St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[sculleywr]

Bingo.... and Christ cannot be divided....no schizophenia involved when it come to the true invisable church

Yes there is, because this invisible church is being led by the Spirit into thousands of contradicting philosophies and theologies.

 

[sculleywr]

And here (with popup Bible texts) is a partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, substantiating the claim that as they were written, the written word became the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims. In full, the New Testament is stated to have approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations and more than 1,000 if one includes indirect or partial quotations, while another counts 275 direct quotes and at least 600 allusions to the Old (view many of both here. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary reports "the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2, 309 allusions and verbal parallels. (http://www.biblestudytools.com/dict...y/the-old-testament-in-the-new-testament.html) Many of which tabulations may count those in duplicate accounts. The following list does not include all of the quotations and rarely includes simple allusions to Scripture (versus clear references such as to the law), but supplies a multiplicity of viewable (place mouse over reference, and if you cannot see them use a different browser, like Firefox) references to what was written or quotes thereof, including internal references within each Testament to Scripture (not just the New referencing the Old): Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, a study of the the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” shows that revelation that is referred to as being that normally was subsequently written down. Nor was the oral truth referred to in 2Thes. 2:15 that of nebulous ancient traditions (which can also result in different interpretations, such as the Roman Catholics and EOs example), but what Paul referred to was known instruction by a manifestly Divinely inspired apostle, whose manner was to reason out of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2) and whose words were examined for veracity by Scripture. (Acts 17:11) And there is no proof that this truth also was not subsequently written down.

For all of us who have vision problems, please use bigger font. The Oral Truth was not nebulous ancient traditions. That is not the nature of Tradition as held by the Orthodox Church, nor, as I understand, the Roman Catholic. Just because you don't know everything in it does not make it nebulous. There is proof that not everything that was taught orally was written down, because you couldn't contain it if you filled the world with books dedicated just to recording it. We know it was authoritative. We know that the oral teachings of Christ were equal to what was written of his teaching. But we know we do not have it all. We know for a fact that we don't even have all the written teaching of the Apostles, because there are at least two letters sent to Corinth that are not available to us.

Besides that, it took 300-400 years for the Church to identify Scripture, which they did by way of Tradition. If Tradition were nebulous, it would not be possible for them to use it for that.

 

[sculleywr]

Well, it's NOT Prima Scriptura since there is nothing for it to be "Prima" in comparison to!

Seriously, we have evidence of Scripture being cited as the cause of this or that belief from the first century onward, but where is there any evidence of "Holy Tradition?" There is none.

Yet its devotees claim that Tradition is to be preferred over Scripture and that the Apostles and Church Fathers and the Bible itself all supposedly support Tradition! Where? It's entirely phony. There is none such.

So this fact constitutes support for Scripture in itself.

Irenaeus, John Chrystostom, Athanasius. Where is the evidence? The evidence could be dumped on top of your house as written books, which would cause a significant amount of damage to your house, forcing you to spend a while outside of your house while it was being repaired, and you would STILL ignore it.

There is no point to showing you evidence. You decided the verdict long before the trial began. You're like a Cardassian. When you're ready to observe the evidence, let us know.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Yes there is, because this invisible church is being led by the Spirit into thousands of contradicting philosophies and theologies.

No, as you are tragically mistaking whatever falls under the brad umbrella which is such a broad definition that you could fly Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Santeria Unification 747 thru it, while the body of Christ only consists of true born again believers (even a few Catholics). And as such it alone is the one true church, while the organic fellowships they are in are an unholy admixture of tares and wheat.

And as said, those who most esteem Scripture the most (as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God) as far more unified in basic core beliefs than the overall fruit of Catholicism.

Not that the RC model of sola ecclesia cannot produce greater unity, for cults manifest that, yet that is not the Scriptural means of unity, as instead the church began with establishment of Truth claims being based on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Irenaeus, John Chrystostom, Athanasius. Where is the evidence?

How can you hold the various uninspired writings of men, the relative few that we have, and which can contradict each other as well as Rome, and are subject to variant interpretations, to be determinitive of doctrine over wholly inspired Scripture?

Do you agree with all each one wrote? No, and despite invoking them, a faithful RC's real source and basis for assurance of doctrine is Rome based on the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

Thus it is not who the "fathers" were and what they said, nor what Scripture says, but what Rome says each consist of and mean.

Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

 

[fhansen]

And just how many distinctive Cath. teachings do these specifically actually support, versus what Caths extrapolate out them, which is only limited by what is needed? Purgatory from 2Mac. 12? Even the Orthodox substantially differ with Rome on many things, including her purgatory.

Moreover, if the Apocrypha did so then why was the canonical status doubted and debated down thru the centuries and right into Trent. Which provided the first indisputable RC definition of the Bible - after the death of Luther, approx. 1400 years after the last book was penned?

Ok, then, I'll ask you the question too. Do you think that the fact that the Apochrypha tends to lend support for some controversial Catholic-as well as EO- teachings contributed to the rejection by the Reformers?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

For all of us who have vision problems, please use bigger font.

Some people object to using too much space, and the link is there (which page offers pop up viewing of each reference), and if you want it larger just hold down the ctrl key and tap the + key. Substitute the latter with the - key to make it smaller again.

The Oral Truth was not nebulous ancient traditions.

I mean the form "oral tradition," exists in is, with no beginning or end and highly subject to undetectable fabrication or corruption (and which technically is only held to be inspired in that form, versus not even as expressed in "infallible" church statements).

Out of which Rome can channel make binding beliefs in extraScriptural event approx. 1800 years after it allegedly occurred, and despite it [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] lacking even early historical testimony [/FONT]and the opposition of RC scholars:

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .
But,
subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [because the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 .

There is proof that not everything that was taught orally was written down,

Indeed, nor is there proof that what is necessary is not written, nor does Rome provide all that was not written. And by presuming that she is privy to certain beliefs out of this form and can autocratically make them as binding then Catholicism ends up perpetuating errors that developed as well as fables.

Take (out of many examples) prayer to angels and departed "saints." Out of approx. 200 prayers in Scripture there is not even one to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord (except by pagans), and who alone is shown able to hear all such and answer them, and instruction on who to pray to is also always to the Lord. But late developed and unScriptural tradition is perpetuated under the premise that the church can teach this as a common practice despite the Holy Spirit not supporting it in His wholly inspired Word.

We know that the oral teachings of Christ were equal to what was written of his teaching.

You know that by Scripture, and the Lord and apostles and NT church established its Truth claims Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is a faithful RCs real basis for assurance of Truth.

From rebuking the devil (Mt. 4:4ff) to rebuking religious leaders, (Mt. 22) to substantiating His mission and Messiahship to the disciples, and opening their mind to this Source, then the Lord invoked wholly inspired tradition as the assured word of God. Which oral preaching was subject to testing by, not vice versa, thus Scripture is supreme.

Besides that, it took 300-400 years for the Church to identify Scripture

That is most amazing statement, and reveals the church-centric mentality of Catholics. For it has a church beginning as a new religion, without its gospel and existence having its foundation in Scripture, writings of which were already held as authoritative before a church of Rome presumed she was uniquely essential for know what men and writings were really of God.

And actually the church as the people of God, if not all, recognized what most of Scripture consisted of long before 400AD, while doubts and disagreement continued down thru the centuries over certain boos, and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable defined of the whole canon.

, which they did by way of Tradition. If Tradition were nebulous, it would not be possible for them to use it for that.

Then you are speaking more of a Prot, understanding of tradition (not inspired like Scripture), which looks to the past attestations and judgments of men, but not as infallible, and examines them in the light of Scripture.

Both men and writings of men were essentially established as being so due to their heavenly qualities and attestation, Moses and the Law being quite obvious, and thus more conflative complimentary writings were added to that class which can to be called Script-ure. One of the obvious tests for a candidate for being classed as Scripture was conflation with what previously written, while the attestation of manifest men of God also help confirm this. But it was the inherent authority of God-breathed Scripture that is the reason for its acceptance.

The powers that be are to recognize and affirm this, but sometimes they do not accepts what is of God, while the common people do, while what is of God remains so despite what men say. The need to discover and affirm it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ok, then, I'll ask you the question too. Do you think that the fact that the Apochrypha tends to lend support for some controversial Catholic-as well as EO- teachings contributed to the rejection by the Reformers?

That would as reasonable an assumption as assuming that Catholicism's inclusion of these debated books was due to them lending support, but the question is do they all do so, and what do they actually support. As it is doubtful all support distinctive Cath claims, and whatever support they may offer to some degree is offset by the evidence against them, then there can be other reasons for their rejection.

And Luther (whose canon was not set forth by him as binding) and Reformers had strong scholarly Cath. support for their rejection of the apocrypha.

From what i have seen, I think that the Wisdom of Solomon (in stark contrast to the absurd fables of Tobit) would be the best candidate for canonical inclusion, but its attributed authorship is false and seems late.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Well, it's NOT Prima Scriptura since there is nothing for it to be "Prima" in comparison to!
...Yet its devotees claim that Tradition is to be preferred over Scripture

The latter is what the former is supreme over.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

No, we never agreed that IconoGRAPHY was bad. We don't study Icons. We write them (Graphia means "to write"). The opinion was forced by robber councils with puppets set up. In order for it to be the opinion of the Church, it must be accepted by the Church. This is why the Seventh Council is called Ecumenical, while the robber councils are not. This is also why the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which anathematized filioquism, is accepted in the East, but not the west, despite the fact that the Pope himself, alongside his legates, voted for the anathematization.

Your accusation of change is about as strong as rotten wood. It holds nothing up.

As to synergism, it is the belief that salvation is the result of an active relationship with God. It is not the idea that we can work for salvation, as many Protestants (especially Baptists) claim. It is the belief that the faith through which we are saved must be a living faith. It is not works of the law that enliven faith. In fact, the works themselves have nothing to do with the enlivening of Faith. It is the love in the works which enliven the faith, opening the door through which Grace enters our hearts. Through this, we proceed through the Christian life to Theosis, which is the unification of our will with the divine will, through which we gain knowledge of God, which is how we obtain eternal life.

Ah ok, Its been like 4 years since I've read of the incident. I am going off of memory. Funny, every baptist church I have been to preaches of synergism then if that is what it is. I guess the handful baptist churches you have attended taught otherwise? Well, since you are a former baptist you already know all baptist churches in america disagree on theology most of the time.

 

[sculleywr]

No, as you are tragically mistaking whatever falls under the brad umbrella which is such a broad definition that you could fly Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Santeria Unification 747 thru it, while the body of Christ only consists of true born again believers (even a few Catholics). And as such it alone is the one true church, while the organic fellowships they are in are an unholy admixture of tares and wheat.

And as said, those who most esteem Scripture the most (as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God) as far more unified in basic core beliefs than the overall fruit of Catholicism.

Not that the RC model of sola ecclesia cannot produce greater unity, for cults manifest that, yet that is not the Scriptural means of unity, as instead the church began with establishment of Truth claims being based on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

The problem is that under Sola Scriptura, Swedenborg and the Jehovah's Witnesses came to their power USING Sola Scriptura. No. The Body of Christ is one Body with one Faith following one Christ. That is a narrow definition. But it is the definition of Ephesians 3. The fact is that the Church did not begin substantiating everything it said with Scripture. The Council in Acts directly goes against Scripture's commands to follow the dietary and physical portions of the Mosaic law, like Circumcision. A person did not need to follow the Proselytizing process of Jewish Mosaic Law from the Scriptures in order to become a Christian. Following Sola Scriptura, the Judaizers SHOULD have won out in the Council. We know from the book of Acts that they did not.

Certainly, the Church Triumphant (meaning the Church comprised of those who have entered Paradise), but the Church militant (meaning those on earth) is not comprised of some nebulous, unidentifiable grouping. The Church Militant fits the definition of Ephesians 3. Protestantism is many bodies with many faiths. Take for example Soteriology. Is Soteriology not a core doctrine?

 

[sculleywr]

Ah ok, Its been like 4 years since I've read of the incident. I am going off of memory. Funny, every baptist church I have been to preaches of synergism then if that is what it is. I guess the handful baptist churches you have attended taught otherwise? Well, since you are a former baptist you already know all baptist churches in america disagree on theology most of the time.

Nope. Baptists preach that salvation is a one-time event. It occurs and then you are "Eternally Secure". Synergism assumes that Salvation is not an event, but the entire life of the Christian. Aside from Free Will Baptists (from my memory), Eternal Security is one of the most universal Baptist dogmas. I know it didn't start with the Baptist denomination, but nearly every Baptist church I have been to has it. It is also part of the largest Baptist convention, the SBC. Synergism teaches that Salvation is not completely and fully realized until the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, although our trajectory is fixed after death. A person can willfully choose to reject Christ, regardless of his previous commitments. God will ALWAYS honor our Free Will.

However, further discussion of this is off topic. PM me or start another discussion on that one.

While Synergism is taught in certain Protestant denominations, such as some of the more Traditional Anglican parishes, That is more result of their opinions on Tradition. High Church Anglicans have a much closer view on Ecclesiastical Authority to the Orthodox than they do to their Protestant roots. What they hold to might be more closely called "Prima Scriptura" (which I actually saw for the first time on this thread, and then in another discussion I was having on Facebook literally today, so my grasp on the topic is a bit tenuous and any Traditional Anglican could shed more light on it, such as the priest I'm having my discussion with). Essentially, they view the Scripture the way we view the Pope. It is the first within Tradition, and all other Traditions are centered around it.

Protestants can take varying views on Tradition, but the majority either don't acknowledge its existence or directly deny its importance. Most Protestants wouldn't know what Athanasius's contribution to the Christian world was, despite the fact that the Creed upon which most Christology is based is heavily inspired by the man who was then only a Deacon. Granted, a lot of that is because the majority of almost every church is populated by the infamous pew surfers, but I have run into people with degrees in Biblical Studies and homiletics that don't know John Chrystostom from Martin Luther.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Nope. Baptists preach that salvation is a one-time event. It occurs and then you are "Eternally Secure". Synergism assumes that Salvation is not an event, but the entire life of the Christian. Aside from Free Will Baptists (from my memory), Eternal Security is one of the most universal Baptist dogmas. I know it didn't start with the Baptist denomination, but nearly every Baptist church I have been to has it. It is also part of the largest Baptist convention, the SBC. Synergism teaches that Salvation is not completely and fully realized until the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, although our trajectory is fixed after death. A person can willfully choose to reject Christ, regardless of his previous commitments. God will ALWAYS honor our Free Will.

However, further discussion of this is off topic. PM me or start another discussion on that one.

While Synergism is taught in certain Protestant denominations, such as some of the more Traditional Anglican parishes, That is more result of their opinions on Tradition. High Church Anglicans have a much closer view on Ecclesiastical Authority to the Orthodox than they do to their Protestant roots. What they hold to might be more closely called "Prima Scriptura" (which I actually saw for the first time on this thread, and then in another discussion I was having on Facebook literally today, so my grasp on the topic is a bit tenuous and any Traditional Anglican could shed more light on it, such as the priest I'm having my discussion with). Essentially, they view the Scripture the way we view the Pope. It is the first within Tradition, and all other Traditions are centered around it.

Protestants can take varying views on Tradition, but the majority either don't acknowledge its existence or directly deny its importance. Most Protestants wouldn't know what Athanasius's contribution to the Christian world was, despite the fact that the Creed upon which most Christology is based is heavily inspired by the man who was then only a Deacon. Granted, a lot of that is because the majority of almost every church is populated by the infamous pew surfers, but I have run into people with degrees in Biblical Studies and homiletics that don't know John Chrystostom from Martin Luther.

The sort of strange irony is that some sola scriptura protestants do not follow it correctly themselves, and the strangest of denominations come up with the most curious of doctrines.

 

[Albion]

The latter is what the former is supreme over.

Tradition is "supreme" over the word of God?

 

[Albion]

The sort of strange irony is that some sola scriptura protestants do not follow it correctly themselves, and the strangest of denominations come up with the most curious of doctrines.

I have to ask you to give us some examples of what you have in mind, because I don't want to deny your comment out of hand, but I don't think very many or very conventional Protestants do as you are saying they do.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I have to ask you to give us some examples of what you have in mind, because I don't want to deny your comment out of hand, but I don't think very many or very conventional Protestants do as you are saying they do.

When some interpret scripture so literally that they deny all common sense under the guise of super piety and "God wisdom". They also tend to ignore all context just for the sake of trying to sound sagely by quoting scripture for everything, even if the verse doesn't really pertain to the subject considering its surrounding context of said verse, but they continue to use it in such a manner anyhow and create their own personal religions and attend church as a pretext really. I wouldn't call them protestant I guess, but I don't know what else to call them.

 

[Albion]

When some interpret scripture so literally that they deny all common sense under the guise of super piety and "God wisdom". They also tend to ignore all context just for the sake of trying to sound sagely by quoting scripture for everything, even if the verse doesn't really pertain to the subject considering its surrounding context of said verse, but they continue to use it in such a manner anyhow and create their own personal religions and attend church as a pretext really. I wouldn't call them protestant I guess, but I don't know what else to call them.

I agree that you may be speaking of people who aren't actually Protestants, but the bigger issue here that I see is that you are saying that they are not using Sola Scriptura correctly. But I'm not sure that we can say that.

Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures are the final and ultimate word when it comes to doctrine, above all the church councils, Papal decrees, folk superstitions and legends and theological speculation that had taken over the Church prior to the Protestant Reformation. It is a principle that goes to the matter of "What is our guide?" It does not guarantee that everyone turning to the correct guide, the Bible, will understand it correctly.

 

[sculleywr]

Some people object to using too much space, and the link is there (which page offers pop up viewing of each reference), and if you want it larger just hold down the ctrl key and tap the + key. Substitute the latter with the - key to make it smaller again.

Not without breaking the coding on the website or causing it to display only pieces of the text. I prefer scrolling down to scrolling left and right and then down.

I mean the form "oral tradition," exists in is, with no beginning or end and highly subject to undetectable fabrication or corruption (and which technically is only held to be inspired in that form, versus not even as expressed in "infallible" church statements).

Out of which Rome can channel make binding beliefs in extraScriptural event approx. 1800 years after it allegedly occurred, and despite it [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] lacking even early historical testimony [/FONT]and the opposition of RC scholars:

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .
But,
subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [because the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 .

The problem is that such change can only become part of Tradition because Romans teach that doctrine can develop, which literally changes the very definition of Tradition. Tradition is that which is handed down. By definition, it cannot develop. Not everything that is a tradition is part of Apostolic Tradition. Certain small traditions can develop alongside the Apostolic Tradition. This is why, when responding to me, you should probably avoid using the Catholic definition of Tradition and use the Orthodox one, because everything after you mentioned the Assumption of Mary, which is not an Orthodox doctrine (we remember the Dormition, when she died, but it is not dogmatic that she was assumed in any way)

Indeed, nor is there proof that what is necessary is not written, nor does Rome provide all that was not written. And by presuming that she is privy to certain beliefs out of this form and can autocratically make them as binding then Catholicism ends up perpetuating errors that developed as well as fables.

Take (out of many examples) prayer to angels and departed "saints." Out of approx. 200 prayers in Scripture there is not even one to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord (except by pagans), and who alone is shown able to hear all such and answer them, and instruction on who to pray to is also always to the Lord. But late developed and unScriptural tradition is perpetuated under the premise that the church can teach this as a common practice despite the Holy Spirit not supporting it in His wholly inspired Word.

Extrascriptural does not mean it is unscriptural. While the 66 book canon of the Bible does not contain explicit evidence of the intercession of Saints, the Psalms show implicit evidence, and the full Orthodox canon shows Jeremiah praying for the people of Israel long after his passing. However, this is also a result of the logical result of two doctrines:
1. The people of the Church are to intercede to God one to another. This requires that one would pray to the others in the Church (using the literal definition of pray to make a request) to pray on their behalf. You cannot expect the intercession of your brethren without requesting it.
2. There is nothing that can separate us from each other. The power of death was defeated by Christ, when He trampled down Death by His death.
The combination of these doctrines results in the requests of the saints. Orthodox are essentially asking for the Saints to pray to God for us, just as we request for the saints on earth to pray for us. We even reflect that in the Liturgy when the Priest requests for the people to pray for him and even, if you pay attention, to forgive him. However, since it's off-topic, I'll digress and won't continue this topic further.

You know that by Scripture, and the Lord and apostles and NT church established its Truth claims Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is a faithful RCs real basis for assurance of Truth.

From rebuking the devil (Mt. 4:4ff) to rebuking religious leaders, (Mt. 22) to substantiating His mission and Messiahship to the disciples, and opening their mind to this Source, then the Lord invoked wholly inspired tradition as the assured word of God. Which oral preaching was subject to testing by, not vice versa, thus Scripture is supreme.

If one doesn't know what Scripture is, or has no access to Scripture (whether by means of linguistic or physical obstacles), then he cannot test a doctrine by way of Scripture. The Bereans were an exception to the rule, because they apparently had access to a significant amount of Scripture. However, the fact remains that the Jews of the first century had a literacy rate of around 3-10%, which results in a huge number of people who could never directly apply Sola Scriptura. Then there are people like those in Gaul, who had no written language and were more effective in repelling the Marcionite heresy than those who had Scripture (Source: Against Heresies Volume 3, Sections 2-3

That is most amazing statement, and reveals the church-centric mentality of Catholics. For it has a church beginning as a new religion, without its gospel and existence having its foundation in Scripture, writings of which were already held as authoritative before a church of Rome presumed she was uniquely essential for know what men and writings were really of God.

And actually the church as the people of God, if not all, recognized what most of Scripture consisted of long before 400AD, while doubts and disagreement continued down thru the centuries over certain boos, and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable defined of the whole canon.

This is firstly the most ignorant statement ever, because at the time the 27 book canon was compiled, there were anywhere from 4-8 canons of the New Testament around. There were also three-ish canons of the Old Testament. While they agreed in general as to which early letters were authoritative, many people argued for the canonicity of Clement and the Ignatius, which were also, like Mark and Luke, close companions of the Apostles. In the end, the Canon of Scripture was not a determination of authority, but of salvific value. There isn't anything salvific found in the letters of Clement and Ignatius that aren't found in Scriptures.

 

[sculleywr]

How can you hold the various uninspired writings of men, the relative few that we have, and which can contradict each other as well as Rome, and are subject to variant interpretations, to be determinitive of doctrine over wholly inspired Scripture?

Do you agree with all each one wrote? No, and despite invoking them, a faithful RC's real source and basis for assurance of doctrine is Rome based on the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

Thus it is not who the "fathers" were and what they said, nor what Scripture says, but what Rome says each consist of and mean.

Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

He was asking for the evidence that the early Church used Tradition. Also, not Roman Catholic. Check my profile or the thing next to this post and respond in kind. Using Rome as a foil gets kind of old when their definition of Tradition is different than ours.

 

[sculleywr]

The sort of strange irony is that some sola scriptura protestants do not follow it correctly themselves, and the strangest of denominations come up with the most curious of doctrines.

And yet Sola Scriptura stole the authority to combat heresy from the Protestants because heretics can and do claim to be simply teaching the Bible truth.