St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[ivebeenshown]

That all sounds sort of hokey to me

Why? Is the canon of Scripture defined by something besides Tradition?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

This is getting so far offtopic....what else is new...diversion to cloud the topic

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is getting so far offtopic....what else is new...diversion to cloud the topic

stick to the topic and all will be well

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

stick to the topic and all will be well

There just comes a time when the cabbage is all chewed up

 

[Fireinfolding]

Why? Is the canon of Scripture defined by something besides Tradition?

I dont get the words, or how they figure in, but you should know me a little derek, I related to you more when you were prot, not in the speak speak

 

[Fireinfolding]

There just comes a time when the cabbage is all chewed up

The one with the stapler gets to decide what we believe

 

[MoreCoffee]

There just comes a time when the cabbage is all chewed up

I had a very enjoyable lunch with no cabbage.

If one is all chewed up then time to stop chewing

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I had a very enjoyable lunch with no cabbage.

If one is all chewed up then time to stop chewing

haha, that used to be my saying before coming to cf, "I don't chew my cabbage twice", but that's not how it works around here. It's the long winded ones that think they have the final word. lol ... anyway, g'night ya'll, I'm glad you enjoyed your lunch w/o cabbage today MC

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The one with the stapler gets to decide what we believe

Stapler?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Stapler?

Its always going back to who got this stuff together basically, so I just say the ones with the stapler.

Its the ones with the S (Stapler) and the big T (Tradition) is the big D (Dog)

 

[Rick Otto]

This question is hard to answer. I and others have determined that they knew what constituted Scripture by means of Tradition in the form of canon. Others seem to acknowledge that they knew because of the canon but refuse to acknowledge that the canon is in itself Tradition.

It doesn't matter that the canon is a tradition because the canon was based on its content and the content is only scripture.
At least it is supposed to be, but there is more than one canon, so tradition as a test, fails at least as much as different interpretations fail.
Maybe you would like bhuddism better.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It doesn't matter that the canon is a tradition because the canon was based on its content and the content is only scripture.

Content can be easily forged, and there are many such examples of non-canonical writings from the early days which do not offer any immediate or apparent conflict with the canon of Scripture. There is more to a particular writing than its contents. The declaration that 'such and such letter is authentic and authored originally by Paul, as handed down and copied along' is a Tradition.

At least it is supposed to be, but there is more than one canon, so tradition as a test, fails at least as much as different interpretations fail.

Of course; there are many writings and many canons surrounding many writings, and many traditions which form canons of writings or otherwise produce various doctrines.

Maybe you would like bhuddism better.

Why would you say something like this to me?

 

[Standing Up]

On one hand, false prophets may write things blindly which could come true. Should we then count those as Scripture?

There's a test for that.

On another hand, we have Paul's letter to Philemon, which contained no prophecies.

Prophets were OT. Apostles are NT. See ephesians for example.

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

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.

We know because of the prophetic lineage. It was written. That's its claim. You're confusing Trent with 1000s of years of written records.

 

[Standing Up]

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'?

It is written in the case of Bereans, Philip/Eunich, John/Revelation, Paul/Galatians. Whether there was a finalized canon by Polycarp's time (which is debatable) or not has nothing to do with apostolic authority (NT) and prophetic authority (OT). For example, RC thought for a time that there were 28 NT books, but that doesn't change the authority.

Remember what SS is.

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't matter that the canon is a tradition because the canon was based on its content and the content is only scripture.
At least it is supposed to be, but there is more than one canon, so tradition as a test, fails at least as much as different interpretations fail.
Maybe you would like bhuddism better.

It is true that the Catholic "tradition" of including the apocrypha as if it were OT scripture is rejected by both Jews and Christians who are not Catholic -

 

[BobRyan]

Content can be easily forged, and there are many such examples of non-canonical writings from the early days which do not offer any immediate or apparent conflict with the canon of Scripture. There is more to a particular writing than its contents. The declaration that 'such and such letter is authentic and authored originally by Paul, as handed down and copied along' is a Tradition.

The failure of that argument can be seen in the NT text where Peter admits that Paul's letters are being accepted as inspired scripture - right there on the spot. No need to wait a few more centuries for the RCC to evolve into being and then to pass some sort of decree.

Even Jerome rejects the Catholic mandate for the Apocrypha - many centuries later than Peter is writing.

 

[BobRyan]

I am asking how one should know what constitutes Scripture in order to use it as any sort of rule or measure.

In Is 8:20 "to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word - there is no light in them" -- sola scriptura testing used even then.

In Luke 24 - -sola scriptura.

In Mark 7:6-13 sola scriptura testing

Sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition is NOT the claim that "no tradition exists". IT is also NOT the claim that "all tradition fails the sola scriptura test".

Your argument is of the form "if church leaders did anything outside of the Bible it is proof that sola scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine has failed". --

That is a straw man.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul as a Jew had the hand me down traditions downs of his fathers as he says here

Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Paul (former Pharisee) was more exceedingly zealous of these

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

They would transgress the commandment by their tradition

Which is commandment is shown in the next verse

Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother:

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Then in Mark

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Nice!

Christ hammers the traditions and doctrines of the one true nation church of his day - the one started by God Himself on Sinai - "sola scriptura".

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.

 

[fhansen]

It is true that the Catholic "tradition" of including the apocrypha as if it were OT scripture is rejected by both Jews and Christians who are not Catholic -

Yes, thank God for the Church, who listens to Him-not popular opinion.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, thank God for the Church, who listens to Him-not popular opinion.

There is at least one like that - I am sure.