were determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. THIS IS INCORRECT.

This council simply affirmed and restated what the early churches had always accepted.

This is absolutely UNTRUE. The Church went through several stages in the creation of the New Testament Canon.

STAGE ONE: The Church felt no need of any canon. It had the authority of the Bishops. The only Scripture at this point was the OT. The various gospels and epistles were passed around from church to church, including those written by Bishops other than the Apostles, i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Various Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Paul's third letter to the Corinthians... I could go on. They were all considered EQUAL. IOW, I Clement was considered on par with I Corinthians, the Didache was on par with the Acts of the Apostles.

STAGE TWO: Various Catholics began making lists of books they approved of. These lists were CONTRADICTORY. For example, one list might contain Revelation, another might exclude it. One list might contain the Expositions on the Gospel of John, another might exclude it. But making lists was a very different consciousness than stage one. However, these lists were not considered official canon, a must agree upon list. They were recommendations.

STAGE THREE: Call this the hunger stage. The Church now saw the need for a New Testament canon and scholars began debating in earnest. Obviously if they were debating, there was still no agreement. Indeed, right down to the moments of Stage Four, there were books in our Bible that just barely made it in, and other books that almost made it in.

STAGE FOUR: Canon was finally worked out and made official and binding on all the Church for all time at the Council of Carthage.

Here is a couple good websites to read about the difficulty Revelation had in making it into the canon of Scripture and why it was finally decided in favor, while the Apocolypse of Peter was rejected:
APPROVING REVELATION
The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon?

 

[Meowzltov]

YOU accept and believe what the Roman Catholic Church says is doctrine. If a man says that there is something we want to do even if it is not in the Bible, we are going to do it.

I believe what the Bible says is doctrine. If the Bible does not say it, and does not validate what it is I want to do, then I do not do it.

Your theology then comes from men.

My theology comes from God.

Yes, yes. I mostly agree with you. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura divides us.

I'm sure you realize that I believe that in Ecumenical Councils and when the Pope speaks Ex Cathera, the theology comes via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, thus it is also the Word of God.

I believe I have the fullness of God's revelation, whereas you have only a portion.

 

[Fidelibus]

Good Day, I guess I will have to wait for my question... did you read my original OP?

A good day to you as well. Anyhoo, I went to your original OP where you posted:

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

And I'd ask.... What church are you meaning? The Church Pre or post Reformation? or a visible or invisible church?

And your question was.....

What then is sola scriptura?

If this is the question you spoke about waithing for, I'll give you 21 reasons what sola scriptura is and is not, and why it should be rejected. (with the help of Catholic Apologist, Joel Peters)

1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.

3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."

4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.

5 Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

6. The first Christians did not have a Bible.

7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.

11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination.

13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.

14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.

15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.

16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.

17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.

18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.

19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.

20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books.

21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.


Summary:

For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected. Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught – even if those contradict one’s current religious system – should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.

The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established. According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority. Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:

The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or indirect rule of faith.

Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church – a historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession – is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20). It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

With the reasons shown above that refute your beleif on "The Bible Alone", one at a time please, which are you in disagreement with, and why?

Objective facts please....What did Paul teach Timothy that is out side of Scripture?

Okay, lets look at 2Tim. Chapter 3, but let's include verses 14-15 along with vs. 16-17.

“14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Would you agree that Paul tells Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief?

1. He knows from whom he has learned it.

This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, right? So right here we have Timothy’s beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.

2. From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy’s beliefs.

So, how could you not agree that right here in 2 Tim. 3:14-17, we have a double appeal to both apostolic Tradition and apostolic Scripture.

Not only that, in Matt. 2:23 it say's.... "He shall be called a Nazarene" right? would you agree this phrase cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets"? Would you deny this prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture? (The bible alone)

And also in Matt. 23:2-3 we have Jesus teaching that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat," right? You do consider this verse to be "God's Word" as well, right? If so, as a sola scripturist, could you please show where this idea or phrase can be found in the OT?

Let's also look at 1 Cor.10:4, where Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. Again, as one that adheres to the doctrine of the bible alone, as you state in the last two sentences of your OP:

All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

Where in the O.T. does it mention this miraculous movement? To save you the time... it is not.

Surley your not suggesting what Paul said and the other examples I gave that cannot be found in scripture are not...... "binding upon the Christian conscience" are you?

 

[Fidelibus]

The point which you missed is not that you copied and pasted the question posed. Every one copy and pastes information from time to time.

Happy to see you admit that you as well have done it.

What I was trying to show you was that IF you had the time to investigate and look for a question to ask me, why in the world would you simply not use that same amount of time to do the work required to read the Bible and search it for your answers.

Unfortunatly Maj1, Jesus and scripture disagrees with you. In Matt. 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group (7) rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). So why wouldn't I Maj1, spend my time to do just as Jesus say's for us to do?

I find it very suspicious that YOU my friend DO NOT answer questions at all but you are quick to say that other do not answer your questions.

Bring it! I'll answer anything you got. But keep in mind, I will not be bound to your unbiblical limitations of sola scriptura. (the bible alone)

I will say to you that most everyone here has caught on to your plan of asking questions in order to illicit a response which you can twist into what YOU want it to say.

Sorry Maj1, but untill I hear from "most everyone", your opinion means moot to me.

I say again to you that what you are doing is deceitful.
Actually, you do the same thing with the Scriptures of the Bible.

Really Maj1? Not only are you being a bit sophomoric, but wasen't it you that told us here on CF not to take your word for anything? I mean really dude!

 

[Major1]

Happy to see you admit that you as well have done it.



Unfortunatly Maj1, Jesus and scripture disagrees with you. In Matt. 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group (7) rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). So why wouldn't I Maj1, spend my time to do just as Jesus say's for us to do?




Bring it! I'll answer anything you got. But keep in mind, I will not be bound to your unbiblical limitations of sola scriptura. (the bible alone)




Sorry Maj1, but untill I hear from "most everyone", your opinion means moot to me.




Really Maj1? Not only are you being a bit sophomoric, but wasen't it you that told us here on CF not to take your word for anything? I mean really dude!

You said............
"Bring it! I'll answer anything you got. But keep in mind, I will not be bound to your unbiblical limitations of sola scriptura."

Again, that comment is rather ambiguous and deceitful. I will ask you to verify a certain Catholic practice by giving the Bible quotes that confirm what it is you are doing.

All you will do is say.........
"I do not hold to Sola Scriptura , or I do not need to do that because I am a Catholic and we obey the traditions of men and not the Bible. And may I say to you my friend that you are an expert on this practice."

However, against by better judgment lets just see what happens. Here we go...........Now this question has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, so SPECIFICALLY:
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

 

[Major1]

Yes, yes. I mostly agree with you. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura divides us.

I'm sure you realize that I believe that in Ecumenical Councils and when the Pope speaks Ex Cathera, the theology comes via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, thus it is also the Word of God.

I believe I have the fullness of God's revelation, whereas you have only a portion.

Yes sister, I am very aware. There is no need for me to explain that, just that I know.

The problem with that is the Pope, just like you and especially me is a sinner. Again, the theology you have is based on a man and his theology and not the Bible which is the Word of God.

We have discussed this adnausiem, but PLEASE investigate this and you will find that there is NO command or even a suggestion that there was to be a line of apostolic succession. I know that is what you believe as do the Mormons and the Pentecostals, but it just is not there in the Bible at all...ZERO.

Please understand that I am not trying to condemn you for your beliefs in the Catholic religion or you as a person. I understand where you are coming from and why. I am just trying to let you know that we are all free to believe as we wish.

However, it is a mistake to think that your Catholic doctrine as Bible based therefore you are in obedience to the Word of God. The idea of Apostolic sussecion is a man made dogma by the RCC.

PLEASE, do not believe what I am saying to you. PLEASE do the investigative work for yourself.

If and when you do you will see that The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. THEY decided that Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Again, PLEASE search it out and find out for yourself.
There is NO command, No direction or even a suggestion of Apostolic succession!!!!!

Now to go further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray in Galatians 2:11-14. Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles yet the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles.

Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right.

 

[Major1]

This is absolutely UNTRUE. The Church went through several stages in the creation of the New Testament Canon.

STAGE ONE: The Church felt no need of any canon. It had the authority of the Bishops. The only Scripture at this point was the OT. The various gospels and epistles were passed around from church to church, including those written by Bishops other than the Apostles, i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Various Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Paul's third letter to the Corinthians... I could go on. They were all considered EQUAL. IOW, I Clement was considered on par with I Corinthians, the Didache was on par with the Acts of the Apostles.

STAGE TWO: Various Catholics began making lists of books they approved of. These lists were CONTRADICTORY. For example, one list might contain Revelation, another might exclude it. One list might contain the Expositions on the Gospel of John, another might exclude it. But making lists was a very different consciousness than stage one. However, these lists were not considered official canon, a must agree upon list. They were recommendations.

STAGE THREE: Call this the hunger stage. The Church now saw the need for a New Testament canon and scholars began debating in earnest. Obviously if they were debating, there was still no agreement. Indeed, right down to the moments of Stage Four, there were books in our Bible that just barely made it in, and other books that almost made it in.

STAGE FOUR: Canon was finally worked out and made official and binding on all the Church for all time at the Council of Carthage.

Here is a couple good websites to read about the difficulty Revelation had in making it into the canon of Scripture and why it was finally decided in favor, while the Apocolypse of Peter was rejected:
APPROVING REVELATION
The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon?

God love ya Peace. I am just not that smart to think up something which is so easy to find and prove to be UNTRUE.

All you have to do is "Google" it, read it and accept or deny it.

Here are some sites that include actual Historical facts...........
Geographic variation caused New Testament canon variation from 33 AD - 400 AD

Is the original Bible still in existence?

 

[BBAS 64]

A good day to you as well. Anyhoo, I went to your original OP where you posted:



And I'd ask.... What church are you meaning? The Church Pre or post Reformation? or a visible or invisible church?

And your question was.....



If this is the question you spoke about waithing for, I'll give you 21 reasons what sola scriptura is and is not, and why it should be rejected. (with the help of Catholic Apologist, Joel Peters)

1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.

3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."

4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.

5 Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

6. The first Christians did not have a Bible.

7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.

11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination.

13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.

14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.

15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.

16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.

17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.

18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.

19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.

20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books.

21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.


Summary:

For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected. Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught – even if those contradict one’s current religious system – should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.

The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established. According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority. Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:

The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or indirect rule of faith.

Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church – a historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession – is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20). It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.




With the reasons shown above that refute your beleif on "The Bible Alone", one at a time please, which are you in disagreement with, and why?



Okay, lets look at 2Tim. Chapter 3, but let's include verses 14-15 along with vs. 16-17.

“14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Would you agree that Paul tells Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief?

1. He knows from whom he has learned it.

This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, right? So right here we have Timothy’s beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.

2. From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy’s beliefs.

So, how could you not agree that right here in 2 Tim. 3:14-17, we have a double appeal to both apostolic Tradition and apostolic Scripture.

Not only that, in Matt. 2:23 it say's.... "He shall be called a Nazarene" right? would you agree this phrase cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets"? Would you deny this prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture? (The bible alone)

And also in Matt. 23:2-3 we have Jesus teaching that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat," right? You do consider this verse to be "God's Word" as well, right? If so, as a sola scripturist, could you please show where this idea or phrase can be found in the OT?

Let's also look at 1 Cor.10:4, where Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. Again, as one that adheres to the doctrine of the bible alone, as you state in the last two sentences of your OP:



Where in the O.T. does it mention this miraculous movement? To save you the time... it is not.

Surley your not suggesting what Paul said and the other examples I gave that cannot be found in scripture are not...... "binding upon the Christian conscience" are you?

Good Day,

As to the Church that would be all of the elect believers who have been adopted by the Father and given to to Son and gifted with the gift of faith and repentance.


Joel Peters .. I thought Tim Staples had shallow thinking on this topic but, seems I am mistaken.


Recommended debate very well done and covers much of the Canon issue historically from both sides and lots of Early church discussions which is fantastic.

I am not asking you “how” he learned it… But what was it that Paul taught Timothy that is not in scripture.. What is it not the basis nor the means. The what.


Matt 2:23 – yes the prophecies are in the OT which are the oracles of God given to the Jews.

Vines Greek word study Notes:


Mat 2:23

The prophets

Note the plural, as indicating not any one prediction in particular, but a summary of the import of several prophetic statements, such as Psa_22:6, Psa_22:8; Psa_69:11, Psa_69:19; Isa_53:2, Isa_53:3, Isa_53:4.

A Nazarene

A term of contempt (compare Joh_1:46, and Joh_7:52). The very name of Nazareth suggested insignificance. In Hebrew it meant sprout or shoot. The name is prophetically given to the Messiah (Isa_11:1). In Isa_10:33, Isa_10:34, the fate of Assyria is described under the figure of the felling of a cedar forest. The figure of the tree is continued at the opening of ch. 11 concerning the Jewish state. The cedar throws out no fresh suckers, but the oak is a tree “in which, after the felling, a stock remaineth” (Isa_6:13; compare Job_14:9). There is a future then for Israel, represented by the oak. “There shall come forth a shoot from the stock of Jesse, and a twig from his roots shall bear fruit.” As David sprang from the humble family of Jesse, so the Messiah, the second David, shall arise out of great humiliation. The fact that Jesus grew up at Nazareth was sufficient reason for his being despised. He was not a lofty branch on the summit of a stately tree; not a recognized and honored son of the royal house of David, now fallen, but an insignificant sprout from the roots of Jesse; a Nazarene, of an upstart sprout-town.




The seat of Moses was that of a function of the national theocracy of the Jews within the confines of the established OC law. I am not a Jew, nor do I live in a theocracy. Are you suggesting the roman church has created one? I have a great Jewish source to help your understanding.


1 Cor.10:4 – why do you assume it would be contained in the OT in order to be true. 1 Cor is God breathed out and is factually true and stand as fact because 1 Cor is scripture and is binding. Yes!


Gregory of Nyssa we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Major1]

No, God said “This is my body” but you refuse to believe him. So your theology does not come from him.

Zwingli developed the symbolic view of the last supper. Your theology comes from Zwingli.

NO mam, that is not the case.

YOU argue that God said......."This is my body" but I refuse to believe Him.

We both agree that God was the source of the Bible. YOU have in fact confirmed that but you have placed more obedience in the words of man than the Bible hence your belief in transubstantiation.

OK. I got it. Now I want to ask you to explain a few passages from the same God that you believe said "This is my body, eat from it and this is My BLOOD, drink it".

Genesis 9:4.........
"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

Leviticus 3:17........
"It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

Deut. 12:23..............
"It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
"but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood."

Do you find any hypocrisy in insisting that we eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood when HE was the one who gave us those verse saying just the opposite.

Again.....aren't you placing your faith and obedience in the commands of MEN over and above those of the Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[Major1]

No, you changed the meaning.

Jesus meant “This is my body”. That is why he said “This is my body.” It’s not that difficult. You simply refuse to take Jesus at his word.

You change his words to “This represents my body.” There is nothing good about changing the words of our Lord.

LOL.....No my dear, no changes at all.

Luke 22:19......
"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Luke 22:20......
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:24......
"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:25.....
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

 

[Phil 1:21]

"I am the door." -John 10:9
"I am the good shepherd." -John 10:11
"Feed my sheep." -John 21:17

From this we know that Jesus was a hinged, sliding, or revolving architectural barrier that owned a herd of wool-producing livestock and asked Peter to feed them. (metaphors matter)

 

[PeaceB]

"I am the door." -John 10:9
"I am the good shepherd." -John 10:11
"Feed my sheep." -John 21:17

From this we know that Jesus was a hinged, sliding, or revolving architectural barrier that owned a herd of wool-producing livestock and asked Peter to feed them. (metaphors matter)

Jesus is the door my friend. The door to eternal life. Do you deny that as well?

 

[Meowzltov]

Major: I truly appreciate the kindness and even manner in which this post is written. When we talk to each other in mutual politeness and respect, it makes things so much easier. You have truly loved your neighbor as yourself.

The problem with that is the Pope, just like you and especially me is a sinner.

Of course the Pope is a sinner. Yet the prophets were sinners. The Apostles were sinners. Paul specifically discussed that he was a sinner. Indeed, all the authors of the books of the Bible were sinners. And yet God still used them to write inerrantly.

Again, the theology you have is based on a man and his theology and not the Bible which is the Word of God.

Everything the Church teaches is compatible with the Scriptures. From the Largest Group to the Smallest Group:
1. Doctrines stated explicitly in the Bible
2. Doctrines stated implicitly in the Bible
3. Doctrines that can be loosely reasoned from the Bible
4. A very, very few doctrines that are not in the Bible but which are harmonious with it.

We have discussed this adnausiem, but PLEASE investigate this and you will find that there is NO command or even a suggestion that there was to be a line of apostolic succession. I know that is what you believe as do the Mormons and the Pentecostals, but it just is not there in the Bible at all...ZERO.

Actually my beliefs are completely different than the Mormons, who believe the Church fell into Apostasy, and there was a break in revelation.

You will be happy to know that I have already investigated this to absolute death. The thing is, it moved me the opposite direction. I began as an evangelical who did not believe in Church Authority, and moved into a grey area where I wasn't Catholic, but believed in Church Authority. I didn't know how else to deal with the Council of Nicea and the Council of Carthage (canon of Scripture).

The idea of Apostolic sussecion is a man made dogma by the RCC.

Do you think that God planned for his Church to be without authoritative leadership when doctrinal crises came around? What would have happened instead when Arianism almost overtook the Church? And how would we know how to handle new moral dilemmas as they came up? How would we know how to face Global Warming or the looming fresh water shortage?

Please know that I also believe firmly that you have the right to your own opinions. I think God looks upon the heart, not the brain, and cuts us a lot of slack for stupid, ignorant mistakes of confusion -- thank goodness or *I* would be up a creek I have been wrong so many times.

 

[PeaceB]

NO mam, that is not the case.

YOU argue that God said......."This is my body" but I refuse to believe Him.

We both agree that God was the source of the Bible. YOU have in fact confirmed that but you have placed more obedience in the words of man than the Bible hence your belief in transubstantiation.

OK. I got it. Now I want to ask you to explain a few passages from the same God that you believe said "This is my body, eat from it and this is My BLOOD, drink it".

Genesis 9:4.........
"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

Leviticus 3:17........
"It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

Deut. 12:23..............
"It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
"but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood."

Do you find any hypocrisy in insisting that we eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood when HE was the one who gave us those verse saying just the opposite.

Again.....aren't you placing your faith and obedience in the commands of MEN over and above those of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Let me clue you in to something my friend. Our Lord Jesus is not an animal. Nor is he merely a man. He is God.

Animal life is found in animal blood, and it was therefore improper for Jews to mix that nature with their own nature.

On the other hand, the life of God is found within his blood, and it is most fitting that man should drink of it, so that his life may abide in us, just our Lord promised:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
​

Do our Lord's words offend you?