St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[BobRyan]

From : to not on : again on

And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Worship from one Sabbath to another Sabbath.

"Come before Me -- from new moon to new moon AND FROM Sabbath to Sabbath" -- 2 cycles. and on each one - all mankind comes before God - to worship. The idea that the text says "REMAIN before Me from Sabbath to Sabbath" -- only one cycle, only remaining... is hard to insert.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe this thread needs a day off....Just saying...

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I believe this thread needs a day off....Just saying...

I have not been following the 7th day aspect this thread morphed into, but my position has been one of liberty to those who sincerely want to sanctify the the 7th day unto Lord, and i myself normally refrain from play and doing business on the 1st, that being Sat. 6pm to Sin. 6pm.

But i am opposed to the cultic spirit of most 7th day advocates who presume that those who do not hold the 7th day as being the Lord's Day for Christians are at best 2nd class citizens, while i do not see the 7th day command as falling under the class of moral laws which are reiterated under the New Covenant.

Instead, keeping "days, months, times and years" (Gal. 4:10) was part of gong back under the Law, and the sabbath as well as dietary laws and temple ordinances were shadows of Christ and New cov. realities. (Col. 2/l6; Heb. 9:10). Of course, SDA types have (what i see as) their spin in these.

And while 9 out of the 10 commandments are repeated or reiterated after the institution of the New Cov., the 4th is conspicuously missing, and the only specific day that the disciples as a body specifically met together was the 1st day, though again, SDA types dispute that. (though this site is not right in all it holds either)

That the Holy Spirit would not clearly repeat or reiterate the 4th commandment (nor dietary laws) , and yet write against observance of the OT liturgical calendar and of the holy days and sabbath being a shadow, and Paul even giving liberty as to honoring the Lord on one day over another, renders requiring observance of the 7th day to lack the warrant necessary. As well as the dietary laws.

But there are bigger fish to fry:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/roy-moore-bans-ssm-in-alabama.7926502/page-22#post-69095308

 

[sculleywr]

Yes and fathers affirmed their positions on tradition with Sacred Scriptures. That was the point in posting it. Such is consistent with SS.

Then again who says the church fathers were consistent with one another on all matters. They were not. On the central matters of doctrine Yes!

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice fromany other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9)

Can you point out to me the Apostolic traditions the church fathers discuss that are not recorded in the Scriptures?

Do we not get an understanding of Apostolic tradition by the very Canon the early fathers proclaimed?

They chucked out the works they were not reflections of apostolic tradition.

As I have said before in this very thread, you cannot separate oral Tradition from the written Tradition. It is a false dichotomy that makes absolutely no logical sense and needs to end NOW. Please, for the love of God, stop asking the repetitively ignorant question of what isn't recorded in any way in Scripture. It shows that you aren't really interested in understanding the true nature of Tradition because you have predefined it for yourself and you aren't willing to learn what it really is.

 

[sculleywr]

wishful thinking will not make Mark 7:6-13, Acts 17:11, Gal 1:6-9 vanish.




On the contrary - the mere quote of the text is sufficient to make the argument against speculation raised against SS.


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.

Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - ... let him be accursed"

Acts 17 in this way "11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, to see IF those things were so."

wishful thinking will not make Mark 7, Galatians 1, or Acts 17 mean that they used Sola Scriptura. You add to Scripture and remove the commands of Tradition from Scripture. Scripture commands Tradition and YOU IGNORE SCRIPTURE.

And don't tell me it doesn't, because it is the word Paradosis which means Tradition, only Tradition, and will always mean Tradition.

So the Scripture commands a certain Tradition, and condemns another. The commanded Tradition is both written AND spoken. The commanded Tradition comes from the Apostles. And you ignore its command. That's not my fault. That's completely on you. In the end, I will answer for accepting the command of Scripture.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

As I have said before in this very thread, you cannot separate oral Tradition from the written Tradition. It is a false dichotomy that makes absolutely no logical sense and needs to end NOW. Please, for the love of God, stop asking the repetitively ignorant question of what isn't recorded in any way in Scripture. It shows that you aren't really interested in understanding the true nature of Tradition because you have predefined it for yourself and you aren't willing to learn what it really is.

Rather, what needs to end NOW is using the existence of oral teaching to sanction whatever Rome says is the word of God from it. You thus invoke texts such as 2Thes,. 2:15 as supporting another stream of Divine revelation, which we are to believe Rome reveals, and thus we must place implicit faith in the one true church in order to know what Paul was referring to her.

And that we must reject the reasonable premise that he was doing what SS can do, that of enjoining obedience to the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, subject to examination by Scripture as apostolic preaching was by noble souls, (Acts 17:11, or that Paul was preaching wholly inspired new revelation, which the Catholic magisterium dare not claim to do, and that it was not subsequently written, as was the norm with anyone called the word of God/the Lord.

Catholicism, both Roman and EO, holds that Oral Tradition only refers to oral teaching that she declares is the word of God, and equates this with Scripture, but this position is under the premise that she discerns what parts of oral teaching is the binding word of God, as well as what parts of written teaching are. It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture, and it is also the Church that tells us how Scripture is to be understood...The decisive test and criterion for our understanding of what the Scripture means is the mind of the Church http://oca.org/scripture/how-to-read-the-bible; — http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ware_howto.aspx

People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72;

the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium;

Which means both Scripture and Oral T only authoritatively consist of and mean what she says, and thus they cannot contradict her. And then Caths reference them to support that she alone is the infallible authority that decides what is of God.

Some thus appeal to Scripture merely as a historical document by which one can discern that their church is the only entity that can tell us that Scripture is the word of God. But if one can discern this church as the one true infallible one then they can also discern that she is not, which destroys the reason what the Caths argue we must have an infallible interpreter.

The Fact is that only part of Scripture first was orally expressed as the word of God, including a minority of the NT, and not all that grows in the ground of oral teaching is valid truth much less wholly inspired of God (unless you want to sanctify the Talmud as being so), and Scripture represents wheat out of that produce.

And Divine writings were discerned and held as assuredly being of God before there ever was a church of Rome which presumed that she was essential for this, with the basis for their establishment being essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation.

 

[fhansen]

Rather, what needs to end NOW is using the existence of oral teaching to sanction whatever Rome says is the word of God from it. You thus invoke texts such as 2Thes,. 2:15 as supporting another stream of Divine revelation, which we are to believe Rome reveals, and thus we must place implicit faith in the one true church in order to know what Paul was referring to her.

And that we must reject the reasonable premise that he was doing what SS can do, that of enjoining obedience to the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, subject to examination by Scripture as apostolic preaching was by noble souls, (Acts 17:11, or that Paul was preaching wholly inspired new revelation, which the Catholic magisterium dare not claim to do, and that it was not subsequently written, as was the norm with anyone called the word of God/the Lord.

Catholicism, both Roman and EO, holds that Oral Tradition only refers to oral teaching that she declares is the word of God, and equates this with Scripture, but this position is under the premise that she discerns what parts of oral teaching is the binding word of God, as well as what parts of written teaching are. It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture, and it is also the Church that tells us how Scripture is to be understood...The decisive test and criterion for our understanding of what the Scripture means is the mind of the Church http://oca.org/scripture/how-to-read-the-bible; — http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ware_howto.aspx

People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72;

the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium;

Which means both Scripture and Oral T only authoritatively consist of and mean what she says, and thus they cannot contradict her. And then Caths reference them to support that she alone is the infallible authority that decides what is of God.

Some thus appeal to Scripture merely as a historical document by which one can discern that their church is the only entity that can tell us that Scripture is the word of God. But if one can discern this church as the one true infallible one then they can also discern that she is not, which destroys the reason what the Caths argue we must have an infallible interpreter.

The Fact is that only part of Scripture first was orally expressed as the word of God, including a minority of the NT, and not all that grows in the ground of oral teaching is valid truth much less wholly inspired of God (unless you want to sanctify the Talmud as being so), and Scripture represents wheat out of that produce.

And Divine writings were discerned and held as assuredly being of God before there ever was a church of Rome which presumed that she was essential for this, with the basis for their establishment basically being essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation.

How do you know that Scripture is the word of God/divine revelation? And, by the same token, how do you know that the teachings of the Catholic church, whether via Scripture or Tradition, and whether all teachings or certain teachings, are not?

 

[Standing Up]

The commanded Tradition comes from the Apostles. And you ignore its command. That's not my fault. That's completely on you. In the end, I will answer for accepting the command of Scripture.

Show us a "commanded Tradition" that comes from an apostle that isn't in scripture. Otherwise, sit down.

 

[Standing Up]

How do you know that Scripture is the word of God/divine revelation? And, by the same token, how do you know that the teachings of the Catholic church, whether via Scripture or Tradition, and whether all teachings or certain teachings, are not?

It is written ...
Prophecy and fulfilled prophecy ...

Whatever EO, RC, P teaches is subject to that. SS.

 

[fhansen]

Show us a "commanded Tradition" that comes from an apostle that isn't in scripture. Otherwise, sit down.

Did Jesus and/or the apostles command baptism as necessary for salvation-or not?

 

[sculleywr]

Rather, what needs to end NOW is using the existence of oral teaching to sanction whatever Rome says is the word of God from it. You thus invoke texts such as 2Thes,. 2:15 as supporting another stream of Divine revelation, which we are to believe Rome reveals, and thus we must place implicit faith in the one true church in order to know what Paul was referring to her.

And that we must reject the reasonable premise that he was doing what SS can do, that of enjoining obedience to the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, subject to examination by Scripture as apostolic preaching was by noble souls, (Acts 17:11, or that Paul was preaching wholly inspired new revelation, which the Catholic magisterium dare not claim to do, and that it was not subsequently written, as was the norm with anyone called the word of God/the Lord.

Catholicism, both Roman and EO, holds that Oral Tradition only refers to oral teaching that she declares is the word of God, and equates this with Scripture, but this position is under the premise that she discerns what parts of oral teaching is the binding word of God, as well as what parts of written teaching are. It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture, and it is also the Church that tells us how Scripture is to be understood...The decisive test and criterion for our understanding of what the Scripture means is the mind of the Church http://oca.org/scripture/how-to-read-the-bible; — http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ware_howto.aspx

People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72;

the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium;

Which means both Scripture and Oral T only authoritatively consist of and mean what she says, and thus they cannot contradict her. And then Caths reference them to support that she alone is the infallible authority that decides what is of God.

Some thus appeal to Scripture merely as a historical document by which one can discern that their church is the only entity that can tell us that Scripture is the word of God. But if one can discern this church as the one true infallible one then they can also discern that she is not, which destroys the reason what the Caths argue we must have an infallible interpreter.

The Fact is that only part of Scripture first was orally expressed as the word of God, including a minority of the NT, and not all that grows in the ground of oral teaching is valid truth much less wholly inspired of God (unless you want to sanctify the Talmud as being so), and Scripture represents wheat out of that produce.

And Divine writings were discerned and held as assuredly being of God before there ever was a church of Rome which presumed that she was essential for this, with the basis for their establishment being essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation.

You are reallyu close to being blocked trying to use this pack of lies. You have been told this is completely redefining Tradition and that it is a lie. So now I will tell you directly. You are a liar. Until you repent of the lie, our conversation is over.

Repenting involves the following:
1. Repenting of the conflation of Orthodox and Roman Catholic Traditions, which are completely different definitions.
2. Repenting of the lie that the word Tradition is used as a blanket cover for innovation in all cases.

When you have done that, we can continue talking. I am not usually this blunt, but I'm done being the nice guy and letting you and other people slander my Church with your deceptions.

 

[sculleywr]

Show us a "commanded Tradition" that comes from an apostle that isn't in scripture. Otherwise, sit down.

Already told you that this is a false dichotomy and it is a lie. Shall you be dropped into the bucket of lies alongside your friend above?

The question has been asked and answered.

Show me the Canon by method of Scripture alone.

If you can't do that, which I asked you to do long ago, because it is a misconception about SS, then I don't have to answer your false question because it is a misconception about Tradition.

You don't know ANYTHING about the Gospel without Oral Tradition, because you can't identify Scripture without Oral Tradition.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

How do you know that Scripture is the word of God/divine revelation? And, by the same token, how do you know that the teachings of the Catholic church, whether via Scripture or Tradition, and whether all teachings or certain teachings, are not?

Do you actually read my replies of avoid the refutation of your polemic so you can continue to resort to it???

How can you ask that since as stated, "Divine writings were discerned and held as assuredly being of God before there ever was a church of Rome" or Orthodox for that matter? Thus the question is, how could laymen know of a truth that men and writings were of God without an infallible magisterium, and even contrary to the judgment of the historical magisterium?

When you figure that out, then you will know how i may know that certain teachings of the Catholic church, whether via Scripture or Tradition are of God and or are not.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You are reallyu close to being blocked trying to use this pack of lies. You have been told this is completely redefining Tradition and that it is a lie. So now I will tell you directly. You are a liar. Until you repent of the lie, our conversation is over.

Repenting involves the following:
1. Repenting of the conflation of Orthodox and Roman Catholic Traditions, which are completely different definitions.
2. Repenting of the lie that the word Tradition is used as a blanket cover for innovation in all cases.

When you have done that, we can continue talking. I am not usually this blunt, but I'm done being the nice guy and letting you and other people slander my Church with your deceptions.

What arrogance! Which is what you should block yourself from engaging in. You have told me nothing (that i recall: show me where you did as being in contrast) about what you claim are completely different definitions (explain if you want to), and the fact is that "Tradition" is effectively used as a blanket cover for claiming innovation is apostolic tradition.

For while your church may claim it only refers to the oral word of God, that it is the oral word of God is based on the say so of the church and its claim to veracity. Thus praying to created beings which is utterly unseen in Scripture and contrary to instructions on addressing prayer to heaven, and to God alone being able to hear and respond to such, is said to be apostolic tradition.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Did Jesus and/or the apostles command baptism as necessary for salvation-or not?

Actually yes and no, yes in the same way that works are necessary for salvation, in that the faith which is counted for righteousness, being imputed for it, (Rm. 4:1-7ff) must be the kind that will confess the Lord Jesus in word and deed. Baptism can even be the occasion of salvation, as it requires faith, and is a sinner's prayer" in body language.

Like as the Lord said Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? (Mark 2:9) since the former effected the latter, Scripture can speak of souls being justified by faith as well as by works = faith in action, but precisely speaking it is living faith that is counted for righteousness.

But no, they did not command as essential in order to be forgiven regenerated and converted. Peter, who told the 3k+ souls that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, and then said to repent and be baptized in order to receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit, also simply promised lost (Acts 11:14) souls,

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

And which the hearers did, and were born again before the baptism which followed, and as Peter confirmed,

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

 

[fhansen]

Actually yes and no, yes in the same way that works are necessary for salvation, in that the faith which is counted for righteousness, being imputed for it, (Rm. 4:1-7ff) must be the kind that will confess the Lord Jesus in word and deed. Baptism can even be the occasion of salvation, as it requires faith, and is a sinner's prayer" in body language.

Like as the Lord said Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? (Mark 2:9) since the former effected the latter, Scripture can speak of souls being justified by faith as well as by works = faith in action, but precisely speaking it is living faith that is counted for righteousness.

But no, they did not command as essential in order to be forgiven regenerated and converted. Peter, who told the 3k+ souls that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, and then said to repent and be baptized in order to receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit, also simply promised lost (Acts 11:14) souls,

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

And which the hearers did, and were born again before the baptism which followed, and as Peter confirmed,

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

So is that interpretation, different from that of many others, an infallible one? I mean, could it just possibly be that salvation really is dependent on Baptism after all, as an act of faith commanded by Christ, at least for those who know of the command and are able to obey it? Or is it "yes and no"-or maybe?

 

[BobRyan]

I have not been following the 7th day aspect this thread morphed into, but my position has been one of liberty to those who sincerely want to sanctify the the 7th day unto Lord, and i myself normally refrain from play and doing business on the 1st, that being Sat. 6pm to Sin. 6pm.

But i am opposed to the cultic spirit of most 7th day advocates who presume that those who do not hold the 7th day as being the Lord's Day for Christians are at best 2nd class citizens, while i do not see the 7th day command as falling under the class of moral laws which are reiterated under the New Covenant.

The 7th day issue was brought into this thread by a Catholic participant pointing to the "Sola scriptura" problem for those opposed to the "Tradition" Model. Not by "SDA types".

Details matter.

The "Reason" that this comes up at all by them - or anyone - on a SS thread is that it is the best argument there is in response to the SS claims by those who cling to tradition over scripture on the subject of the 7th day mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

And while 9 out of the 10 commandments are repeated or reiterated after the institution of the New Cov., the 4th is conspicuously missing, and the only specific day that the disciples as a body specifically met together was the 1st day

Which is factually incorrect no matter if you prefer to worship on Sunday or Saturday. The two claims made in that quote of yours - are both factually incorrect.

The Sabbath commandment is quoted from several times in the NT, observance of it is seen "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts AFTER the cross. But the ONE Commandment of the TEN commandments never quoted from at all in the NT - is the command not to take God's name in vain. NO part of that commandment is ever quote. A fact that does not diminish that command since the entire made-up notion of the form "whatever is not repeated must be deleted" is total fluff to start with - and every bible scholar knows it.

This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of Faith, and the RCC's own "Dies Domini" both insist that ALL TEN of the Ten Commandments still have binding force on mankind - and all TEN are part of God's continued moral law.

 

[BobRyan]

The "reason" for the Catholic argument in the quote below is NOT that they are contending for keeping the 7th day as the Sabbath.

And the "reason" they are providing such an easily-testable-claim: "nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church" is NOT that they think that this claim can be easily refuted "Sola Scriptura".

Rather they are making a statement about "Sola Scriptura" when it comes to commonly accepted Christian tradition and practice. This is irrefutable.


=============================
The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

 

[BobRyan]

I believe this thread needs a day off....Just saying...

Ok -- but as some have noted there is a big problem for SS that was brought out long before I ever posted the first thread on the internet - and it was made in the RCC's own commentary on their Catholic Catechism. Someone else brought this up on this thread -- not me.

And IF we can get them to agree not to bring this problem for SS up - any more ... it might be best.

 

[redleghunter]

Ok -- but as some have noted there is a big problem for SS that was brought out long before I ever posted the first thread on the internet - and it was made in the RCC's own commentary on their Catholic Catechism. Someone else brought this up on this thread -- not me.

And IF we can get them to agree not to bring this problem for SS up - any more ... it might be best.

The problem was not the Sabbath sabbatical but the refusal to acknowledge what is defined as SS.