Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Sola Scriptura biblical? {Open)
www.cronos.com ^ | 31-May-2010 | Self Topic

Posted on 05/31/2010 6:33:12 AM PDT by Cronos

1. Where does the Bible claim sola scriptura?

2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." --> it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable i.e. helpful. the entire verse from 14 to 17 says "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"
3. Where else do we have the term "sola scriptura" in the Bible?

4. Matthew 15 - Jesus condemns corrupt tradition, not all tradition. At no point is the basic notion of traidition condemned

5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brehtern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"

6. 1 Timothy 3:14-15

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
note that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is The Church of the Living God

7. Nowhere does Scripture reduce God's word down to Scripture ALONE. Instead the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is found in The Church: in Tradition (2 Th 2:15, 3:6) and in the Church teaching (1 Pet 1:25, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Mt 18:17). This supports the Church principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone'.

8. The New Testament was compiled at the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgements to Rome for the Pope's approval.

9. Yet, the people HAD the Canon, the Word of God before the scriptures were compiled, and even before some were written

10. Books that were revered in the 1st and 2nd centuries were left out of canon. Book slike the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. Why?

11. There were disputes over 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation, yet they are in Scripture. Whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?

12. How are Protestants sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)?

13. Or do Protestants have a fallible collection of infallible documents? And how do they know that Jude is infallible? And how do they know that the Epistle of Barnabus is not?

14. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).


TOPICS: Catholic; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: catholic; no; orthodox; protestant; rhetoricalquestion; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,051-1,053 next last
the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
1 posted on 05/31/2010 6:33:12 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

i agree one hundred percent...

scripture alone led to divisions galore even in luther’s time, he even noticed it...and it continues to this day.

and one of the ‘benefits’ of solo scriptura, in any form, is that the all of that plain and straight forward biblical texts in this post, can all majikally be made to mean something else, again, all thru using the majik wand of sola scirptura....

throw in a few ‘let scripture interpret scripture’ (which is also done using sola scriptura principles, thus defeating the purpose), and our separated brethern can make it says whatever they need to say...

or whatever the little bible church down the streets preacher wants it to say.....

or the next non denominational church a block from there...

and so on, and so on...


2 posted on 05/31/2010 6:41:16 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The traditions of men took us from Adam’s perfect walk with God to Sodom in short order.


3 posted on 05/31/2010 6:45:23 AM PDT by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Oh no!! You’ve done it now. Matthew 15:6-9 is just one example that Jesus fought against traditions of men that contradicted The Word of God. Show me one example of Jesus or his disciples praying to a dead saint for deliverance or help.


4 posted on 05/31/2010 6:46:01 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Show me one example where Christ or his disciples wore rosary beads or crucifixes or used them.


5 posted on 05/31/2010 6:48:06 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 3:14-15

Let’s look at context and reality:

1. This was written to Timothy
2. Timothy was born in 17 AD

The Scripture Timothy knew from infancy and what Paul is referring to is The Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't written at the time of Timothy’s infancy. This doesn’t mean what some want it to mean. Paul was telling Timothy that Christ did fulfill the OT prophecies, that Timothy was "made wise" for the salvation of Christ. Nowhere do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book.

6 posted on 05/31/2010 6:51:11 AM PDT by FatherofFive (0bama is dangerous and must be stopped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Do you agree that Sunday worship was changed from Sabbath worship by the authority of your church leadership and that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that this change took place in the age of the apostles? What day did Christ keep (hint Luke 4:16).


7 posted on 05/31/2010 6:53:59 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
The problem with that argument from II Timothy is that it proceeds to qualify "profitable" as that which is able to make a person "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Which eliminates in one fell swoop any need for the Catholic idea of adding "tradition" to Scripture. If a person is throughly furnished unto all good works by Scripture, then nothing else is needed.

The Catholic arguments for tradition simply don't work (interesting, though, they have to be supporter from Scripture, making Scripture *still* the arbiter, not "the church" or tradition). Jesus did condemn corrupt tradition - because it was tradition that conflicted with the Word of God. Indeed, at several points, Jesus vociferously defies tradition *on that basis*. The traditions that Paul spoke of, well, there is simply no logical basis whatsosver to read in the Catholic meaning of "tradition" - more logically, the traditions that Paul told the Thessalonians to hold to was simply the preaching of the Word that he had given them personally when he was there - which would not have conflicted with the later written Word. Catholic arguments simply beg too many questions to be credible, intellectually.

I do agree that the Bible doesn't teach that some doctrines are "minor" and that we can ignore them - but the fact that this is done so today is not the fault of sloa scriptura. Indeed, one would think that if someone were serious about sola scriptura, it would engender the exact OPPOSITE approach to these doctrines (and indeed, it DOES, among those who actually ARE sola scriptura in practice, rather than just in word). Catholic tradition, on the other hand, is what "allows" people to violate scripture left and right on the basis that "Mother Church said they could."

8 posted on 05/31/2010 6:54:09 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
If the both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches claim to follow apostolic oral tradition, how is it that they teach doctrine so differently?

How do I know whose oral traditions are correct?

9 posted on 05/31/2010 6:59:56 AM PDT by Anti-Utopian ("Come, let's away to prison; We two alone will sing like birds I' th' cage." -King Lear [V,iii,6-8])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rsobin

True, the traditions of men. However, we talk of the Holy Tradition of God, as handed down by God, Christ Himself through His Apostles. This Holy Tradition was the birthing womb for Scripture, and like Mary was the womb for Christ yet she is subordinate to Him, Holy Tradition too is subordinate to Scripture and in no way contradicts it.


10 posted on 05/31/2010 7:00:37 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Where did you go Cronos? This ain’t fair to start this and not follow up on what I hoped was a stimulating discussion.


11 posted on 05/31/2010 7:00:54 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Matthew 15:6-9 shows Jesus fighting against corruption of Tradition. He points out that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus came to fulfil scripture and Tradition, not to destroy it.


12 posted on 05/31/2010 7:02:07 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
Show me one example where Christ or his disciples wore rosary beads or crucifixes or used them.

First off, when the twelve were disciples (as opposed to Apostles), the crucifixion hadn't happened yet, so there was no such thing as a Crucifix at the time.

Second, the history of the Rosary is that it began as a way for the laity who were illiterate at the time to symbolically pray the psalter daily - 150 Our Fathers or Hail Marys to symbolize the 150 psalms that were prayed daily in the monestaries. The beads are a place-keeper. The Rosary as we know it today is a little different, and the development was revealed as all points of Faith are.

13 posted on 05/31/2010 7:03:06 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

I’m asking about SOLA Scriptura here. Is Scripture ALONE sufficient? Where does Scripture say that?


14 posted on 05/31/2010 7:03:43 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

“The Scripture Timothy knew from infancy and what Paul is referring to is The Old Testament. The New Testament wasn’t written at the time of Timothy’s infancy. This doesn’t mean what some want it to mean. Paul was telling Timothy that Christ did fulfill the OT prophecies, that Timothy was “made wise” for the salvation of Christ. Nowhere do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book” —> well put


15 posted on 05/31/2010 7:06:06 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I guess I'll ask you then. If the both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches claim to follow apostolic oral tradition, how is it that they teach doctrine so differently?

How do I know whose oral traditions are correct?

16 posted on 05/31/2010 7:07:13 AM PDT by Anti-Utopian ("Come, let's away to prison; We two alone will sing like birds I' th' cage." -King Lear [V,iii,6-8])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
Show me one example of Jesus or his disciples praying to a dead saint for deliverance or help. Well it does not specifically mention Jesus or the apostles, but it does show those in heaven sending the prayers to God. If God had recieved them directly there would be no need for the Angels to send them up to God.

Revelation 8:3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. 4 The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.

17 posted on 05/31/2010 7:12:31 AM PDT by verga (I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I’m asking about SOLA Scriptura here. Is Scripture ALONE sufficient? Where does Scripture say that?>>/i>

It is more than sufficient.

18 posted on 05/31/2010 7:12:50 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
How is this relevant to the question on sola scriptura? You say "nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that this change took place" yet where in the Bible does it explictly state that the Bible is the sole source of all history and doctrine?

To your matter read Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabus and Justin Martyr who observed Sunday as the day of worship. And just after them, you have Dionysius, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian

"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

Barnabas 74 AD. "Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead"

Justin Martyr 140 A..D. "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness, made the world; and Jesus Christ our savior , on the same day rose from the dead."

Didache 80-90 A.D. "And on the day of our lords resurrection, which is the Lord’s day meet more diligently."

Sabbath commemorates a finished creation with rest, the last day of the week. In contrast, Sunday is the dawn of the new day, of a new covenant.



19 posted on 05/31/2010 7:15:39 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone": Baptizing by immersion three times, giving the baptized a "drink of milk and honey," forbidding the baptized to take a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. (De Corona 3-4)

Jerome said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law." (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8)

Why aren't these traditions observed anymore?

20 posted on 05/31/2010 7:24:16 AM PDT by Anti-Utopian ("Come, let's away to prison; We two alone will sing like birds I' th' cage." -King Lear [V,iii,6-8])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Try John 10:35 - the scriptures cannot be broken And
John 5:39 search the scriptures. Here it shows that the Scriptures are to be the guidance. If you have traditions, what do you have for their basis? These two are intertwined. You cannot have me prove a negative, but you must prove the basis, origin and acceptance from The Creator before they can be accepted as doctrine.


21 posted on 05/31/2010 7:24:27 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“Sabbath commemorates a finished creation with rest, the last day of the week. In contrast, Sunday is the dawn of the new day, of a new covenant.”

Nowhere in the Bible does it teach this. Sure the disciples preached on the first day of the week (as well as the other days of the week) but if the first day (or eighth day if you prefer) were to be recognized as The New Day to worship from henceforth, it would have been proclaimed as clearly as the Sabbath one (Thou shalt . . . )
By the way why does the fourth commandment start with REMEMBER the the Sabbath as though mankind would forget?


22 posted on 05/31/2010 7:30:12 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
It does not say that scripture is sufficient. Furthermore, remember that the "scripture" referred to in Timothy is Jewish scripture as many books in the NT like the Gospel of John and Revelation hadn't been written yet.

Jesus condemned corrupt tradition, but yet said that He came to fulfil tradition. Holy Tradition of itself in no way contradicts Scripture -- how can it when Scripture was birthed from Tradition (how else would you know that The Acts of Paul are not scripture while Jude is?)

How was scripture compiled? At councils in The Church through the grace of God and in the environment of Holy Tradition. If you discount Tradition, then on what basis do you say that you have an infallible collection of books? Or would you state that you have a fallible collection of infallible books?
23 posted on 05/31/2010 7:31:41 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Utopian

Both Orthodox and Catholic Churches follow the same Apostolic Tradition. Which points do you find core doctrine different?


24 posted on 05/31/2010 7:32:28 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
The problem with Traditions is they are arbitrary, and subjective. Catholics really have no clue how offensive their teachings are to Christians.
25 posted on 05/31/2010 7:33:26 AM PDT by dartuser ("Palin 2012 ... nothing else will do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
He points out that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus came to fulfil scripture and Tradition, not to destroy it. Jesus didn't destroy the Sabbath. Man replaced it with the day of the that the sun was worshiped. It was done by man.
26 posted on 05/31/2010 7:35:53 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
So, if Scripture is and was as you say more than sufficient, then what of those before the canon was compiled? What did they do? And what of those who were/are illiterate?

How are Protestants sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)?
27 posted on 05/31/2010 7:37:01 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: verga
Revelation 8:3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. 4 The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.

Is that supposed to mean something other than God hears prayers?

28 posted on 05/31/2010 7:39:20 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Utopian
I guess I'll ask you then. If the both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches claim to follow apostolic oral tradition, how is it that they teach doctrine so differently? How do I know whose oral traditions are correct?

The Orthodox are just like the Protestants,and Moslem, divided, and basically agree to not disagree, so as to present themselves as a unified body.

That said, if you were to argue that a certain group of Orthodox are united worldwide and are the Apostolic Universal Church, well then, you have only two choices as to what Church follows apostolic oral tradition and correctly interprets scipture correctly, is the final authority on scripture "(2 Peter 3:16) "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.(2 Peter 3:16).

The two choices are The Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox branches.

One would be better off with either choice, than with their own one man religion, being one man infallible authority of himself, as are the Protestant "bible only" interpreters (all of Protestantism).

As to which to pick Catholic or Orthodox that's your job to figure out. At least I've eliminated all the chaff for you. It's down to two.

29 posted on 05/31/2010 7:41:43 AM PDT by Leoni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
How are Protestants sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)?

Never doubt the Power of God. He used these "fallible Church councils and Patriarchs" to His Purpose.

30 posted on 05/31/2010 7:44:03 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
It does not say that scripture is sufficient. Furthermore, remember that the "scripture" referred to in Timothy is Jewish scripture as many books in the NT like the Gospel of John and Revelation hadn't been written yet.

Doesn't matter - Scripture is scripture, and is a unified whole.

Jesus condemned corrupt tradition, but yet said that He came to fulfil tradition.

No He didn't. He said that He came to fulfill SCRIPTURE. Look it up.

Holy Tradition of itself in no way contradicts Scripture -- how can it when Scripture was birthed from Tradition (how else would you know that The Acts of Paul are not scripture while Jude is?)

The Holy Spirit guided Christians into a knowledge of what was Scripture and what was not (John 16:13, I John 2:20,27), and this happened long before any councils.

How was scripture compiled? At councils in The Church through the grace of God and in the environment of Holy Tradition. If you discount Tradition, then on what basis do you say that you have an infallible collection of books? Or would you state that you have a fallible collection of infallible books?

The Holy Spirit who guided early Christians into all truth. Indeed, scholars now recognise that the entirety of the NT (and only the NT, not the "Gospel of Peter" and other nonsensical books) was widely recognised across early Christianity by 200 AD - long before any council. Indeed, the entirety of Catholicism's Sorellian myth is flat wrong.

31 posted on 05/31/2010 7:44:33 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Utopian
How do I know whose oral traditions are correct?

Easy - you judge them by the Bible. Both fail the test, however.

32 posted on 05/31/2010 7:45:41 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
John 10 --> read it in context. It says
The Unbelief of the Jews 22Then came the Feast of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[c] tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." 31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

Very clearly, this is referring to the Jewish Torah and Septuagint, to Jewish Scriptures. The Gospel and none of the Epistles had been written yet. Furthermore, where EXACTLY does it say that Scripture ALONE?

John 5:39 -- read that in context too
31"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. 32There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid. 33"You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. 36"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Again, this actually says that Jesus uses testimony of John as well as of JEWISH Scripture. Furthermore, this too, does not say Scripture is sufficient, it does not say SOLA Scriptura.
33 posted on 05/31/2010 7:48:34 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Well for my 2cents worth the Bible does teach Scripture alone.

1) I Corinthians 4:6 - Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. - NASV

2) NKJV says,.."not to think beyond what is written.."

3) KJV says, "..not to think of men above that which is written..."

4) The Greek Word (γράφω) translated "written" in the above texts is graphō. It literally means to 'engrave' or 'cut in' or to 'form letters with a stylus'. No wiggle room here to waffle around and say its somehow figurative.

5) Traditions are great EXCEPT when they contradict with that which is written. Notice what the KJV said again above "do not think of men above that which is written." Paul is saying no man is to exceed Scripture and no teaching of man is to contradict Scripture. So if your traditions are contrary to what has been written - its not of God - and it doesn't matter what 'church' is teaching it, or what 'man' is teaching it for that mattter.

When you elevate tradition and the teachings of men above Scripture you are treading on very dangerous ground. You leave yourself open to and subject to all sorts of error and false teaching. This was precisely why Paul was very clear not to 'exceed' that which is written.

34 posted on 05/31/2010 7:49:14 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
The problem with Traditions is they are arbitrary, and subjective. Catholics really have no clue how offensive their teachings are to Christians.

Catholic tradition is largely the product of centuries of gradual development that followed the apostasy of much of Christianity after Constantine. What we know of today as "Catholicism," in fact, only appeared in its recognisable form after Augustine, in the 5th century.

It's interesting to see the parallels between Catholicism and Islam in this regard. Both consider themselves to have sprung forth unaided and in final form from a primeval source, yet both, in reality, are the product of a long period that saw the gradual development of a system of traditions which were then crystallised by the priestly caste and "retro-engineered" back onto their myth of primeval origin.

35 posted on 05/31/2010 7:51:20 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
Nowhere in the Bible does it teach this.

And where in the Bible does it explictly state that the Bible is the sole source of all history and doctrine?

Furthermore, do you deny that Sunday was not the day when our Saviour rose in accordance with scripture?
36 posted on 05/31/2010 7:54:37 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Holy Tradition is neither arbitrary nor subjective. Scripture is birthed from Holy Tradition, or else, tell me how are you sure that the 27 books of the New Testaments are themselves the infallible Word of God if fallible Church councils and Patriarchs are the ones who made up or approved the list (leaving out the Acts of Paul, yet leaving in Jude and Revelation)? The New Testament was compiled at the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgements to Rome for the Pope's approval. Books that were revered in the 1st and 2nd centuries were left out of canon. Books like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. And 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation were added even though many had doubts about them. Why? How do you know this compilation is correct? As the compilation was done through Holy Tradition with the grace of God.

Name one Tradition that contradicts scripture.
37 posted on 05/31/2010 7:57:33 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Furthermore, where EXACTLY does it say that Scripture ALONE?

Pick one of these:

(1)Man shall not live by bread ALONE, but by every Word of God.

(2)Man shall not live by bread ALONE, but by the traditions of man.

(3)Man shall not live by bread ALONE, but by what my priest and church tell me is so.

38 posted on 05/31/2010 7:58:18 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Who exactly says that the Sabbath is destroyed? No one. As a Christian you don’t think the day your Saviour rose is a day of great joy and praise? And Christ rose on the 8th day.


39 posted on 05/31/2010 7:59:22 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob; verga

Yes, God deputizes those to collect the prayers to bring them to him. the deputies are no more than carriers.


40 posted on 05/31/2010 8:00:05 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Ok, so you then AGREE that the fallible Church councils and Patriarchs through the grace of God through His Holy Tradition gave us the compiled canon? You got your Bible through The Church? None of these points however prove that SOLA scriptura is anything but incorrect.


41 posted on 05/31/2010 8:02:56 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
"Furthermore, do you deny that Sunday was not the day when our Saviour rose in accordance with scripture? "

I do not deny that my Lord arose on Sunday because He rested on the Sabbath day in death just as he done in life. There is no contradiction.

42 posted on 05/31/2010 8:03:22 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) "The Word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14) "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)

The WORD is Christ--and He told His disciples, "He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own, they belong to the Father who sent me. All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:24-27)

The Bible records the teaching of God as it was given to those who believed in Him--but what gives LIFE to this teaching is not the written words themselves, but the Holy Spirit Christ promises to send to those who believe in Him, and which comes not from the human mind which does the reading of the written word, but from the "mind of God" which sent His WORD to earth in the Jesus the Christ. Paul describes this beautifully in Galatians 4:4--

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father'. So you are no longer a slave [to sin and the law]; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir[of the Kingdom of Heaven]."

To me--without the Holy Spirit's presence in our hearts, given to us "by grace through faith"--the Bible is just another "book". But with the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts--and minds--the Bible becomes "living bread!"

And the more we "read, mark, and inwardly digest" that "bread", and allow the Holy Spirit to reign in our hearts and minds, then--as Paul writes in Ephesians 4:14:--

"...we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body [of the church], joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."

43 posted on 05/31/2010 8:05:50 AM PDT by milagro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
None of these points however prove that SOLA scriptura is anything but incorrect.

see my post #38

44 posted on 05/31/2010 8:06:00 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Scripture referred to in Timothy is Jewish Scripture. Revelation wasn't written yet, and neither was the Gospel of John. Do you remove them from your list of scripture?

The Word of God is more than just scripture. That IS the unified whole.

If you say that The Holy SPirit guided all Christians into a knowledge of what Scripture was, why exactly did many hold the Didache and the Epistle of Clement and the Acts of Paul to be scripture? And those were good, what of those who held the Gospel of Thomas to be scripture?

And on what basis do you think that Revelation was added? Most didn't have that in their list of canon until the Council of Hippo.
45 posted on 05/31/2010 8:06:42 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Man shall not live by bread alone. Where does it say that Man shall live by the SCRIPTURES ALONE? Remember that the Word of God is more than just Scriptures.


46 posted on 05/31/2010 8:08:02 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Exactly, so Sunday is the day of joy and you keep Sabbath Holy. Sabbath was not replaced. That is a day of the Old Covenant and should be kept holy. The Day of Christ’s rising is a symbol of the New Covenant.


47 posted on 05/31/2010 8:09:14 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
"Exactly, so Sunday is the day of joy and you keep Sabbath Holy. Sabbath was not replaced. That is a day of the Old Covenant and should be kept holy. Allrighty then. That particular Sunday was a day of joy and celebration that our Lord overcame death,sin and tribulation. So, how do you keep the Sabbath (seventh day) holy?
48 posted on 05/31/2010 8:14:47 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Remember, one must not read excerpts (that is a very characteristic failing of groups outside The Church), but read in context. 1 Corinthians 4 says:
1So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. 6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

This really has nothing to do with scripture. It's about judging a person (in this case Paul). Read in context..

Holy Tradition in NO way contradicts scripture. It can't.
49 posted on 05/31/2010 8:15:22 AM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
Is that supposed to mean something other than God hears prayers?

Thanks for not reading the entire post.

How did the prayers get to God?, They were pased on from the Angels that recieved them.

50 posted on 05/31/2010 8:18:13 AM PDT by verga (I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,051-1,053 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson