Sola Scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Apostles didn't begin with tradition. They certainly didn't begin with scripture as they 'existed' before the NT did.

Why do you reject the OT as Scripture? Is that an EOC belief, that only the NT is Scripture?


And since Sola Scriptura suggests a rule for US as WE evaluate disputed dogmas among US, why does it matter what rule someone might have used in the distant past before any of us were even born? True, Scripture is the only rule we see ever used in Scripture (never OOC or EOC or RCC or LDS "Tradition", and certainly never "A denomination is exempt from truth if it itself alone says that it itself alone is"), but no one is saying it's the best rule for us today FOR THAT REASON. Sure, it's the only rule exampled in Scripture but I've never seen that as THE reason why it's the most sound rule for us. It might be shared as ONE thing but not the main or only thing.





.

 

[Montalban]

Why do you reject the OT as Scripture? .

Why do you keep offering this falsehood that's been addressed by me several times?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I don't deny that reading scripture can inspire you towards Jesus. But I'm not the one saying scriptures are 'all sufficient'. How can they be? People are called to Jesus all the time without having read scriptures.

"Inspire you towards Jesus"?
If Scripture is not "all sufficient" then please inform us what is it's deficiencies?

Post #552 suggests Apostles didn't begin with tradition. They certainly didn't begin with scripture as they 'existed' before the NT did.

Of course the OT existed, but if StandingUp can find OT scripture that lead to the Apostles I'm sure there'd be some kind of point

I think we forget that God's word was both lived and written. When we read in Acts 2 as the Holy Spirit descend on the Apostles I think sometimes we forget that the event took place before Luke wrote the Book of Acts but what Luke wrote was the very event that happened.

To say that they didn't begin with Scripture is to forget that what they were teaching was Scripture. The book of John in chapter 16:13 tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide these men into all truth, so the very things they were preaching was the gospel. That's why Scripture is so dear to us. Paul wasn't teaching something and then wrote it down to get approval from the church, Paul was preaching the message he was given from God through the Holy Spirit. That is what is contained in the Scriptures, especially for the New Testament... As for the Old Testament, the patriarchs, the prophets, and the women and men, not only lived out what was going on but they were also able to prophecy and as we continue to read we see the prophecies being fulfilled. God's word was and is living and active.

 

[Standing Up]

Post #552 suggests Apostles didn't begin with tradition. They certainly didn't begin with scripture as they 'existed' before the NT did.

Of course the OT existed, but if StandingUp can find OT scripture that lead to the Apostles I'm sure there'd be some kind of point

Why do you keep offering this falsehood that's been addressed by me several times?

 

[Montalban]

Perhaps StandingUp can say where he thinks the Apostles began - what scripture laid the foundations for the Apostles

 

[Montalban]

"Inspire you towards Jesus"?
If Scripture is not "all sufficient" then please inform us what is it's deficiencies?

I just did. Jesus exists outside of them. If you feel you can only know Jesus by the Bible, then that's up to you.

I can know him beyond reading about him. I don't limit Jesus to a reading.

I think we forget that God's word was both lived and written.

I accept this. People who are saying the bible alone is all sufficient for knowing Jesus are saying that the knowledge of Jesus is limited to what's written about him

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I just did. Jesus exists outside of them. If you feel you can only know Jesus by the Bible, then that's up to you.

I can know him beyond reading about him. I don't limit Jesus to a reading.

I'm not sure if you understood anything I wrote. I never said that Jesus only existed inside of the bible and no one else made that claim. But the idea that we experience Jesus more fully through "traditions" which really means "doctrine of man" is more of a made up story. I don't know anything new that I learn about Christ that I can't find in Scripture. I have, however found that man severely limits Christ when they include their own doctrine. God's word is the truth, and I know anything that I learn about Christ in Scripture will be the truth, I can't come any closer than that of a book that is God-breathed.

I accept this. People who are saying the bible alone is all sufficient for knowing Jesus are saying that the knowledge of Jesus is limited to what's written about him

Tell me please, what is lacking in the Scriptures about Christ?

 

[Montalban]

I'm not sure if you understood anything I wrote. I never said that Jesus only existed inside of the bible and no one else made that claim.

Then you don't understand 'all sufficient''

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Then you don't understand 'all sufficient''

"All sufficient" for many means "Scripture is all I need for salvation."

But even if you claim that "all sufficient" means "Scripture is all I need to know Christ," you still have yet to tell us what new thing do we learn about Christ outside of Scripture.

 

[Montalban]

"All sufficient" for many means "Scripture is all I need for salvation."

And that's wrong. Jesus is all I need for salvation and he exists outside the bible

 

[Albion]

And that's wrong. Jesus is all I need for salvation and he exists outside the bible

Try understanding him and what he means to you without reference to the Bible.

 

[Montalban]

Try understanding him and what he means to you without reference to the Bible.

I pray every day without reference to the bible

People in the first 300 years 0-300AD didn't have one.

 

[Albion]

I pray every day without reference to the bible

People in the first 300 years 0-300AD didn't have one.

There is no year "0"

 

[Montalban]

There is no year "0"

Indeed*

Doesn't detract from the fact you've excluded 300 years of Christians from knowing God because they didn't have the Protestant bible

*whilst no year is given as 0 there's in one sense there's no year 1 either (although we ascribe it to a year). You won't find any coin saying 12AD

 

[steve_bakr]

I'm not sure if you understood anything I wrote. I never said that Jesus only existed inside of the bible and no one else made that claim. But the idea that we experience Jesus more fully through "traditions" which really means "doctrine of man" is more of a made up story. I don't know anything new that I learn about Christ that I can't find in Scripture. I have, however found that man severely limits Christ when they include their own doctrine. God's word is the truth, and I know anything that I learn about Christ in Scripture will be the truth, I can't come any closer than that of a book that is God-breathed.

Tell me please, what is lacking in the Scriptures about Christ?

A book can't contain all the wonders of Jesus Christ.

John 21:25 CPDV:

"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written."

 

[Montalban]

A book can't contain all the wonders of Jesus Christ.

John 21:25 CPDV:

"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written."

Indeed. 300 years or so of Christians (or 1,500 years - going by the Protestant bible) couldn't know God because they didn't have sola scriptura's understanding that 'everything they needed was in a book'

 

[LOCO]

Lets look at the day, weeks and months after Christs death. Before the Apostles spread out and started writing down their letters and books.

How were people converted? The Apostles and their followers and their followers taught the masses by (word of mouth). Additionally, the Apostles were also raising the dead and performing other miracles. Jesus never wrote anything down, he taught his Apostles by his words and his actions, they did likewise.

Sure, they had all their memories of Jesus and his miracles and his teachings in their heads and they shared it with the masses not by printing them on pamphlets en-masse and distributing them to a largely illiterate population in some parts. No, they preached orally.

Later they wrote about of their time with Christ and his Teachings. 400years after his death and resurrection the New Testament in writing was compiled.

Jesus is the living breathing New Testament. He is the Word of God.

 

[Montalban]

Lets look at the day, weeks and months after Christs death. Before the Apostles spread out and started writing down their letters and books.

How were people converted? The Apostles and their followers and their followers taught the masses by (word of mouth). Additionally, the Apostles were also raising the dead and performing other miracles. Jesus never wrote anything down, he taught his Apostles by his words and his actions, they did likewise.

Sure, they had all their memories of Jesus and his miracles and his teachings in their heads and they shared it with the masses not by printing them on pamphlets en-masse and distributing them to a largely illiterate population in some parts. No, they preached orally.

Later they wrote about of their time with Christ and his Teachings. 400years after his death and resurrection the New Testament in writing was compiled.

Jesus is the living breathing New Testament. He is the Word of God.

One would have to suppose that they didn't utter a single word not found later on in NT scripture.

 

[LOCO]

One would have to suppose that they didn't utter a single word not found later on in NT scripture.

Or that Christ never attended family events or that he ceased to exist from 6weeks old at his presentation to the Temple to 12years when he was found in the Temple with the Priests. What of his life from 12 to 30ish when he started his mission?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

A book can't contain all the wonders of Jesus Christ.

John 21:25 CPDV:

"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written."

And absolutely no one claimed it did. But interestingly enough, it said that if everything was written down, the world itself couldn't contain it. So, are you telling me the Catechism contains all else that I need to know?

My question is, what is it that Scripture lacks in telling us of Christ, that the Catechism tells us?

I find it interesting that people are claiming that you can't know all of Christ from the bible and that you can't know everything about God "in a book" so they go on and introduce "another book" as if to say the first one which is God's word can't tell us everything but this other book can tell us so much more. And interestingly enough, this other book also give man the power of continuing revelation which is another way of introducing the doctrine of man.

I might not know everything about God, but I know so much more from Scripture alone then anything else anyone have claimed or wrote.