Sola scriptura

[civilwarbuff]

The problem is that you cannot know something that God has not revealed. He has revealed the Trinity to be true. Therefore if a person has been shown the Trinity and rejects it, it is something that could effect their salvation, but you can no more know the status of another person's salvation than you know the nature of what is beyond the event horizon of a black hole. For me, as myself, yes it is necessary for me to accept the Trinity because it has been revealed to me. But what of the person who lives in the jungle who never heard of the Church, of Christ, or any of the gospel, but knows that God exists, knows in his conscience the basic moral code which God gives us all, and lives by it to the best of his ability? Can I say anything of his salvation? No. His salvation is not revealed in Scripture or Tradition.

There are many things that are not revealed by God. But if God reveals it to us, then we must accept it, because God is the revealer. You can be misled much more easily trying to trust in your own perception, but there is wisdom in the council of many. This is why the Apostles set the example of holding a Council of the WHOLE of the Church, gathering leaders from across the entire reach of the Church as best they could in the book of Acts. This was not simply a special occassion. It was them showing us how leading the Church was to be done.

I agree with some of what you say; not everything of course. However, my primary question was in reference to tradition which, once again, you failed to answer.....so I am guessing you don't know the answer and simply repeat what the church tells you is true. Me, I am something of a sceptic of what I hear until I validate it for myself.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good.

 

[sculleywr]

I agree with some of what you say; not everything of course. However, my primary question was in reference to tradition which, once again, you failed to answer.....so I am guessing you don't know the answer and simply repeat what the church tells you is true. Me, I am something of a sceptic of what I hear until I validate it for myself.
1 Thessolonians: 21 Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good.

The problem is that the answer doesn't exist. God didn't deliver it, so requiring the Church to give an answer for that question is, to be honest, setting the bar higher than God Himself set it. You want to know something outside of the fences God gave the Church, then you can't ask the Church. The Church does not know everything about God. They only know what God revealed. God said we must believe the Trinity. Therefore we must believe it. What happens to those who don't believe it is up to God. You're asking the Church and me to speculate on something that is not given to us by God.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Let's see a few things. Scripture tells us we must receive Communion. Does it ever tell us how?

Of course it does.
The Lord’s Supper
26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and handed it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it. This is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28 because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins.
29 I tell all of you I will never again drink the product of the vine until that day when I drink it with you once again in my Father’s kingdom.”
30 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
You notice that Communion was not at the beginning or the end of the meal, but during it. Unfortunately, the early church changed that and it became a crust of bread and a sip of wine and neglected the fellowship of believers sharing a meal together. Is that what communion was intended to be....a crust of bread and sip of wine and then everyone out the door? Because that is what it has become thanks to the early church....unless tradition can explain it away somehow?......which I really doubt. And yeah, don't go down the transubstantion road or anything similar; this is about what communion was intended to be as demonstrated by the Last Supper.....

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Learn the truth. The church did not author scripture. The church is not the authority behind the words of scripture. The Bible is known as God's word, not the church's word. All the church did was to through away trash and say it was not to be included as God's word. From this you claim a continued authority above God's word.

So the Apostles weren't the Church. Good to know. The Church was the tool God used to author (through the Apostles), preserve (through the presbyters), and compile (through Athanasius and the Councils) the Scriptures. It was there before Scripture was penned (the Ekklessia Israel preceded the Old Testament, while the Ekklessia Ek Christos preceded the New).

How about you argue what I actually said. Christians acknowledge scripture to be God's word despite it being penned by various writers. These various writers in the N.T. were mostly apostles. Apostles are not the Church, while they are part of it. They certainly hold special rank, given to the 13 by Jesus. What you now call the Church does not inherit the same authority given to the apostles, that being to write new scripture.

Further understand that the bulk of the gospel message are direct quotes of Jesus by the writers of the first four books of the N.T. Do you really credit the writers to be the author? I have yet to read you profess scripture as being God's word and I fear it taints your respect for it.

As to higher authority, Pillar and Ground of the Truth will always be a higher authority than profitable. But of course, you will deny this despite the fact that it is what the Scripture plainly says. This is Exhibit A of you being above the Scripture in your own life. You don't like the position Scripture gives the Church, so you rationalize it.

If you actually read what scripture says instead of hijacking it for your own profit, you would learn that scripture says the church supports the truth; the church is not the truth or creator of it. This does not mean the church does not tell the truth, what it means is that there is only one source of incontrovertible truth, that is God's word. The church's function is therefore to support that truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.​

 

[civilwarbuff]

The problem is that the answer doesn't exist. God didn't deliver it, so requiring the Church to give an answer for that question is, to be honest, setting the bar higher than God Himself set it. You want to know something outside of the fences God gave the Church, then you can't ask the Church. The Church does not know everything about God. They only know what God revealed.

Here, we pretty much agree. If we knew all about God, he would not be much of a god.

God said we must believe the Trinity.

Here we disagree; I find no such scripture. Maybe you can point it out. I believe in the Trinity but not everyone can connect the dots which is what you have to do from what I understand of scripture.

You're asking the Church and me to speculate on something that is not given to us by God.

So, nothing in tradition about believing in the Trinity for salvation then?

 

[sculleywr]

Of course it does.
The Lord’s Supper
26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and handed it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it. This is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28 because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins.
29 I tell all of you I will never again drink the product of the vine until that day when I drink it with you once again in my Father’s kingdom.”
30 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
You notice that Communion was not at the beginning or the end of the meal, but during it. Unfortunately, the early church changed that and it became a crust of bread and a sip of wine and neglected the fellowship of believers sharing a meal together. Is that what communion was intended to be....a crust of bread and sip of wine and then everyone out the door? Because that is what it has become thanks to the early church....unless tradition can explain it away somehow?......which I really doubt. And yeah, don't go down the transubstantion road or anything similar; this is about what communion was intended to be as demonstrated by the Last Supper.....

That doesn't tell you how to celebrate the Eucharist, which isn't the same as the Lord's Supper. How does one prepare for Eucharist? What hymns or prayers were they saying? Should it be done during the agape meal as is done in some places or should it be done separate as is done in others?

Answer all of the questions about the Lord's Supper that could be answered about the celebration of the Day of Atonement, from Scripture. The Day of Atonement was detailed down to the smallest detail, even including the words of the prayers. This is in Scripture!

You cannot give that detail about any of the Sacraments from Scripture.

 

[W2L]

It does? That must be in First Additions 21:2-5, right?

The Scripture doesn't define the Canon. There is no list of the books of Scripture in Scripture. God didn't provide a Table of Contents to the Apostles. Athanasius, whose canon you are using, openly stated that he did not use Scripture to validate Scripture. He stated point blank that he believed and relied on Tradition in ALL of his Faith, which would include the canon he formulated in the Paschal letter of 364 that you use today. Sorry, but the person who made your canon directly disagrees with you.

It's just like the KJV Onlyists who claim the KJV translators didn't believe in the use of the Septuagint, regardless of the high praise they directly gave the Septuagint in their note to the reader.

He did not use scripture to validate scripture? Isn't that what Christ did, and Paul as well? "It is written" bro.

Its funny how your own churches traditions are not always found in scripture. Yet he used those traditions to validate scripture?

 

[sculleywr]

How about you argue what I actually said. Christians acknowledge scripture to be God's word despite it being penned by various writers. These various writers in the N.T. were mostly apostles. Apostles are not the Church, while they are part of it. They certainly hold special rank, given to the 13 by Jesus. What you now call the Church does not inherit the same authority given to the apostles, that being to write new scripture.

Further understand that the bulk of the gospel message are direct quotes of Jesus by the writers of the first four books of the N.T. Do you really credit the writers to be the author? I have yet to read you profess scripture as being God's word and I fear it taints your respect for it.


If you actually read what scripture says instead of hijacking it for your own profit, you would learn that scripture says the church supports the truth; the church is not the truth or creator of it. This does not mean the church does not tell the truth, what it means is that there is only one source of incontrovertible truth, that is God's word. The church's function is therefore to support that truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.​

You said the Church didn't author Scripture. But the Church DID author Scripture. God did not come down and deliver Scripture to the Apostles in the way that Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon was delivered, or in the way that Mohammed claimed the Qur'an was delivered. Certainly it was inspired, but it was not the foundation of the Church, for the Church was there before it. The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. It does not say the Pillar and Ground of the Scripture. Since Scripture is not the comprehensive compendium of all Truth, and never claims to be such, the Scripture is only part of that which stands upon the Church. But remember, without a foundation, all things fall apart. As you said, the Church SUPPORTS Scripture. So when you remove Scripture from the Church, you remove it from its support. You now have a roof with no walls or pillars to hold it upon. You have part of the story, but not the whole thing.

Returning to my metaphor of the Body, the Scripture is the heart of the Tradition of the Church. Without the Body, the Heart cannot function, and without the heart, the body cannot function. Protestants have a bodiless heart. Their heart has no oxygen from the Lungs of Tradition. It has no nutrients from the stomach of Tradition. It has no electrical impulses from the Brain of Tradition (the Brain being Christ Himself). They try to put it into a new body, but the bodies they try to put it in will, in the end, reject the heart transplant.

 

[W2L]

Every time some denomination feels compelled to say they gave us the scripture therefore we must follow them, I am compelled to say the Jews gave you the scriptures, therefore practice what you preach. If you cannot share the love, mercy and gentleness that scriptures give us then get out of the way. Your laying claim to the Words of Christ are obnoxious. I wouldn't follow you anywhere. I follow the Lord because His words give life to my soul. You do not give that however, so why would I follow you?

 

[sculleywr]

He did not use scripture to validate scripture? Isn't that what Christ did, and Paul as well? "It is written" bro.

Its funny how your own churches traditions are not always found in scripture. Yet he used those traditions to validate scripture?

It is funny how you pulled a Donald Trump on that, completely ignoring the statement that was given and moving to another unrelated point.

Athanasius used those Traditions to validate Scripture. He did not use Scripture to validate Scripture. He actually obeyed Paul when Paul said to hold to the Tradition which the Apostles taught, and not just the Scripture alone. He even championed the use of an extra-scriptural definition of the Incarnation using the term Homoousious (of one essence or consubstantial) to define the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. He did not use Scripture alone to form the Canon. Not if he lived in his formation of the canon in the same way in which he lived in everything else.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

That is assuming that Messiah is leading the Church and not man. Messiah had harsh words for the religious leaders for excluding God and placing themselves before Him.

It puzzles me that in modern times the various Catholic churches claim some special authority handed down to them and them being exclusive protectors of truth. They fail to learn from previous failures of the ordained leadership of God's people. Claiming a special heritage does not guarantee continued truth. The priests of Jesus' day were ordained by God from the tribe of Levi to shepherd his people. Despite that, most priests rejected Jesus and his message.

I am also puzzled that scripture records the High Priest as both prophesying and condemning Jesus to death.

 

[W2L]

It is funny how you pulled a Donald Trump on that, completely ignoring the statement that was given and moving to another unrelated point.

Athanasius used those Traditions to validate Scripture. He did not use Scripture to validate Scripture. He actually obeyed Paul when Paul said to hold to the Tradition which the Apostles taught, and not just the Scripture alone. He even championed the use of an extra-scriptural definition of the Incarnation using the term Homoousious (of one essence or consubstantial) to define the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. He did not use Scripture alone to form the Canon. Not if he lived in his formation of the canon in the same way in which he lived in everything else.

You preach your Church, i'll follow Christ. Your Church doesn't give me life, hope or Joy. You only give me contentious arguments and nonsense about cannons. I don't follow Churches, I follow Gods spirit. Only carnal Christian would preach a Church instead of Christ himself.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That doesn't tell you how to celebrate the Eucharist, which isn't the same as the Lord's Supper.

I am beginning to doubt you understand what you are celebrating.
"The Eucharist /ˈjuːkərɪst/ (also called Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, and other names) is a Christian rite that is considered a sacrament in most churches. According to the New Testament, it was instituted by Jesus Christ during his Last Supper."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

That doesn't tell you how to celebrate the Eucharist,

It is laid out in print (pixels in my case). What part of how to celebrate do you not understand?

How does one prepare for Eucharist?

Obviously, none. It was done during the meal with no pre-planing at least from the Apostles perspective; otherwise I think the writer might have mentioned it. Does tradition?

What hymns or prayers were they saying?

To God I would assume. Do they have to be the exact same ones?....and if so how would anyone know what they were? Anything in tradition that can substantiate what they did?

Should it be done during the agape meal as is done in some places or should it be done separate as is done in others?

Again, it was done during the meal......

Answer all of the questions about the Lord's Supper that could be answered about the celebration of the Day of Atonement, from Scripture. The Day of Atonement was detailed down to the smallest detail, even including the words of the prayers. This is in Scripture!

So, give us the "tradition" that can explain all this. I keep asking for this kind of info and keep getting zero in response so tradition must really say nothing at all.......

 

[sculleywr]

You preach your Church, i'll follow Christ. Your Church doesn't give me life, hope or Joy. You only give me contentious arguments and nonsense about cannons. I don't follow Churches, I follow Gods spirit. Only carnal Christian would preach a Church instead of Christ himself.

You preach yourself. To be quite frank, you haven't once preached Christ. You've preached that you preach Christ. You talk all about how you preach Christ. But you haven't answered a question about what that means, because, according to you, it is not your responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission or even to "Have an answer for the joy within you".

I don't preach my Church alone. I preach the Church which is headed by Christ, which means that Christ is there as the Head of that Church. And if Christ is the Head of the Church, then the Church cannot fail for where the Head leads, there goes the Body.

 

[Geralt]

of course not, scripture was before church.

unless of course you are referring to institutionalized churches which insists on their own inherent authority apart from and at par with scripture.

That so called authority is the product of church government which is no different than any other government.

 

[sculleywr]

I am beginning to doubt you understand what you are celebrating.
"The Eucharist /ˈjuːkərɪst/ (also called Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, and other names) is a Christian rite that is considered a sacrament in most churches. According to the New Testament, it was instituted by Jesus Christ during his Last Supper."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

It is laid out in print (pixels in my case). What part of how to celebrate do you not understand?

Obviously, none. It was done during the meal with no pre-planing at least from the Apostles perspective; otherwise I think the writer might have mentioned it. Does tradition?

To God I would assume. Do they have to be the exact same ones?....and if so how would anyone know what they were? Anything in tradition that can substantiate what they did?

Again, it was done during the meal......

So, give us the "tradition" that can explain all this. I keep asking for this kind of info and keep getting zero in response so tradition must really say nothing at all.......

I can. That last question can be answered here:

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy

The Last Supper was done during a meal, but that was not always the case. And in fact, there were times when the early Church did not have the opportunity to provide a meal to go along with the Eucharist, so it would not be during a meal.

The Apostles spent three years being prepared by Christ. Do you think that Christ did not intend for their preparation to be right? And Paul himself hints at preparation, as does Christ. For example, when Christ says to "leave your gift" if you have a conflict with someone that has not been forgiven, or when Paul says not to receive of the Eucharist unworthily, this is hinting at something that is not fully explained in Scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

of course not, scripture was before church.

unless of course you are referring to institutionalized churches which insists on their own inherent authority apart from and at par with scripture.

So the Church didn't exist for 60 some odd years until John finished writing?

 

[amariselle]

You said the Church didn't author Scripture. But the Church DID author Scripture. God did not come down and deliver Scripture to the Apostles in the way that Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon was delivered, or in the way that Mohammed claimed the Qur'an was delivered. Certainly it was inspired, but it was not the foundation of the Church, for the Church was there before it. The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. It does not say the Pillar and Ground of the Scripture. Since Scripture is not the comprehensive compendium of all Truth, and never claims to be such, the Scripture is only part of that which stands upon the Church. But remember, without a foundation, all things fall apart. As you said, the Church SUPPORTS Scripture. So when you remove Scripture from the Church, you remove it from its support. You now have a roof with no walls or pillars to hold it upon. You have part of the story, but not the whole thing.

God's word and its truth does not stand or fall based on the church (which is all true believers). God's word is truth regardless of anything any one of us ever say or do.

And God's words and the truth of them will never pass away. Nothing mankind can ever do will change that. Not our traditions and not our many conflicting interpretations.

And God alone is "the Pillar and Ground of the Truth", not the church. We are blessed to share His truth, and thanks to His giving us His divinely inspired word, we can share it, but He alone is "the Way, the Truth and the Life", not us.

Returning to my metaphor of the Body, the Scripture is the heart of the Tradition of the Church. Without the Body, the Heart cannot function, and without the heart, the body cannot function. Protestants have a bodiless heart. Their heart has no oxygen from the Lungs of Tradition. It has no nutrients from the stomach of Tradition. It has no electrical impulses from the Brain of Tradition (the Brain being Christ Himself). They try to put it into a new body, but the bodies they try to put it in will, in the end, reject the heart transplant.

Please choose your words wisely. Be careful that you are not accusing thousands of other Christians of not being true Christians. That is a very serious judgement and condemnation to make. (And of lesser importance, also against forum rules).

 

[civilwarbuff]

You mean this liturgy that refers to air travel......this is not from tradition.....


I can. That last question can be answered here:
http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy

 

[W2L]

You preach yourself. To be quite frank, you haven't once preached Christ. You've preached that you preach Christ. You talk all about how you preach Christ. But you haven't answered a question about what that means, because, according to you, it is not your responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission or even to "Have an answer for the joy within you".

I don't preach my Church alone. I preach the Church which is headed by Christ, which means that Christ is there as the Head of that Church. And if Christ is the Head of the Church, then the Church cannot fail for where the Head leads, there goes the Body.

I preach Christ in all things. You Preach EO in all things. I never once preached myself.

Christ gives the fruit of peace, love and joy. Your words give only contention and darkness. Why would I follow that?