St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[LittleLambofJesus]

LittleLambofJesus said: ↑
That was said before the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and the coming destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple in ad 70.
I think Jesus was referring to corrupt murderouls Judean Priests, Pharisees and Scribes and were the true "antichrists". IMHO
The RCC is not the harlot in Revelation......

??? 1 John 2 - before the crucifixion of Jesus ???

1 John 2 is written many decades after the ascension and is not a case of John quoting Christ at all. The point that they admit to having many antichrists - and yet still are not burning anyone alive - remains as point that refutes the idea that you can burn someone if they are thought to be working with some antichrist group.

I stand corrected. I though it was in John's Gospel. Perhaps it could refer to the Roman rulers?
In any event, many Christians believe Revelation is depicting the destruction of Jerusalem in ad70.......

John 11:48
If-ever we should be letting Him thus, all shall be believing into Him
and shall be coming the Romans and they shall be taking away of Us and the Place and the Nation.

Who do you think the "them" in Revelation 12 is symbolizing? Jews or the Catholic Papacy?

Reve 12:8 And not he is strong, neither Place was found of Them still in the Heaven.

http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ; and it is deserving of the very particular attention of the reader, that this was the anniversary of that memorable period in which the Jews crucified their Messiah ! At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival...........

For five days after the destruction of the Temple, the priests who had escaped, sat, pining with hunger, on the top of one of its broken walls; at length, they came down, and humbly asked the pardon of Titus, which, however, he refused to grant them, saying, that, "as the Temple, for the sake of which he would have spared them, was destroyed, it was but fit that its priests should parish also:" -whereupon he commanded that they should be put to death.



.



.

 

[sculleywr]

It can be tested "sola scriptura" to see if it is disqualified - if it is error. But as to whether that which is found to be "truth" is also to be accepted as "Scripture" -- well in the NT writers themselves say that their writings were being accepted as "scripture" right then and there in the first century.

As for how someone comes along in the days of Christ and notices that the OT was canonized 400 years prior to that - well I agree as stated in my prior post - that such a fact as "what books were included" is not listed in scripture - but the sola scriptura "testing" doctrine is not dependent on every fact of history being included in scripture. So I am not arguing against such tradition.

My argument has never been that "all tradition is shown to be error according to the sola scriptura test".

However the need for and demonstrated use of "Sola Scriptura testing" can easily be seen in these examples.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.




Is that merely a factless false accusation you are "trying out" or did you have some actual fact to back it up?

Hold Fast to the Traditions which we have taught you, whether by our word, or by our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15)

A great example of the Bible NOT speaking out against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.

2 Cor 11
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.


in Christ,

Bob

It isn't false, and yes. I tested sola Scriptura against Scripture. It is found nowhere in Scripture. It is not held by Scripture. Tradition is commanded in Scripture. The Church is declared the pillar and ground of the Truth in Scripture. You declare Scripture to be true, but you reject its command of tradition for the sake of your manmade tradition of Sola Scriptura. You think you're hammering on Tradition when all you're really doing is throwing soft pieces of fluff that are your abuses of Scripture.

The Scripture commands Tradition in II Thessalonians 2:15. It is YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION against the plain meaning of Scripture and the people to whom scripture was written.

Of course, according to you, the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.

 

[sculleywr]

on the contrary - we agree that the RCC doctrinal errors that contradict scripture include these errors:

1. prayers to the dead
2. Purgatory
3. The system of Indulgences
4. The "Doctrine of Discovery"
5. The infallabiliy of Papal and RCC church council statements on doctrine, and law governing Christians.
6. Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"
7. Rejection of Sola Scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine
8. "powers" of the priests
9. Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture

...

1. There are none dead in Christ, so neither Orthodox nor Catholics are praying to the dead. They are praying to those living in Christ.
2-3. Purgatory is an innovation and is not part of Apostolic Tradition. It is an addition invented in the medieval times.
4. I assume by this you mean the teaching of doctrinal development. Our rejection of this doctrine is the reason we reject the innovation of Sola Scriptura.
5. The Church of the Apostles is the Pillar and Bastion of the Truth. There is no head of the Church aside from Christ, thus the Pope is fallible. The Ecumenical Councils, however, being part of the Church, and being the witness of the whole Church, have authority in defining doctrine (not changing it).
6. unfamiliar with this phrase, so please explain.
7. Rejection of Sola Scriptura is the rejection of a tradition invented in the 15th century. It is nowhere found in Scripture nor the Tradition of the Apostles.
8. The Authority of the Bishops was given by Christ to the Apostles and from them to their disciples and from them to their disciples. This authority is extended to the Church in all eras by the Holy Spirit to preserve it unblemished
9. The removal of books included in the Old Testament of the early Church is rejected as the acceptance of the canon invented by Christ-deniers. We will not remove books that you removed simply on your say so. We would rather stand with the Apostles than with the churches that believe the Apostles were a failure.

 

[BobRyan]

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1. There are none dead in Christ, so neither Orthodox nor Catholics are praying to the dead. They are praying to those living in Christ.

Your argument is "with the text"

2-3. Purgatory is an innovation and is not part of Apostolic Tradition. It is an addition invented in the medieval times.

agreed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

fhansen said: ↑
And who will deem themselves the authentic interpreter of Scripture, since the doctrine of SS is obviously useless without such an authority seeing as it's adherents, such as yourselves and others, can't agree on many other doctrines which are said to stem from Scripture?

on the contrary - we agree that the RCC doctrinal errors that contradict scripture include these errors:

1. prayers to the dead
2. Purgatory
3. The system of Indulgences
4. The "Doctrine of Discovery"
5. The infallabiliy of Papal and RCC church council statements on doctrine, and law governing Christians.
6. Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"
7. Rejection of Sola Scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine
8. "powers" of the priests
9. Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture

...

And we agree that no Bible doctrine supports burning Protestants (or Catholics) alive at the stake.

We agree that there is no Bible support for Papal armies going to war against each other.

No Bible support for Christians to torture themselves.

No Bible support for the assumption of Mary, Mary being sinless, Mary being called "Mother of God" by even one Apostle or by all NT Christian before she died.

We agree that salvation is "by grace through faith" and even the RCC seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

...
4. I assume by this you mean the teaching of doctrinal development. Our rejection of this doctrine is the reason we reject the innovation of Sola Scriptura.

No the "doctrine of discovery" is a doctrine about killing the natives you find in new discovered lands that refuse to convert to the church you belong to.

Your rejection of Mark 7:6-13 methods demonstrated by Christ -- noted.

...
5. The Church of the Apostles is the Pillar and Bastion of the Truth. There is no head of the Church aside from Christ, thus the Pope is fallible.

agreed.

The Ecumenical Councils, however, being part of the Church, and being the witness of the whole Church, have authority in defining doctrine (not changing it).

"Though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven" should come along later and "preach a different doctrine - let him be accursed"... so then 'test them all' -- sola scriptura.

6. unfamiliar with this phrase, so please explain.

The Catholic church claims that the priests have powers to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" in the eucharist bread.

7. Rejection of Sola Scriptura is the rejection of a tradition invented in the 15th century. It is nowhere found in Scripture nor the Tradition of the Apostles.

Until you read Mark 7:6-13, Acts 17:11, Gal 1:6-9

9. The removal of books included in the Old Testament of the early Church is rejected as the acceptance of the canon invented by Christ-deniers. We will not remove books that you removed

The Hebrew OT canon was fixed 400 years before the Christian church and 700 years before any Catholic church ever existed. Even the Catholic Church's own JEROME stated this when translating the Vulgate. The apocryphal books are not part of the OT Hebrew canon - completed long before the Catholic Church or the Orthodox church ever came into being.

 

[sculleywr]

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.



Your argument is "with the text"

Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

Your argument is with the text. "To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ". Is there death in Christ? No. They are alive, more alive than even we are. Besides that, unlike what you probably think, we do not ascribe them honor equal to Christ. We ascribe them the honor due to all men and women in the Church. We praise Christ for His work in them and remember those works by their images.

 

[sculleywr]

And we agree that no Bible doctrine supports burning Protestants (or Catholics) alive at the stake.

There is also no Tradition supporting the murder of those who do not agree with the Church. Such actions put the persons committing them in danger of hellfire, though we will withhold judgment on the salvation of the individuals who did them as salvation is available to everyone, and God could have saved them later. We leave that up to God

We agree that there is no Bible support for Papal armies going to war against each other.

Again, there is not Tradition to support the organized military of the Church. A person may be a soldier and a Christian, but the Church has no governmental position and is not a military organization. Moving on.

No Bible support for Christians to torture themselves.

The Tradition of the Church also forbids this, as seen in the first canon of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea:

If anyone has been surgeons for a disease, or has been excised by barbarians, let him remain in the clergy. But if anyone has excised himself when well, he must be dismissed even if he is examined after being in the clergy. And henceforth no such person must be promoted to holy orders. But as is self-evident, though such is the case as regards those who affect the matter and dare to excise themselves, if any persons have been barbarians or their lords, but are otherwise found to be worthy, the Canon admits such persons to the clergy.​

No Bible support for the assumption of Mary, Mary being sinless, Mary being called "Mother of God" by even one Apostle or by all NT Christian before she died.

The Assumption of Mary is not taught by the Orthodox. The sinlessness of Mary is not a salvific doctrine, and I don't discuss it because it isn't relevant to salvation. However, as regards the title "Mother of God", which part do you have a problem with, that Jesus is God? Or that Mary is His mother? Deductive logic here:

Premise 1: Jesus is God (John 1)
Premise 2: Mary is the mother of Jesus (Luke 2)
Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God.

We agree that salvation is "by grace through faith" and even the RCC seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

That has never been rejected by the Orthodox. What is rejected is the definition of Faith as held by Protestants as not having any works. According to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, dead faith can save, and that's heretical to the Orthodox Church.

No the "doctrine of discovery" is a doctrine about killing the natives you find in new discovered lands that refuse to convert to the church you belong to.

Your rejection of Mark 7:6-13 methods demonstrated by Christ -- noted.

We do not reject Mark 7:6-13. We reject Sola Scriptura, which is NOT the method Christ was giving. The method Christ gave and was used by the Church for 1400 years before Sola Scriptura was invented is Tradition. Many churches didn't have access to Scripture and therefore could not practice Sola Scriptura. According to you, the people of Gaul never truly got saved because they didn't have any Scripture. In truth, it is you who rejects the Scripture's own humble giving up of the position of Pillar and Ground of Truth to the Church in I Timothy 3:15

"Though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven" should come along later and "preach a different doctrine - let him be accursed"... so then 'test them all' -- sola scriptura.

The Councils did not introduce a new gospel. They DEFINED the gospel which was already being taught, in opposition to the innovations of the heretics. Since Sola Scriptura is a gospel OTHER than the Apostolic message, we could very honestly turn that same verse against you.

The Catholic church claims that the priests have the powers to "Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" in the eucharist bread.

I will leave that to a Roman Catholic. I do not even know what in the world that means.

Until you read Mark 7:6-13, Acts 17:11, Gal 1:6-9

None of which say to use only Scripture. Either that, or Jude was violating it by saying that a Tradition was 100% true as regards the body of Moses. You do know that if Sola Scriptura was true, the Church completely failed and the gates of hell prevailed.

The Hebrew OT canon was fixed 400 years before the Christian church and 700 years before any Catholic church ever existed. Even the Catholic Church's own JEROME stated this when translating the Vulgate. The apocryphal books are not part of the OT Hebrew canon - completed long before the Catholic Church or the Orthodox church ever came into being.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-Sincerely, every person who has ever studied the history of the Canon of Scripture.

The Old Testament Canon was a MASSIVE debate at the time of Christ. The Sadducees said only the Hebrew was to be used. The Pharisees held to the Greek Septuagint, which included all of those supposedly Apocryphal books. As to the existence of ONE Saint, I can turn you to Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement, Athanasius, Justin Martyr, and others.

Among the Jews, it wasn't until the time of the Masoretes that the Jewish canon was set in stone. That was the 5th or 6th century AD! Among Christians, the Septuagint was the Canon of the Church nearly unanimously. And it has all of the books that you hate. Of course, you can change the Scriptures to fit your desires. So much for Sola Scriptura.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Thess 4
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1. There are none dead in Christ, so neither Orthodox nor Catholics are praying to the dead. They are praying to those living in Christ.

Your argument is "with the text"

Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

Your argument is with the text.

Not at all true - since the mere quote of 1 Thess 4 is not 'an argument with the text of John 8"

"To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ".

A great example of a text that does not even exist.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

No Bible support for
1. the assumption of Mary,
2. Mary being sinless,
3. Mary being called "Mother of God" by even one Apostle or by all NT Christians before she died.

The Assumption of Mary is not taught by the Orthodox. The sinlessness of Mary is not a salvific doctrine, and I don't discuss it because it isn't relevant to salvation. However, as regards the title "Mother of God", which part do you have a problem with, that Jesus is God? Or that Mary is His mother? Deductive logic here:

Premise 1: Jesus is God (John 1)
Premise 2: Mary is the mother of Jesus (Luke 2)

Neither of those chapters addresses Mary as "Mother of God" -- Which was the point I made in my statement above - not one NT author uses that title for Mary - nor is she ever addressed that way in all of the NT.
One may "wish" that they had done it - but there is no text showing them doing such a thing.

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God.

A faulty conclusion of the form "Joseph - stronger than God" -- or "Mary - instructor of God"

According to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, dead faith can save

If you have a "dead faith can save" statement from Calvin or Luther, Wycliffe, Hus, Jerome - please share it.

 

[BobRyan]

No the "doctrine of discovery" is a doctrine about killing the natives you find in new discovered lands that refuse to convert to the church you belong to.

Your rejection of Mark 7:6-13 methods demonstrated by Christ -- noted.


However the need for and demonstrated use of "Sola Scriptura testing" can easily be seen in these examples.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.




The Bible does NOT speak against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.

2 Cor 11
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

All of which say to test all tradition and doctrine by scripture - none of which say that "tradition does not exist" or "all tradition is error".

None of which say to use only Scripture. Either that, or Jude was violating it by saying that a Tradition was 100% true as regards the body of Moses. You do know that if Sola Scriptura was true, the Church completely failed and the gates of hell prevailed.

You have defined "the church failing" as "Sola Scriptura is true" --- that is a leap in logic not justified by the text.

The point remains.

We do not reject Mark 7:6-13. We reject Sola Scriptura, which is NOT the method Christ was giving. The method Christ gave and was used by the Church for 1400 years before Sola Scriptura was invented is Tradition.

Fine then you should be able to demonstrate your claims about Mark 7 by actually looking at it and showing us that this is not a sola-scriptura hammering of the traditions and doctrines of the ONE true nation church started by God at Sinai -- the church of Christ's day.

We shall wait....

In truth, it is you who rejects the Scripture's own humble giving up of the position of Pillar and Ground of Truth to the Church in I Timothy 3:15

2 Tim 3:15-17
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[sculleywr]

I'm done going in circles Bob. Either stop repeating and actually respond to what is written, or stop responding. I won't respond to any of your repetition from here out. I will make it really big, and this is the end of my part of the discussion:

Rejection of Sola Scriptura is the rejection of a new teaching, not the rejection of Mark 7's passage which is misinterpreted as rejection of all traditions.

 

[BobRyan]

9. The removal of books included in the Old Testament of the early Church is rejected as the acceptance of the canon invented by Christ-deniers. We will not remove books that you removed

on the contrary - ...The Hebrew OT canon was fixed 400 years before the Christian church and 700 years before any Catholic church ever existed. Even the Catholic Church's own JEROME stated this when translating the Vulgate. The apocryphal books are not part of the OT Hebrew canon - completed long before the Catholic Church or the Orthodox church ever came into being.

BAHA

Not a Bible argument of any kind - nor a historic fact.

The point remains

HAHAHAHAHAH

"still" not a Bible argument of any kind - nor a historic fact.

The point remains

Thus in Luke 24 and the term 'All of scriptures" is undisputed.
Acts 17:11 'they studied the scripture" - the term is again - undisputed.

Josephus points out that there was NO change in the text of the OT Canon as kept in the temple -- for over 400 years at the time of Christ.

"Large font responses" not withstanding this historic fact.

The point remains.

The Hebrew OT Bible is a Jewish document - not a Catholic one.

 

[BobRyan]

However the need for and demonstrated use of "Sola Scriptura testing" can easily be seen in these examples.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.




The Bible does NOT speak against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.

I'm done going in circles Bob. Either stop repeating and actually respond to what is written, or stop responding. I won't respond to any of your repetition from here out. I will make it really big, and this is the end of my part of the discussion:

Rejection of Sola Scriptura is the rejection of a new teaching, not the rejection of Mark 7's passage which is misinterpreted as rejection of all traditions.

Hint: Larger font is not an argument - "fluff" yes - but not an argument.

repeating your assertions without any evidence "in the text" to support them - is not an argument.

Your solution for Mark 7 so far is to avoid every detail in the text - "as if' that sort of solution will fly on a debate board.

I do not say you cannot simply repeat those methods over and over again if that is all your argument has. However for my part - I prefer the actual Bible.

 

[sculleywr]

However the need for and demonstrated use of "Sola Scriptura testing" can easily be seen in these examples.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.




The Bible does NOT speak against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.



Hint: Larger font is not an argument - "fluff" yes - but not an argument.

repeating your assertions without any evidence "in the text" to support them - is not an argument.

Your solution for Mark 7 so far is to avoid every detail in the text - "as if' that sort of solution will fly on a debate board.

I do not say you cannot simply repeat those methods over and over again if that is all your argument has. However for my part - I prefer the actual Bible.

Somebody should tell you what you just told me. Repeating your arguments without any evidence in the text is not an argument. You have repeated and repeated your ADDITION to the Scripture.

I want a verse that says the Scripture is the highest authority. Not your philosophizing.

There is a reason NOBODY in the second century believed Sola Scriptura. Because nobody was taught it. Now, if nobody was taught it, and it is the truth, then the Apostles fundamentally failed to teach the Truth.

The fact is, however, that the Apostles didn't fail to teach the Truth. The Truth is Tradition. how do we know this? 18 years passed before a single New Testament book was written. For 18 years, the only method by which people heard the gospel was by way of oral Tradition. That Tradition was written down IN PART, but the Apostles urged the continuation of the oral Tradition in II Thessalonians 2:15, which doesn't contradict Mark 7 when understood in the light of the fact that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15).

Your other problem, Bob, is that you can't use Sola Scriptura to establish the Canon of Scripture. The Scripture never came with a Table of Contents. That was added by later generations. The Canon wasn't formed for hundreds of years after the Church, and yes, that includes the acceptance of the Greek Old Testament by the VAST MAJORITY, if not the entirety of the Church, while people like Jerome were outliers.

You see, the Canon is Tradition. Further, it is Tradition that stands in judgment of the Scripture. It is Tradition that determines what the content of Scripture is, not Scripture. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is completely self-contradicting, since Tradition is the final and highest authority, determining the content of Scripture, which determines its outcome.

 

[BobRyan]

However the need for and demonstrated use of "Sola Scriptura testing" can easily be seen in these examples.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.




The Bible does NOT speak against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.



Hint: Larger font is not an argument - "fluff" yes - but not an argument.

repeating your assertions without any evidence "in the text" to support them - is not an argument.

Your solution for Mark 7 so far is to avoid every detail in the text - "as if' that sort of solution will fly on a debate board.

I do not say you cannot simply repeat those methods over and over again if that is all your argument has. However for my part - I prefer the actual Bible.

Somebody should tell you what you just told me. Repeating your arguments without any evidence in the text is not an argument.

My "evidence" is in the texts I post -- highlighted, colored, underlined etc.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Your solution is to ignore every detail in the text - as if this is "compelling".

Another example of "evidence" in the actual post --

The Bible does NOT speak against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.

Your solution is to ignore every detail in the text - as if this is "compelling".

I am more than happy to go with scripture on the point demonstrated since your only solution appears to be ignoring those scripture details -- there is no reason for me to change on that point.

S
Your other problem, Bob, is that you can't use Sola Scriptura to establish the Canon of Scripture.

Why is that a "problem" since the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine" is not in the form "There is no such thing as tradition".

The Canon wasn't formed for hundreds of years after the Church, and yes, that includes the acceptance of the Greek Old Testament

The Hebrew OT was produced by the Hebrews -- not by the Catholics. None of them were "waiting 700 years for Catholics to show up and tell them what to read" as we all know.

Even Josephus admits that the Hebrew Bible has canonized - fixed - nothing at all added to it - for 400 years prior to the time of Christ.

History is not deleted simply because someone wants to use "large font" to ignore it.


Nobody in the NT or OT said "hey! we need to wait a few centuries before we know what scripture even is".

Hence in Luke 24 "in ALL of scriptures" is a term undisputed by the first century readers.
Hence in Acts 17:11 "Searched the scriptures" is a term - undisputed by the first century readers.

the point remains.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This thread has strayed a very long way away from The Acts of the Apostles chapter 17.

 

[BobRyan]

Well that may be - as long as you agree that turning the point of "sola scriptura" testing of Paul in Acts 17:11 is in no way related to how the OT Hebrew canon was fixed and unchanged for 400 years before Christ thus the term "scriptures" in Acts 17:11 testing of Paul is "undisputed" by the first century readers of Acts.

Same as we see in the "All of scriptures" of Luke 24.

Be that as it may -- it is shown how Paul's teaching in Gal 1:6-9 relies on the sola scriptura method of Acts 17:11 - where Paul himself is being tested.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Your theories about the old testament are not relevant.

 

[BobRyan]

Your theories about the old testament are not relevant.

Seldom have I seen a single case where non-Catholics bring up the canonization of the Old Testament to prove/refute sola scriptura -- we merely "accept it".

 

[Rick Otto]

1. There are none dead in Christ, so neither Orthodox nor Catholics are praying to the dead. They are praying to those living in Christ.

Your redefinition is evasion.