Sola Scriptura

[steve_bakr]

Josiah and HisKid,

I do understand that you don't recognize the teachings of the Catholic Church with respect to sacred Tradition and its Apostolic teaching authority, and I have said that my profession of faith binds me to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I am not a professional apologist. The best I can do is present to you the teachings of the Catholic Church to the best of my understanding.

 

[Daniel25]

Interesting you'd again pick a DOGMA totally unique to your denomination, one nearly all (even Catholics) agree is abiblical.

Technicly, I believe both the catholics and the eastern orthodox hold mary to be free from all sin, but because the orthodox don't have the augustianian conception of inherited original sin, the idea of an immaculate conception would be superflous for them.

 

[Thekla]

Mary is called sinless in the eastern tradition in comparison to other humans (who willingly sin, are subject to passions) but not in comparison to God (sinless by nature).

All are born into a sinful/fallen world, and tend toward sin.
The difference is between acting on this tendency, or against it.

 

[Standing Up]

Excuse me, I thought you said that you studied Tradition and then found it wanting. Anyway, as William James observed in The Varieties of Religious Experience, there are both sudden conversions and gradual conversions. And I might add that what matters is the quality and change in the heart that results.

I studied some scripture. And then studied some Tradition. I've agreed to use scripture and very early tradition. What usually happens is I find the two in agreement. But as I move farther away from apostolic times, I find Tradition veering away.

 

[Standing Up]

This is the very thing I don't understand about your logic. You're so stuck on the idea that we don't "go beyond what is written" as meaning we think that Christ was a stoic Being doing nothing else but what Scripture has said... We don't suspend logic because Scripture doesn't write about Christ's emotions all that often.


And what is the good news or shall I say the gospel?
Doesn't Scripture tells us that it is Christ and Him crucified?

Acts 8:35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preaching Jesus to him...
​

Philip preached Jesus.


You're going by what you think I said and that's what's confusing you.


Do you not know how to do a word search in Scripture?
This is tedious and unprofitable.


And if you read my answer you would know that I don't have time too.

Scripture 1. Tradition 0.

 

[Standing Up]

Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church do not contradict Holy Scripture.

Sure they do. They can't help but contradict. We know this because RC and EO and P teach contradiction to each other.

 

[Standing Up]

So you don't think all the oral teachings of the original apostles was all put to letter say by the first century ? You say the bishops were given more teaching that the original apostles didn't have with the faith once delievered? What are some of the "oral" Traditions that the original apostles didn't know..See when I read "faith once delivered", I wonder what else did we need that wasn't given with the foundation laid of all the original apostles/prophets with Christ as the cornerstone.

Firmilian accused Rome of building outbuildings.

 

[Montalban]

Acts 8:35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preaching Jesus to him...
Philip preached Jesus.​

That could mean anything.

Anyway, let me know if you can answer my question re: the trinity​

 

[Montalban]

So you don't think all the oral teachings of the original apostles was all put to letter say by the first century ?

They had a book called "Epistle of Paul to the Glatians"

There's nothing in the book to affirm that it's actually Paul's book. Sacred Tradition affirmed that it was Paul's book.

Sacred Tradition guaranteed this... and it's not based on sola scriptura

 

[Montalban]

Actuallly, John penned that not everything Jesus DID is contained in his Gospel book. .

Can you point to where in the Epistle to the Galatians it shows 100% to be Paul's Epistle?

Although it begins
Gal:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

How do you know this is Paul and not someone else of the same name? What gaurantees it's real?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Within your post you have identified two Catholic principles. One is that, if something else is considered alongside Scripture--ie., oral Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church--then it must not contradict Scripture. The other is that the oral teaching of the Apostles--ie., Tradition--is also God-breathed.

The first principle goes along side with Scripture.
The second principle makes it sound like there were other "oral teachings" that the Apostles forgot to mentioned in Scripture. I said this because of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

If we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that Scripture is there to "make man completely, thoroughly equipped for every good work" how then can we have oral traditions not included in Scripture, that is needed to make us complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work?

 

[Montalban]

So things were important that weren't written down came after the original apostles that they didn't know when the church was established. It just doesn't make sense, we know books can't contain it but Christ knew when the church was established what needed to be written. Remember just because somethingis an old established practice doesn't mean it's automatically correct. Don't you think when we are judged for our works it will be according to how we were obedient to Him through following His words penned via the Holy Spirit through the apostles.
It sure won't be judged on following traditions that came after the apostles..

You can see this IN SCRIPTURE that not everything was written down when the Apostles met (as in Acts 15) they had to decide whether OT law applied to Gentile converts

 

[Montalban]

The first principle goes along side with Scripture.
The second principle makes it sound like there were other "oral teachings" that the Apostles forgot to mentioned in Scripture. I said this because of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

If we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that Scripture is there to "make man completely, thoroughly equipped for every good work" how then can we have oral traditions not included in Scripture, that is needed to make us complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work?

And still your posts don't address several problems; they simply repeat your 'just-so' statement.

When Paul commended scripture it wasn't the NT - which then didn't exist. He commended an OT that included books your church doesn't.

This undermines your notion of 'complete'.

In several pages of posts you have not shown how an 'incomplete' scripture can be complete

 

[Montalban]

The books Paul was commending to Timothy to make Timothy complete did not include the NT.

Sola scripturists have to show how an as yet complete collection of books is sufficient for us

And they exclude some OT books that Paul was commending to Timothy.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Can you point to where in the Epistle to the Galatians it shows 100% to be Paul's Epistle?

Although it begins
Gal:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

How do you know this is Paul and not someone else of the same name? What gaurantees it's real?

So, let me get this straight....I can't believe that Paul wrote Galatians even though he claimed he did and even though it was Him who experienced what He was going through and then wrote the Scriptures as inspired by God, but yet, I'm supposed to believe other people who claimed that Paul wrote it?

I can't believe Paul's words, but I can believe the "others" even though Paul we are told was filled with the Holy Spirit?


We can do the same thing with EVERY book in Scripture?
How do I know there was really a man name Jesus who died on the cross and rose again the third day?
Because the Holy Spirit was a witness, and quite interestingly, it was the Holy Spirit that authored the Scriptures through these man that were also eyewitnesses to these events.

1 Thes 1:5

For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.

John 16:12-15
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.​

You know, it's really interesting, we might be 2000 years removed from the events but if you take it back to the 1st century, you have to ask the same question? How do they know that the Epistle was from Paul, 100%?
It's probably because of the intimate details that Paul told the Galatian church. Many of the things Paul admonished the church was the things that they were dealing with, who else but Paul would have known and write him these things? There must have been confusion in the churches around that time on whether these Epistles were from Paul because in 2 Thes 3:17 he says:

The salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle; so I write.​

And in Galatians 6:11 he says

See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!​

The Galatian church seem to understand that the letter were from Paul. And it wasn't because of their say-so that made the Epistle 100% from Paul, it was God inspired to Paul's hands. It was 100% from Paul because Paul wrote it, not because the church said he wrote it.​

 

[daydreamergurl15]

And still your posts don't address several problems; they simply repeat your 'just-so' statement.

When Paul commended scripture it wasn't the NT - which then didn't exist. He commended an OT that included books your church doesn't.

This undermines your notion of 'complete'.

In several pages of posts you have not shown how an 'incomplete' scripture can be complete

Please be advised that Paul says
ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God.........THAT the man of God MAY BE COMPLETE thoroughly equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK.

Scripture is given to us so that WE maybe be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

As for saying that he "commended an OT that includes books your church doesn't, I'm confused, does he make a list somewhere in Scripture that I don't know about?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The books Paul was commending to Timothy to make Timothy complete did not include the NT.

Sola scripturists have to show how an as yet complete collection of books is sufficient for us

And they exclude some OT books that Paul was commending to Timothy.

Um...Timothy traveled with Paul when Paul went on his mission trips, Acts 16, and Paul preached everywhere he went, so yeah, Paul MOST definitely taught Timothy the NT.

You still can't get pass the fact that the gospel was taught before it was written and yet they are both Scripture because it is the same thing.

 

[Standing Up]

Um...Timothy traveled with Paul when Paul went on his mission trips, Acts 16, and Paul preached everywhere he went, so yeah, Paul MOST definitely taught Timothy the NT.

You still can't get pass the fact that the gospel was taught before it was written and yet they are both Scripture because it is the same thing.

Well, to do so unravels their (RC/EO) assumption that they put the NT together. The EO/RC group loses the ability to claim the ability to appoint Tradition (even though their Tradition conflicts in a number of ways) as on par with Scripture (which doesn't conflict).

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-You know, it's really interesting, we might be 2000 years removed from the events but if you take it back to the 1st century, you have to ask the same question? How do they know that the Epistle was from Paul, 100%?
It's probably because of the intimate details that Paul told the Galatian church. Many of the things Paul admonished the church was the things that they were dealing with, who else but Paul would have known and write him these things? There must have been confusion in the churches around that time on whether these Epistles were from Paul because in 2 Thes 3:17 he says:

The salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle; so I write.
​

And in Galatians 6:11 he says

See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!
​

The Galatian church seem to understand that the letter were from Paul. And it wasn't because of their say-so that made the Epistle 100% from Paul, it was God inspired to Paul's hands. It was 100% from Paul because Paul wrote it, not because the church said he wrote it.

Very nice. It's on all of his letters.

 

[Montalban]

Um...Timothy traveled with Paul when Paul went on his mission trips, Acts 16, and Paul preached everywhere he went, so yeah, Paul MOST definitely taught Timothy the NT.

So Paul had with him the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Revelations?

You still can't get pass the fact that the gospel was taught before it was written and yet they are both Scripture because it is the same thing.

You still haven't answered my question re: the Trinity, nor addressed the issue that your own bible excludes OT books Paul commended to Timothy