St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Was it not a tradition that defined what the Old Testament consisted of, before it was used to discern Christ among its prophecies?

Maybe you can just tell me what the criteria was that the church's pioneers used to base the decisions on if there is to be any serious discussion

 

[ivebeenshown]

Maybe you can just tell me what the criteria was that the church's pioneers used to base the decisions on if there is to be any serious discussion

Do you understand the full scope, history, and context of their decisions, or do you simply have faith in the tradition of Scripture canonization?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Do you understand the full scope, history, and context of their decisions, or do you simply have faith in the tradition of Scripture canonization?

Should we continue with this answer a question with a question? No let's not.

 

[Fireinfolding]

But its so fun Cassia

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

But its so fun Cassia

 

[ivebeenshown]

Should we continue with this answer a question with a question? No let's not.

That is fine, although I contend that you have offered no explanation as to how one can regard Scripture as an authoritative thing without first regarding some other authoritative thing that defines what Scripture is. Unless you can do so, you have not defended Scripture as the sole or supreme authority of anything, as Scripture would not be then not be the sole authority nor would is it possible that a thing be more supreme than its origin.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That is fine, although I contend that you have offered no explanation as to how one can regard Scripture as an authoritative thing without first regarding some other authoritative thing that defines what Scripture is. Unless you can do so, you have not defended Scripture as the sole or supreme authority of anything, as Scripture would not be then not be the sole authority nor would is it possible that a thing be more supreme than its origin.

The general answer to what came first, the chicken or the egg, is the rooster. God and His word came first

 

[Standing Up]

One cannot regard the bible as a supreme authority without knowing what the bible is or where it came from.

The bible is the only book that makes written (so they're checkable) prophecies that all have come or will come to pass. The "oracles of God" is what it is (Rom. 3:2). That is its claim about itself. For example,
Num. 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
God said, and then does. This is why Peter and Paul reference prophets (OT) and apostles (NT).

Rather than asking about scripture, you've identified the problem with Tradition. No one knows what it is or where it comes from.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The general answer to what came first, the chicken or the egg, is the rooster. God and His word came first

Our father in faith, Abraham, had no Scripture for reference, nor had Isaiah or John written anything by then.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Walmart wasnt always there?

 

[ivebeenshown]

The bible is the only book that makes written (so they're checkable) prophecies that all have come or will come to pass. The "oracles of God" is what it is (Rom. 3:2). That is its claim about itself. For example,
Num. 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
God said, and then does. This is why Peter and Paul reference prophets (OT) and apostles (NT).

On one hand, false prophets may write things blindly which could come true. Should we then count those as Scripture? On another hand, we have Paul's letter to Philemon, which contained no prophecies.

Need I also point out that 'the bible' as 'a book' did not exist until those writings were compiled?

Rather than asking about scripture, you've identified the problem with Tradition. No one knows what it is or where it comes from.

No one knows what Scripture is or where it comes from without some Tradition that describes it, and no one knows what that Tradition is or where it comes from except by Tradition, and that is where our faith lies: in the Tradition handed down to us, whether in word or in letter.

That Jesus was resurrected is a Tradition that so happens to be recorded in several writings which we regard as Scripture, and we regard those particular writings as Scripture because we have accepted an ancient Tradition that declares them so.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That Jesus was resurrected is a Tradition that so happens to be recorded in several writings which we regard as Scripture, and we regard those particular writings as Scripture because we have accepted an ancient Tradition that declares them so.

Wow, oh wow.....smh...good luck with your tradition that holds president to you over God's word. Good luck because that's what your depending on. Good grief

 

[ivebeenshown]

Wow, oh wow.....smh...good luck with your tradition that holds president to you over God's word. Good luck because that's what your depending on. Good grief

You also depend on Tradition every time you invoke Scripture, because Tradition is what informed you that this or that writing is valid Scripture. Ultimately they both come from God and are both to be revered.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

You also depend on Tradition every time you invoke Scripture, because Tradition is what informed you that this or that writing is valid Scripture. Ultimately they both come from God and are both to be revered.

What form the canon took has nothing to do with manmade traditions that have nothing to with what the canon contains. As I mentioned at the beginning of your presence into this thread God is perfectly capable and has scripturally proven to be depended upon to keep His Covenant intact no matter who is holding onto it, read 1 Samuel 15 that shows that it is not humans who lead.

 

[ivebeenshown]

What form the canon took has nothing to do with manmade traditions that have nothing to with what the canon contains.

One cannot refer to Scripture without the canon, and one cannot have the canon except by Tradition. This is not to say that Tradition is above Scripture, but rather that both were given to us by God, one through the other.

As I mentioned at the beginning of your presence into this thread God is perfectly capable and has scripturally proven to be depended upon to keep His Covenant intact no matter who is holding onto it, read 1 Samuel 15 that shows that it is not humans who lead.

I have said nothing about whether God is not capable of "keeping his covenant intact."

 

[MoreCoffee]

Was it not a tradition that defined what the Old Testament consisted of, before it was used to discern Christ among its prophecies?

Yes, the content and the extent of the old covenant scriptures was decided by people and the people who made the decisions left a tradition that became the definition of the content and extent of old covenant holy scripture. It is a very simple and very obvious point that exposes as untrue the concept of SS.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, the content and the extent of the old covenant scriptures was decided by people and the people who made the decisions left a tradition that became the definition of the content and extent of old covenant holy scripture. It is a very simple and very obvious point that exposes as untrue the concept of SS.

hmn, maybe to you. I'm not indoctrinated into beliefs that defy scripture by going far beyond defining cannon and progress into traditions that are not canon based by those who followed the people who made initial decisions that all the churches follow.

 

[BobRyan]

Was it not a tradition that defined what the Old Testament consisted of, before it was used to discern Christ among its prophecies?

Josephus said the Hebrew OT canon was frozen for over 400 years prior to the time of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

One cannot regard the bible as a supreme authority without knowing what the bible is or where it came from.

Luke makes it clear in Luke 24 and in Acts 17:11 that the people of Christ's day had no confusion at all regarding what was scripture.

Not text says "And they waited 300 years to find out what scripture is"

 

[ivebeenshown]

Luke makes it clear in Luke 24 and in Acts 17:11 that the people of Christ's day had no confusion at all regarding what was scripture.

Not text says "And they waited 300 years to find out what scripture is"

The people of Christ's day did not have the New Testament compiled as we do now. So, then, how was it then that they understood what Scripture was, for them to use it as either their 'only' or 'most supreme' 'measure of doctrine'?