Posted on 05/03/2018 3:32:33 PM PDT by NRx
The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.
So that means that it is the only thing?
so what you are saying is scripture alone, doesn’t mean only scripture? If it doesn’t mean that then we understand everything the same way, and sola scriptura is nonsense.
“So that means that it (the Bible) is the only thing?”
Absolutely. Positively. Without a doubt.
where is that in the bible? If it isn’t in there, you can’t believe it, right? Trust me, it isn’t in there.
“The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.”
Again, this is not what Sola Scriptura says.
Scripture is the only *infallible* source.
It also contains all that is needed for salvation and Christian maturity.
The Scriptures themselves recognize the legitimate authority God gives to the leaders in a church and civilian magistrates. They are not unchangeable and infallible, as is God’s Word.
that came from you, not me!
“so what you are saying is scripture alone, doesn’t mean only scripture? If it doesn’t mean that then we understand everything the same way, and sola scriptura is nonsense.”
Scripture itself defines other lesser authorities, as noted in previous post. It means the only infallible and unchangeable authority - Truth directly from God and written down - is the standard by which lesser changeable authorities and their leadership and teaching are judged.
So you don’t believe sola scriptura. Me either
Why did the early church collect the writings they did to form the Bible?
I do believe that what God Inspired is infallible, unchangeable and sufficient. It is the standard to judge the teachings and leadership in the church and without.
That is Sola Scriptura and yes Christians believe this.
That is not what AMPU said. You are purposefully misreading the statement.
“That is not what AMPU said. You are purposefully misreading the statement”
Willful blindness??
As I said, then you don’t believe sola scriptura (latin for scripture alone). We have no argument then.
In Christian Bibles, the New Testament Gospels were derived from oral traditions in the second half of the first century CE. Riches says that:
Scholars have attempted to reconstruct something of the history of the oral traditions behind the Gospels, but the results have not been too encouraging. The period of transmission is short: less than 40 years passed between the death of Jesus and the writing of Mark’s Gospel. This means that there was little time for oral traditions to assume fixed form.[21]
In other words the NT came from oral tradition. Say a prayer of thanks for the Catholics who compiled the canon of scripture and are today part of your Christian family rather than bashing them.
My family is very mixed, one grandmother was Catholic, the rest of them are hardcore Southern Baptist, one of my brothers is an ordained minister, my wife’s family is Italian/German and Catholic, her father was an altar boy.
I honestly think you and I don’t really have anything to argue about. Have a great day.
Your post proves only Scripture is to be considered true....in other words sola scriptura.
This is not an accurate statement.
Some of the NT came from oral tradition. Others books were not derived from oral tradition.
Romans was an intentional letter to the believers in Rome. Paul purposefully wrote Romans.
Actually it is a fair statement to say Paul purposefully wrote all of his letters.
It is a fair statement to say the Gospels were based on the sayings of Jesus and the recording of those events by the early church. The purpose of the Gospels was to collect those so there would be an authentic record of His life.
Luke undertook this mission when compiling his account of His life.
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4 NASB
Acts is recognized as a general history of the early church written by Luke as an eyewitness to those events.
James and Peter purposefully wrote their letters.
Revelation was given to John who was an eyewitness to those events.
The group of writings we call the New Testament was collected and agreed upon by the early church to serve as a permanent, indisputable record of Christians beliefs and behavior and how one comes to faith in Christ.
Of all the writings in the time of Christ and subsequent to His life, only these 27 were included in the NT Canon.
So does the NT say the Bible alone? No.
It doesn't have to. The mere fact that we have only these 27 books that are considered to be inspired and agreed upon by the early church tells us Scripture itself is sufficient.
“In Christian Bibles, the New Testament Gospels were derived from oral traditions in the second half of the first century CE. Riches says that:
Not what Scripture says.
“Say a prayer of thanks for the Catholics who compiled the canon of scripture and are today part of your Christian family rather than bashing them.”
Ah, the pride of The Roman Rooster crows, thinking he made the sun rise!
Thanks. I try to be civil to a troll, and this is the thanks I get!
You're posts bordered on hystrionic, argumentative, and not civil.
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.