Where does Scripture say it is the standard?

And, of what is Scripture the standard?

And if Scripture is the standard, shouldn't we be able to find that statement in Scripture?

Excellent!

JoeT

We know that God and Truth are convertible; St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” Consequently we can say that there is an absolute infallible truth. If we hold that Truth is absolute then there can be only ONE absolute TRUTH.

Consequently, we cannot simply hold what ‘feels’ good, or what supports our life style, as truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths; in any two competing faiths, one must be is True and the other must be false or they both must be wrong. The reason should be obvious; truth resides in God, and what resides in God has definitive meaning. Since the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God then for each individual there can be only One Truth, One Word. It’s an obscenity to believe Scripture can have ‘different meaning for different folks’. The Holy Spirit inspires men to One True faith.

O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2

Therefore, to have a ‘Standard’ of competing faiths with which to measure the same Truth, the same Revelation, is self-contradictory.

JoeT

Hi Joe,

While we're waiting for a response, it seems to me that the Scriptures say that the Church is the standard. Note the following verses:

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

And this is consistent with how God works. In the Old Testament, God gave a set of laws:

Exodus 24:12
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written;...

And at the same time appointed a teacher. Note how the verse ends.

...that thou mayest teach them.

And this teacher had actually been appointed leader of the people of God long before:
Exodus 19:9
And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

And Moses recognized his authority before God's people:
Exodus 18:14
And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?

Listen to Moses' reply:
15And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

Obviously then, Moses' recognized that he was the purveyor of God's word.

And Jesus' recognized Moses' authority. Did you notice that Moses' SITTEST before the people?

Matthew 23:2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Since the Pharisees sat in Moses' seat, Jesus said that they should be obeyed. Even He obeyed them to the death:
Philippians 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

For the High Priest had said:
John 11:49-51 (King James Version)

49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

Therefore Jesus recognized the authority of man.

And Jesus has now established His standard:

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Note the last words:
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is an infallible standard. And simultaneously led by an infallible leader who was given the keys to the Kingdom:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

But Jesus left us another standard. Traditions. And they were several.

The Tradition of Magisterium. That is, of teaching:
Matthew 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The Tradition of the Mass:
Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The Tradition of Baptism:
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And several more.

Soooo, it seems that there are several standards, of which Scripture is just one.

That is why Scripture says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

De Maria:

I would suggest that the Church is the corporate Teaching Authority, a guide, the Sheppard; correcting, disciplining or reasoning of Scripture in conformity with Truth through Gospels and the teachings of the Apostles. We can't forget that the Gospels serve two functions; a witness God's Truth, and the establishment of a catholic (universal) theology. Both teach that Christ's mission shouldn't be misconstrued, “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. To fulfil For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt 5:17) Christ didn't come to destroy God's Kingdom, rather to fulfill the prophecies, God's promises. Consequently the promise made to Moses is not abandoned but rather renewed in the heart; “you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” Exodus 19:5-6. Abandoning our claim to this inherited promise is to abandon Christ's promises to conquer death through His sacrifice.

JoeT

Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.

If we believe in this doctrine, then we should find it in the Bible, right?

In fact, we do not.

The scripture passage so often cited by proponents of Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3: 15-17, however you shall see that Paul teaches nothing of the sort:

2 Timothy 3: 15-17:
"...from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Here there is not even the slightest implication that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine. Indeed, it affirms the value of Scripture - and that it is from God (which Catholics are taught), however nothing implies that it is all we need. To say that Scripture is "useful" is one thing, but to say it is the only writing that ought to be followed is another altogether.

Not only is the idea of Sola Scriptura not found in Scripture, itself, the New Testament, in fact, teaches against it:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

The Bible is indeed the Word of God and without error, but neither Christ nor the Bible teach such an idea as Sola Scriptura.

Where does Scripture say it is the standard?

And, of what is Scripture the standard?

And if Scripture is the standard, shouldn't we be able to find that statement in Scripture?

1. Scripture was the beginning in which the standard of all is written... because it is the written Word of God..The inspired Word of God.. (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

2. of what is scripture standard: in what we follow

3. standard because it is Truth (John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.)

The foundation in the bread which we remember, and eat as holy in righteousness of truth.

That which we stand upon, and can raise us to eternal life .. The Rock

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1. "The Word" does NOT mean "Scripture".
2-3: That is the definition that SOME Christians use, but it is not "of Scripture".

Don't forget that whatever is written in the New Testament about "Scripture" does NOT include anything in the New Testament since that body was not recognized until 300 years after Christ.

1. Scripture was the beginning in which the standard of all is written... because it is the written Word of God..The inspired Word of God.. (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

The Word of God is a person. Not a book. John 1:1 refers to God the Son, the Word, Expression of God in eternity.


2. of what is scripture standard: in what we follow

It is A standard. Not THE standard. There's a difference.

We have many standards in what we follow.

a. We follow the leaders in our faith:
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

1 Corinthians 4:16
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

b. We follow traditions by word

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

c. And we follow Scripture as you said.

So there is more than one standard for Christians. And all three standards were established by Jesus Christ.


3. standard because it is Truth (John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.)

This is true. But remember that Jesus did not write any Scripture. In fact He established a Church and Tradition. The Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Old.


The foundation in the bread which we remember, and eat as holy in righteousness of truth.

That which we stand upon, and can raise us to eternal life .. The Rock

Jesus Christ is the Rock. And the Rock appointed another Rock for us, Simon Peter. And neither of those Rocks is Scripture. Jesus Christ is God and man. Whilst Peter is human.

The Word of God is a person. Not a book. John 1:1 refers to God the Son, the Word, Expression of God in eternity.

The Word is the spiritual truth that was given to us out of love from our Father. We are to confess our belief in that grace, as it is the begotten son of God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.



It is A standard. Not THE standard. There's a difference.

We have many standards in what we follow.

a. We follow the leaders in our faith:
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Lets keep this in the time period which is meant. The teaching was meant for them to remember = (11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. ) And to remember who have spoken unto you of God: who faith follow = (2 Thess 3:6-7 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you)

We today acknowledged that they were ensample unto us to follow them. And we are told to consider the end of conversation because = (Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it)

This was all written in warning, in teaching us how to discern what we are taught and what to follow.



1 Corinthians 4:16
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

b. We follow traditions by word

Yes as imitators such as written in (11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.)





2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


They were ensampled for us today, we are to imiate them for they follow Christ. ( 2 Thess 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you) (2 Thess 3:8 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. )



c. And we follow Scripture as you said.

So there is more than one standard for Christians. And all three standards were established by Jesus Christ.

There is only one standard for what is written shows us that the ensampled themselves followed Christ




This is true. But remember that Jesus did not write any Scripture. In fact He established a Church and Tradition. The Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Old.

The Word is by the inspiration of God... I believe in HIS power..It is God who reveals Truth. The church is a followship of Christians that follow Christ. Servants of labor to doing the Will of God.. Bow before God and no other gods. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.




Jesus Christ is the Rock. And the Rock appointed another Rock for us, Simon Peter. And neither of those Rocks is Scripture. Jesus Christ is God and man. Whilst Peter is human.

I believe in what is written Christ said:
Reference to Peter (John 1:48 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. )

In short: If Scripture is the standard, then Scripture should tell us that... but it does not. Instead it tells us otherwise.

There is only one standard for what is written shows us that the ensampled themselves followed Christ

So far, neither you, Tom, or anybody else has shown where Scriptures hold themselves to be the sole authority in matters of faith. In fact, as De Maria has shown, they allude to the authority being corporate, i.e. “THE CHURCH”.

This is precisely the question here. What is that ‘standard’ and how is it shown to be an authority in the Scriptures? I haven’t found anywhere in Holy Scriptures where Scripture holds itself as the sole rule of life over cosmic revelations made by God; if you have, please share it with us. On the other hand the Catholic Church teaches that its Teaching Authority (the Magisterium) is “right reasoning” in matters of faith.

Instead of answering the proposition, you offer innuendo, unsubstantiated I might add, and then make the statement that there is a ‘standard,’ again unsubstantiated. I fully realize we are treading on your free-to-interpret-Scripture toes, but if you’re in the right, you should be able to give some sort of a reasoned response. After all, if I want people to call the Church names, all I need do is step out on the veranda; there’re scads of folks here that’ll do it for you - with gusto.


JoeT

So far, neither you, Tom, or anybody else has shown where Scriptures hold themselves to be the sole authority in matters of faith. In fact, as De Maria has shown, they allude to the authority being corporate, i.e. “THE CHURCH”.

JoeT

Joe,

What I am saying is that never should anyone quench the Spirit. (1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit)

The church has authority because they are the body of Christ. Christ is within each member, and each are to walk in Christ. But let us not quench the Spirit. And prove all things, knowing that we hold fast to that which is Truth.


John 1 :14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Joe,

What I am saying is that never should anyone quench the Spirit. (1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit)

If you mean by quench is “to put out or extinguish” I agree. But how do you know whether it is the Holy Spirit? Are we to give credence to private revelations?


The church has authority because they are the body of Christ. Christ is within each member, and each are to walk in Christ. But let us not quench the Spirit. And prove all things, knowing that we hold fast to that which is Truth.
John 1 :14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I agree whole heartedly, except that I don’t think you would agree with me as to which ‘Church.’ So how do we discern which Church is correct and which isn’t?

So then, does the Spirit tell different Churches different absolute Truths, i.e. one Church is as good as another?

JoeT

they allude to the authority being corporate, i.e. “THE CHURCH”.
Right. All believers who are in Christ.

On the other hand the Catholic Church teaches that its Teaching Authority (the Magisterium) is “right reasoning” in matters of faith.
But is it? It may have evolved out of the early church of Acts, but has it remained pure? Is any church body pure, holding The Truth, when it is made up of fallible humans?

Right. All believers who are in Christ.

Close, but not quite; any two believers who are ONE with Christ makeup the Church. Otherwise, we would have competing Truths – no?


But is it? It may have evolved out of the early church of Acts, but has it remained pure? Is any church body pure, holding The Truth, when it is made up of fallible humans?

In this you're trying to be polite. What's really being said here is that you think the Catholic Church is an apostate Church. But, you do remember Christ's promise that the Church would prevail against the gates of hell. So, then we've got a conundrum, do we not? (I barely know what the word means but I know we've got one). This is digging us deeper into a hole, either Christ didn't tell us the truth or the gates of hell have prevailed in spite of Christ. Or, maybe the Roman Church is correct and you're just trying to find fault where none exists?

JoeT

Close, but not quite; any two believers who are ONE with Christ makeup the Church. Otherwise, we would have competing Truths – no?
Why competing? It's Christ's Church on earth. Later, it will be the Church triumphant. I'm not Catholic but am in Christ's Church on earth and destined for the Church triumphant. Other non-Catholic Christians are too. Or don't you think we are?

In this you’re trying to be polite. What’s really being said here is that you think the Catholic Church is an apostate Church.
Not at all. But the Catholic Church is also made up of fallible humans.

the gates of hell have prevailed in spite of Christ.
On this earth, yes, Satan is busy.

maybe the Roman Church is correct and you’re just trying to find fault where none exists?
I don't believe the Catholic Church has the only Truth or The Complete Truth.

Why competing? It's Christ's Church on earth. Later, it will be the Church triumphant.

If they’re not competing then they are one and the same Truth. There is already a ‘Church Triumphant’.


On this earth, yes, Satan is busy.

I couldn’t agree with this at all.


I don't believe the Catholic Church has the only Truth or The Complete Truth.

I do believe the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Its Truth rests in Christ.

JoeT

If they’re not competing then they are one and the same Truth. There is already a ‘Church Triumphant’.
We're already dead?

I couldn’t agree with this at all.
Satan isn't hanging about?

I do believe the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Its Truth rests in Christ.
I believe the Church is one holy catholic and apostolic Church whose truth rests in Christ.

We're already dead?

You’re still marching aren’t you? So I suppose that makes us the Church Militant. Then there’s the Church Suffering – they are in that place you don’t believe in – and the Church Triumphant. All belong to the Kingdom of God. There is only One Church, currently separated by death.


Satan isn't hanging about?

Oh, he’s still here. But, he won’t win out. Don’t we have God’s promise?


I believe the Church is one holy catholic and apostolic Church whose truth rests in Christ.

Amen.

JoeT

You’re still marching aren’t you? So I suppose that makes us the Church Militant. Then there’s the Church Suffering – they are in that place you don’t believe in – and the Church Triumphant. All belong to the Kingdom of God. There is only One Church, currently separated by death.
The Church Triumphant is in heaven.

Amen.
Small c for catholic

So far, neither you, Tom, or anybody else has shown where Scriptures hold themselves to be the sole authority in matters of faith. In fact, as De Maria has shown, they allude to the authority being corporate, i.e. “THE CHURCH”.

First, scripture does tell us this, for example:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.

First, scripture does tell us this, for example:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.


What you said is excellent! I know I am always agreeing with you but I loved the scriptures that you used. Very good. I don't know how they can poo poo it? It is right there in black and white.

First, scripture does tell us this, for example:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.


What you said is excellent! I know i am always agreeing with you but I loved the scriptures that you used. very good. I don't know how they can poo poo it? It is right there in black and white.

I don't see much excellence or wisdom, T. There are a few problems with what's being suggested. The first of which should be obvious.

If in fact we are to take 2 Tim 3 16-17 to be Scriptures' authentication and authority then we should only be reading the Septuagint, because that WAS the Scriptures when these verses were penned.

But, let's pretend to ignore the obvious and continue to look at these verses.

Verse 14: But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them:

The imperative is to continue with those things we have learned, knowing from who you have learned them. Now who might these teachers be? What about Paul who was Timothy's teacher? What about the other Apostles who for the most part taught by word of mouth?

Verse 15: And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

To know implies 'right reasoning'. Therefore, verse 15 is instructing us to use right reasoning in Scripture. But, to reason, one must first learn how to reason; these instructions wouldn't come from the Church would they? In Timothy's example they came from a member of the Church, the Apostle Paul. The Holy Scriptures here, again, are those of the Septuagint. But, most Bible-Only folks believe in a dispensation that invalidates them. More important, if we are to ONLY receive our instruction from the Holy Spirit, why doesn't it say so here?

Verse 16: All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

All scripture are indeed inspired by God. Yes very profitable for teaching and correction; but Scripture is not the 'only' profitable learning tool. And Holy Scripture can be used to instruct, but not mandated to be used. But where does it say they have sole authority in our faith? And where in these scriptures does it suggest that it is the sole revelation of God. As too, to take this verse correctly, we would have to say All Catholic Scripture is indeed inspired by God. You see, it was the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures were entrusted; it is the Catholic Church given the Authority to Teach in the offices of the Magisterium.

Verse 17: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Considering the source, it seems strange that this verse is quoted; that is, to be PERFECT IN GOOD WORKS. Are we agreeing that 'faith is dead without works'?

The misrepresentation of these verses is exactly why Timothy was advised to live as One in Christ, 'But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error,'

JoeT

The Church Triumphant is in heaven.

small c for catholic

I notice, one small step... for a bad speller.

If in fact we are to take 2 Tim 3 16-17 to be Scriptures' authentication and authority then we should only be reading the Septuagint, because that WAS the Scriptures when these verses were penned.

That was a translation of the scriptures. (BTW, I have a copy of the Septuagint and have referenced it on occasion).


Verse 14: But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them:

The imperative is to continue with those things we have learned, knowing from who you have learned them. Now who might these teachers be? What about Paul who was Timothy's teacher? What about the other Apostles who for the most part taught by word of mouth?


Let's ponder this for a moment. In school, what are you expected to accept as truth - what you are taught from the textbooks, or whatever the teacher says? If the teacher were to tell you something other than what the textbook says, something which he or she believed but which was not a proven fact, they would be facing potential dismissal depending upon how serious it was. One teach not far from here had that happen when he taught that the holocaust was a hoax.

So it is scripture that is the standard, not the teachers.


Verse 15: And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

To know implies 'right reasoning'.

Really? Methink that you are mixing knowledge with analysis. One can know something without any analysis. Children in particular learn that way.


Therefore, verse 15 is instructing us to use right reasoning in Scripture. But, to reason, one must first learn how to reason; these instructions wouldn't come from the Church would they?

You are adding to scripture.



Verse 16: All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

All scripture are indeed inspired by God.

I am glad that we agree on that point.


Yes very profitable for teaching and correction; but Scripture is not the 'only' profitable learning tool.

True or not, the Bible tells us that we are to depend upon one source. No other source is given. To say otherwise is to add to what God's word says.


Verse 17: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Considering the source, it seems strange that this verse is quoted; that is, to be PERFECT IN GOOD WORKS. Are we agreeing that 'faith is dead without works'?

This is clear that it is our faith which will result in good works. I have endorsed the belief all along that faith without works is dead. But you need to understand what the word faith means in the original Greek. However that is a different topic for a different thread.

Where does Scripture say it is the standard?

And, of what is Scripture the standard?

And if Scripture is the standard, shouldn't we be able to find that statement in Scripture?


All important religions are explained and/or reinforced by books which are considered as sacred by their followers. Mostly, because religion, as history, is basically transmitted from one generation to the next in writing.

Thus, you have the Upanishads, the Hindu Scriptures that constitute the essential teachings of Vedanta.

Or the Qur’an, the Sacred Scripture of Muslims.

Or the Dhammapada, a versified Buddhist scripture, traditionally ascribed to the Buddha himself. Probably, the best-known texts from the Theravada canon.

Or the Jewish Talmud, with its two components, the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE).

Or the famous Chinese I Ching, describing the Chinese ancient system of cosmology and philosophy.

And we have the Bible, or the Book, or the Scriptures.

John Piper , a theologian and Baptist pastor, writes:

“We are people of the Book. We know God through the Book. We meet Christ in the Book. We see the cross in the Book. Our faith and love are kindled by the glorious truths of the Book. We have tasted the divine majesty of the Word and are persuaded that the Book is God's inspired and infallible written revelation. Therefore, what the Book teaches matters. Doctrine is important for worship and life and mission. Education for Exultation is education saturated by the Bible”.

Whether it is considered as standard or not, I guess it is up to us. Yet, I would say that, if nothing else, Jesus’ Message should be taken and considered as our standard pattern of life to follow because it comes all the way directly from our Savior’s lips.:):)

What you said is excellent! I know i am always agreeing with you but I loved the scriptures that you used. very good. I don't know how they can poo poo it? It is right there in black and white.

I don't believe it is anyone's desire to "poo poo" 2Tim.3.14-17. But it is important, since this is after all Holy Scripture, not to misrepresent what it says. As RickJ has already demonstrated in post #6, this passage does not by any means endorse the doctrine of sola scriptura; instead it tells us that "the sacred writings" (i.e. the Septuagint, including books which are regarded by many as deuterocanonical) are useful for the purposes of instruction and are inspired by God. Now this is nothing which "they"--i.e. those participants in this discussion who reject the doctrine of sola scriptura on the grounds that it is not Biblical--disagree. Quite the contrary. Surely the frequency with which Catholic posters here cite and discuss Scripture gives the lie to the idea that somehow Catholics just don't care about the Bible. It is rather the case that Catholics do not regard the Bible the the whole of God's revelation to his people: Scripture is only a part--albeit an essential and indispensable part--of that revelation.

And Catholics are by no means alone in this. The doctrine of sola scriptura is itself a relatively recent theological innovation, one which was utterly foreign to the earliest Christians. We know that the very first Christians did not hold this doctrine since the NT hadn't yet been written, and it took some time after the books of the NT were written for them to circulate at all widely. We know that the generation of Christians after them didn't endorse this doctrine because it is absent from their writings and because their writings show us that they regarded oral Tradition as no less divinely inspired than the books of Scripture themselves. We know that the generation after that also regarded Tradition as divinely inspired because the writings of this period included Tradition along with Scripture and apostolic succession in the rule of faith. And so it goes for each succeeding generation of Christians until we get to the Rennaissence. It was then that the doctrine of sola scriptura made its first appearance.

But, it will be said, the mere fact that Tradition had always been regarded as enjoying equal standing with Scripture is insufficient to prove that each generation of Christians wasn't in error, beginning with the first generation for whom there was as yet no NT. But think for a moment what that commits one to saying: It commits one to the view that Christ failed to keep his promise, that the Paraclete was not in fact sent to preserve the Church that Christ had established from error. Leaving to one side the question whether the Church established by Christ was one and the same as the Catholic Church, it requires one to hold that from the very beginning, the Holy Spirit failed to guide the people of God, this for the reason that not only is there no evidence that the early Christians held the doctrine of sola scriptura but the existing evidence is, in fact, univocal that they recognized Tradition as having equal standing with Scripture.

There are some who pay no attention to what the history of our faith teaches us about such questions, who adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura despite overwhelming historical evidence--evidence accepted by, among others, most prominent Lutheran historians--that this doctrine is a sixteenth century theological innovation without historical precedent in the earliest centuries of Christianity. What then can justify the doctrine of sola scriptura? Well, by its own lights, it ought to be--nay, must be, on pain of inconsistency--be justified by Scripture itself. There are, however, insuperable difficulties facing this attempt at justification.

First, there is the question about which books are to be recognized as Scriptural. The only existing canon recognized by the NT is the OT, including the so-called "apocryphal" books rejected by most sola-scripturists. It has long been recognized that the NT itself refers to, and even quotes, texts which are exluded by the overwhelming majority of sola-scripturists from their preferred canons of Scripture, a fact which gave Luther (though not Calvin) considerable pause. This would mean that, among others, the book of Enoch ought to be regarded as divine Scripture--if, that is, we are to use the NT as our guide to which texts are canonical and which are not. But this poses the additional problem of determining which texts belong in the NT: The only place where the NT gives us a clear indication of the canonicity of any of the texts now included in the received canon of the NT is at 2Peter 3.16, where it is clear that some of Paul's letter had come to be regarded as Scriptural. Sadly, no mention is made of which letters, so that doesn't help us very much. The titles of most of the books of the NT were not assigned to them until the second century, so the NT doesn't even let us know whether, for instance, the Gospel of Matthew was in fact written by Matthew. This is itself something that is received as a matter of Tradition. This presents a nexus of difficulties which sola-scripturists simply cannot resolve without violating the doctrine of sola scriptura: Many books of the of the NT weren't attributed to, say Matthew or whomever, until at least a century after Christ's death, and so without appeal to Tradition there is no way to settle (a) who wrote them and (b) which books should be included in the NT. (Luther, recall, wished to remove James, Jude, and Revelation. By his own account, he rejected Maccabees on the ground that it would seem to support the doctrine of Purgatory, a doctrine which he had antecendtly come to reject.)

Second, there is the fact that Scripture itself not only fails to espouse the doctrine of sola scriptura, it expressly endorses the normative worth of oral Tradition. Some of these passages have already been mentioned by RickJ and De Maria, but it is worth mentioning them again, alongside several others, since the proponents of sola scriptura have yet to address them. They include:

1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
2Thess.2.15: "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers"
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard"
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"

Now to Catholics, and to the many non-Catholics who recognize the authority of Tradition, the doctrine of sola scriptura looks like the outright rejection of a vast portion of God's revelation to us. There is a tendency for some sola-scripturists to paint the Catholic, et al. position as one that is deflationary about Scripture, one that fails to accord God's revelation its proper due. But, as we can see, it is the sola-scripturist who is guilty of devaluing God's revelation, by adhering to only one part of it and disregarding the rest. It is thus not surprising to find disagreements about the meaning of Scripture: Catholics and others hold the Biblical view that Tradition, that the teaching authority of those who exercise ecclesial authority (exousia) ought to guide us in reading Scripture. In Acts 8, Philip asks the Eunuch who is a dutiful reader of Scripture the following question: "'Do you understand what you are reading?'" And the Eunuch replies, "'How can I, unless someone guides me?'" This is sound thinking. And we know that it is important that those who guide others be given the authority to do so, since Acts 15.24 records the displeasure of the Apostles with those who proceed "without instructions from us". For Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others, this authority is one that was given to the Twelve and passed from them to others. And we know that this authority is trasnmissable because we see its transmission in the NT itself, as some are given the authority to teache by the Apostles and those whom the Apostles have appointed. But we can set the issue of Apostolic Succession to one side for now. In the meantime, it remains for the sola-scripturists among us to show, for every one of that passages cited above, that it is not in fact talking about oral Tradition. Then he or she must provide unambiguous Scriptural evidence that the Bible itself endorses the doctrine of sola scriptura. This will require more than passages which affirm the value of Scripture, since this is not in doubt. Then, once such evidence has been proffered, some account has to be given of the means by which the sola-scripturist arrives at his or her preferred canon of Scripture, this for the reason that, as pointed out above, the NT nowhere indicates which books are to be accounted canonical.

Good luck with that.

True or not, the Bible tells us that we are to depend upon one source. No other source is given. To say otherwise is to add to what God's word says.

And what verse says we should depend on no other source but Scripture? In fact Paul teaches that Timothy should teach. 11 These things command and teach: (1 Tim 4:11). He didn't tell Timothy to write Scripture or read Sctipture. But to 'TEACH.'

And what about 2 Time 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Oh, yes don't forget 1 Tim 6:2 "These things teach and exhort."

Why didn't Paul tell us what he meant --- Just read the Bible for your revelations? In fact, why did God bother to beget a son? Why didn't God just send a BOOK?

JoeT

Having grown up and lived for years in the heady atmosphere of the Lutheran version of sola scriptura, I now am conflicted (thanks, Akoue!). Lutherans have their own version of Tradition in that they accept the writings/teachings of certain Church Fathers and in particular, their own Martin Luther. They accept the three Trinitarian creeds (written by Church Fathers) and practice the tradition of teaching those who want to hear and learn. Lutherans do not individually practice sola scriptura; it's a collective thing--which, to my way of thinking, takes it into the realm of tradition.

Having grown up and lived for years in the heady atmosphere of the Lutheran version of sola scriptura, I now am conflicted (thanks, Akoue!).

A little conflict is good for the soul. If often leads to deeper understanding and a more mature faith. Besides, as you and Joe and Fred and De Maria know, I'm still dealing with my own conflicts about divinization. It's fun though; and definitely good for the soul. (Oops, I'm repeating myself again.)


Lutherans have their own version of Tradition in that they accept the writings/teachings of certain Church Fathers and in particular, their own Martin Luther.

This is how it has always seemed to me. I had a patristics professor years ago who was a Lutheran and a well-respected theologian. It was he who first introduced me to the trend in Luther scholarship away from the sort of sola scriptura one finds among fundamentalists. In fact, he spent a lot of time talking about Tradition in the early Church, so much so that I had at first assumed him to be Orthodox. But you are definitely right about the Church Fathers: Luther accorded profound weight to Augustine (of course, Luther had been a member of the Augustinian order) and explicitly regarded much of his theology as authoritative.


They accept the three Trinitarian creeds (written by Church Fathers) and practice the tradition of teaching those who want to hear and learn.

And Luther accepted all the councils through Chalcedon. A number of Luther scholars hold that he was far less hostile to Tradition than the received view of him. Similarly, a number of scholars think that he was less a sola-scripturist than he has been portrayed a being (a sense one gets from many of his commentaries) and that it was Melancthon who was the real radical. It is important to remember the dim view that Luther took of people like Carlstadt.


Lutherans do not individually practice sola scriptura; it's a collective thing--which, to my way of thinking, takes it into the realm of tradition.

Again, this is how it looks to me. And certainly the work of Cullmann and van Campenhausen, two very widely respected Lutheran scholars and theologians whose work on the early Church has influenced scholars of all stripes (including the current Pope, who has had some very favorable things to say about Cullmann's work in particular), bears this out. The leading Lutheran scholars of the NT and early Church clearly recognize, and call attention to, the centrality of Tradition.

If you mean by quench is “to put out or extinguish” I agree.


So never do we quench the spirit ... we acknowledge rather that God has HIS plan for all things..



But how do you know whether or not it is the Holy Spirit? Are we to give credence to private revelations?

When the spirit is in you, you do know... (neither judge anyone else at anytime)

Who is more abundant or less is not our decision.. For we know members are in Christ, and He in them.

1 Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.



I agree whole heartedly, except that I don't think you would agree with me as to which 'Church.'

Quench not the Spirit..

1 Cr 12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.



So how do we discern which Church is correct and which isn't?

1 Corinthains 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ




So then, does the Spirit tell different Churches different absolute Truths, i.e. one Church is as good as another?

JoeT

1 Thess 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

1 Thess 5:16-23
Rejoice evermore.

Pray without ceasing.

In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

Quench not the Spirit.

Despise not prophesyings.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And what verse says we should depend on no other source but Scripture?

If scripture says that is is complete, and all that you need to know, then what exactly will you get from somewhere else that will add to what scipture provides you with respect to truth in doctrine? If it tells you what scripture says, then clearly it is the standard. If it tells you something else, then clearly it is leading you away from the truth.


In fact Paul teaches that Timothy should teach. 11 These things command and teach: (1 Tim 4:11). He didn't tell Timothy to write Scripture or read Sctipture. But to 'TEACH.'

So you think that Paul got his doctrine from somewhere else? What does scripture say about the men of Berea when they went to scripture to see if what he was saying was true?

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

I'll believe that what you say about teaching might carry some weight in your favour if you can show me where it says to teach something other than what God's word says.

Tom, et al:

Holding the Sola Scriptura view how do you answer these contradictions?


This presents a nexus of difficulties which sola-scripturists simply cannot resolve without violating the doctrine of sola scriptura: Many books of the of the NT weren't attributed to, say Matthew or whomever, until at least a century after Christ's death, and so without appeal to Tradition there is no way to settle (a) who wrote them and (b) which books should be included in the NT. (Luther, recall, wished to remove James, Jude, and Revelation. By his own account, he rejected Maccabees on the ground that it would seem to support the doctrine of Purgatory, a doctrine which he had antecendtly come to reject.)

These contradictions form the screen door in the little submarine sailed by the interpreted-by- me-crowd.

JoeT

If scripture says that is is complete, and all that you need to know, then what exactly will you get from somewhere else that will add to what scipture provides you with respect to truth in doctrine?

Where does Scripture say that it is "complete"? What canon of Scripture is "complete" and where does Scripture list the books that belong to that canon? Where does Scripture say that "all you need to know" is Scripture?


If it tells you what scripture says, then clearly it is the standard. If it tells you something else, then clearly it is leading you away from the truth.

I provided several passages that clearly indicate a standard other than Scripture, namely oral Tradition. It might be a good idea for you to explain how it is that you read each of these in such a way as to indicate that there is in fact no other standard besides Scripture. It might also be a good idea were you to provide some passages that clearly state that Scripture alone is the sole standard. (Then maybe you can tell us where Scripture tells us which texts belong to the canon of Scripture and so consitute the sole standard as you understand it.


So you think that Paul got his doctrine from somewhere else? What does scripture say about the men of Berea when they went to scripture to see if what he was saying was true?

No one denies that Scripture is a standard (or that Scripture is part of the standard). So we are all agreed on the importance of Scripture. As I quite clearly explained, opponents of the doctrine of sola scriptura do not deny the importance of Scripture. The question is whether Scripture alone constitutes the whole of God's revelation, whether it alone is the sole standard. I've given reasons to think that it is not. Why don't you provide a response, one that clearly demonstrates the errors of which you take me, and those who agree with me, to be guilty.



Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

Right, Scripture is important. No one is denying that. In the case of the Bereans, Scripture was the OT. Did the Bereans learn anything from Paul? If so, then what they learned must have been an addition to the Scriptures they were searching, something that those Scriptures did not themselves say. Like the Eunuch in Acts 8, they needed someone to guide their reading of Scripture. So we are all agreed that the OT is Scriptural and is part of the canon of Scripture. What about the NT? How do you respond to the objections I raised to the doctrine of sola scriptura?


I'll believe that what you say about teaching might carry some weight in your favour if you can show me where it says to teach something other than what God's word says.

I've provided several passages that speak of a teaching that is oral. Do you mean to deny the importance of what was taught orally? Perhaps you could go back to my post from earlier today and explain the error of my ways, clearly indicating along the way what Scriptural grounds you have for (1) using the canon that you do and (2) restricting God's revelation (or, to put it as you have above, "the standard") to those Scriptures that you regard as canonical. What Scriptures support your view? Please show us the nature of the error you take me to have made regarding the passages I listed earlier.

Thanks.

I don't believe it is anyone's desire to "poo poo" 2Tim.3.14-17. But it is important, since this is after all Holy Scripture, not to misrepresent what it says. As RickJ has already demonstrated in post #6, this passage does not by any means endorse the doctrine of sola scriptura; instead it tells us that "the sacred writings" (i.e., the Septuagint, including books which are regarded by many as deuterocanonical) are useful for the purposes of instruction and are inspired by God. Now this is nothing which "they"--i.e., those participants in this discussion who reject the doctrine of sola scriptura on the grounds that it is not Biblical--disagree. Quite the contrary. Surely the frequency with which Catholic posters here cite and discuss Scripture gives the lie to the idea that somehow Catholics just don't care about the Bible. It is rather the case that Catholics do not regard the Bible the the whole of God's revelation to his people: Scripture is only a part--albeit an essential and indispensable part--of that revelation.

And Catholics are by no means alone in this. The doctrine of sola scriptura is itself a relatively recent theological innovation, one which was utterly foreign to the earliest Christians. We know that the very first Christians did not hold this doctrine since the NT hadn't yet been written, and it took some time after the books of the NT were written for them to circulate at all widely. We know that the generation of Christians after them didn't endorse this doctrine because it is absent from their writings and because their writings show us that they regarded oral Tradition as no less divinely inspired than the books of Scripture themselves. We know that the generation after that also regarded Tradition as divinely inspired because the writings of this period included Tradition along with Scripture and apostolic succession in the rule of faith. And so it goes for each succeeding generation of Christians until we get to the Rennaissence. It was then that the doctrine of sola scriptura made its first appearance.

But, it will be said, the mere fact that Tradition had always been regarded as enjoying equal standing with Scripture is insufficient to prove that each generation of Christians wasn't in error, beginning with the first generation for whom there was as yet no NT. But think for a moment what that commits one to saying: It commits one to the view that Christ failed to keep his promise, that the Paraclete was not in fact sent to preserve the Church that Christ had established from error. Leaving to one side the question whether the Church established by Christ was one and the same as the Catholic Church, it requires one to hold that from the very beginning, the Holy Spirit failed to guide the people of God, this for the reason that not only is there no evidence that the early Christians held the doctrine of sola scriptura but the existing evidence is, in fact, univocal that they recognized Tradition as having equal standing with Scripture.

There are some who pay no attention to what the history of our faith teaches us about such questions, who adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura despite overwhelming historical evidence--evidence accepted by, among others, most prominent Lutheran historians--that this doctrine is a sixteenth century theological innovation without historical precedent in the earliest centuries of Christianity. What then can justify the doctrine of sola scriptura? Well, by its own lights, it ought to be--nay, must be, on pain of inconsistency--be justified by Scripture itself. There are, however, insuperable difficulties facing this attempt at justification.

First, there is the question about which books are to be recognized as Scriptural. The only existing canon recognized by the NT is the OT, including the so-called "apocryphal" books rejected by most sola-scripturists. It has long been recognized that the NT itself refers to, and even quotes, texts which are exluded by the overwhelming majority of sola-scripturists from their preferred canons of Scripture, a fact which gave Luther (though not Calvin) considerable pause. This would mean that, among others, the book of Enoch ought to be regarded as divine Scripture--if, that is, we are to use the NT as our guide to which texts are canonical and which are not. But this poses the additional problem of determining which texts belong in the NT: The only place where the NT gives us a clear indication of the canonicity of any of the texts now included in the received canon of the NT is at 2Peter 3.16, where it is clear that some of Paul's letter had come to be regarded as Scriptural. Sadly, no mention is made of which letters, so that doesn't help us very much. The titles of most of the books of the NT were not assigned to them until the second century, so the NT doesn't even let us know whether, for instance, the Gospel of Matthew was in fact written by Matthew. This is itself something that is received as a matter of Tradition. This presents a nexus of difficulties which sola-scripturists simply cannot resolve without violating the doctrine of sola scriptura: Many books of the of the NT weren't attributed to, say Matthew or whomever, until at least a century after Christ's death, and so without appeal to Tradition there is no way to settle (a) who wrote them and (b) which books should be included in the NT. (Luther, recall, wished to remove James, Jude, and Revelation. By his own account, he rejected Maccabees on the ground that it would seem to support the doctrine of Purgatory, a doctrine which he had antecendtly come to reject.)

Second, there is the fact that Scripture itself not only fails to espouse the doctrine of sola scriptura, it expressly endorses the normative worth of oral Tradition. Some of these passages have already been mentioned by RickJ and De Maria, but it is worth mentioning them again, alongside several others, since the proponents of sola scriptura have yet to address them. They include:

1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
2Thess.2.15: "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers"
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard"
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"

Now to Catholics, and to the many non-Catholics who recognize the authority of Tradition, the doctrine of sola scriptura looks like the outright rejection of a vast portion of God's revelation to us. There is a tendency for some sola-scripturists to paint the Catholic, et al., position as one that is deflationary about Scripture, one that fails to accord God's revelation its proper due. But, as we can see, it is the sola-scripturist who is guilty of devaluing God's revelation, by adhering to only one part of it and disregarding the rest. It is thus not surprising to find disagreements about the meaning of Scripture: Catholics and others hold the Biblical view that Tradition, that the teaching authority of those who exercise ecclesial authority (exousia) ought to guide us in reading Scripture. In Acts 8, Philip asks the Eunuch who is a dutiful reader of Scripture the following question: "'Do you understand what you are reading?'" And the Eunuch replies, "'How can I, unless someone guides me?'" This is sound thinking. And we know that it is important that those who guide others be given teh authority to do so, since Acts 15.24 records the displeasure of the Apostles with those who proceed "without instructions from us". For Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others, this authority is one that was given to the Twelve and passed from them to others. And we know that this authority is trasnmissable because we see its transmission in the NT itself, as some are given the authority to teache by the Apostles and those whom the Apostles have appointed. But we can set the issue of Apostolic Succession to one side for now. In the meantime, it remains for the sola-scripturists among us to show, for every one of that passages cited above, that it is not in fact talking about oral Tradition. Then he or she must provide unambiguous Scriptural evidence that the Bible itself endorses the doctrine of sola scriptura. This will require more than passages which affirm the value of Scripture, since this is not in doubt. Then, once such evidence has been proffered, some account has to be given of the means by which the sola-scripturist arrives at his or her preferred canon of Scripture, this for the reason that, as pointed out above, the NT nowhere indicates which books are to be accounted canonical.

Good luck with that.

I think this is a super response. Tell your boss I said you deserve a raise! I'll sign off on a big raise. It encapsulates the entire Sola Scriptura issue, with plenty to ponder.
How, are the cosmic issues of life and faith in God resolved subjectively, within one’s own authority?

JoeT

Tom, et al:

Holding the Sola Scriptura view how do you answer these contradictions?

These contradictions form the screen door in the little submarine sailed by the interpreted-by- me-crowd.

JoeT

We still don't know who wrote all of them - so what? Where is the supposed contradiction?

Where does Scripture say that it is "complete"?

Get with the program and read my prior posts before responding, then you will understand what is being said.

Having grown up and lived for years in the heady atmosphere of the Lutheran version of sola scriptura, I now am conflicted (thanks, Akoue!). Lutherans have their own version of Tradition in that they accept the writings/teachings of certain Church Fathers and in particular, their own Martin Luther.


That is the problem. Scripture is not denominational and neither was Jesus - he did not found a denomination- all Christians accept the 66 books of the Bible. What is denominational and what varies is what various denominations add to wha the Bible says.

If scripture says that is is complete, and all that you need to know, then what exactly will you get from somewhere else that will add to what scipture provides you with respect to truth in doctrine? If it tells you what scripture says, then clearly it is the standard. If it tells you something else, then clearly it is leading you away from the truth.

We know what you THINK Scriptures say. But quote some passage that says, “complete, and all that you need”.




So you think that Paul got his doctrine from somewhere else? What does scripture say about the men of Berea when they went to scripture to see if what he was saying was true?

Yes, he certainly didn’t have New Testament Scriptures to read. What do you think he was doing all those years after being struck by the ‘light’? Writing his epistles so that he can then turnaround and read them, and thereby becoming enlightened? Boy, even that one doesn’t take much wattage.


Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. NKJV

So they searched the New Testaments? Or the Septuagint, maybe even the book of Maccabees?


I'll believe that what you say about teaching might carry some weight in your favour if you can show me where it says to teach something other than what God's word says.

Where is it implied or stated that they taught anything else but orthodox Catholic faith?

JoeT

We know what you THINK Scriptures say. But quote some passage that says, “complete, and all that you need”.

Already did.


Yes, he certainly didn't have New Testament Scriptures to read. What do you think he was doing all those years after being struck by the 'light'? Writing his epistles so that he can then turnaround and read them, and thereby becoming enlightened? Boy, even that one doesn't take much wattage.

I see your rambling about something but what is your point?


So they searched the New Testaments? Or the Septuagint, maybe even the book of Maccabees?

The book of Maccabees was not accept by any denomination as scripture until your denomination did at the council of Trent, and that was despite Maccabees internally denying inspiration, so that was not referred to as scripture.

Now it appears that you are saying that large parts of the NT (or all of the NT) is not scripture - was that your point?

You keep bringing up the Septuagint for some reason - do you have a point to make about it as a translation?


Where is it implied or stated that they taught anything else but orthodox Catholic faith?

JoeT

Well, for one thing, your denomination did not exist, and secondly many of your denominational teachings came much later.

But what are you trying to do - turn this into a Bible versus your denominational teachings thread?

We still don't know who wrote all of them - so what? Where is the supposed contradiction?

So you don't believe (or know) that it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote the Gospels?

Catholic Tradition has always held that the authors were the individuals whose name they bear. No ghost writers

JoeT

So you don't beleive (or know) that it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote the Gospels?

Who said that? Why must you put up strawman arguments instead of dealing with what was said? Is it too hard to actually deal with the real points which have been made?

Well, for one thing, your denomination did not exist

Then there is a stupendous problem needing resolution. Where does the Scriptures come from? How did it come to you from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'm interested in hearing the story?

JoeT

Then there is a stupendous problem needing resolution. Where does the Scriptures come from? How did it come to you from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'm interested in hearing the story?
Joe, when I took theology courses (probably before you were born) at a Christian college, this was common knowledge in Christendom:

Mark was the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source"). John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

Then there is a stupendous problem needing resolution. Where does the Scriptures come from? How did it come to you from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I'm interested in hearing the story?

JoeT

You see a problem with prophetic revelation?

Joe, when I took theology courses (probably before you were born) at a Christian college, this was common knowledge in Christendom:

Mark was the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source"). John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

Before I was born?

Most orthodox Catholic theologians hold that the authors are those whose name are born by the Gospel. This has been a long standing tradition of the Church; well, at least since they were written. I looked at the 'Q' years ago, but it might surprise you to know that many don't believe there is a missing Gospel. It's funny that many of the proponents of the Q come from Scripture Only communities - seems like a contradition to me. Its based on parallel and synoptic gospels verses found in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and on Mark being the first published Gospel, which can't be proven. Out of thin air a new list of quotes supposedly made by Christ. Without any historical document as evidence the Q should be held with great suspect. It's my understanding - could be wrong - the Q has fallen out of favor even with its own proponents.

Even if the Q did exist, it doesn't provide a historical line from the Scriptures we have today to the Apostles that wrote them. This is the chain that Tj must break; the reason should be obvious to all.

JoeT

Before I was born?
When were you born?

Akoue would be a good reference for current thinking re Q.

When were you born?

Akoue would be a good reference for current thinking re Q.

When was I born? Well let’s see Moses was still in knickers (well it can seem that way sometimes) and Alger Hiss is convicted of perjury; the Knesset passes a resolution that states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; President Harry S. Truman announces a program to develop the hydrogen bomb.

JoeT

You see a problem with prophetic revelation?

This doesn’t tell the story. I'd like to hear it.

This doesn’t tell the story. I'd like to hear it.

Perhaps you see a problem that I don't. I don't even see what you think might be a problem.

Jesus - he did not found a denomination
His life and teachings were the foundation for a church that evolved into a catholic church that evolved into the Catholic Church which then split into Eastern and Western divisions.

When was I born? Well let’s see Moses was still in knickers (well it can seem that way sometimes) and Alger Hiss is convicted of perjury; the Knesset passes a resolution that states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; President Harry S. Truman announces a program to develop the hydrogen bomb.
Yes, before you were born.

His life and teachings were the foundation for a church that evolved into a catholic church that evolved into the Catholic Church which then split into Eastern and Western divisions.

Many denominations (in fact most) can rightfully say the same thing - so what?

Many denominations (in fact most) can rightfully say the same thing - so what?
No, they can't. The early church evolved into the Catholic Church. That was THE Christian Church throughout the western world for centuries.

Yes, before you were born.


Well in that case it's no fair picking on the kids in the class!

Perhaps you see a problem that I don't. I don't even see what you think might be a problem.


How do you know that Scriptures are Holy unless there is an Authority to validate that claim? If the Catholic Church doesn’t do this then who does? I see you as having a big problem.

Well in that case it's no fair picking on the kids in the class!
I wasn't in college yet, but... *breaks into tears*

No, they can't. The early church evolved into the Catholic Church. That was THE Christian Church throughout the western world for centuries.

You may believe that to be the case, but there were others. And the one true church was not a denomination in any case, so I am not sure where you are heading with this or what your point is.

How do you know that Scriptures are Holy unless there is an Authority to validate that claim?

Are you looking for a higher authority than God?

We must have greatly different views because I don't believe there is any higher authority.

How do you know that Scriptures are Holy unless there is an Authority to validate that claim? If the Catholic Church doesn’t do this then who does? I see you as having a big problem.
Who put them all together into something we call the Holy Bible in the first place?

Who put them all together into something we call the Holy Bible in the first place?

I would suggest that God, being omniscient, decided that before the foundations of the world.

I would suggest that God, being omniscient, decided that before the foundations of the world.
But who physically here in the world put them together as inspired Scripture? God didn't come down for a visit and bundle them all up together.

But who physically here in the world put them together as inspired Scripture? God didn't come down for a visit and bundle them all up together.

And neither did a single person do so. Scripture was identified as such with the prophetic revelation of God over many centuries.

And neither did a single person do so. Scripture was identified as such with the prophetic revelation of God over many centuries.
I didn't say a single person did it. I love your use of the passive -- "Scripture was .... "

Who had the prophetic revelation over many centuries?? That's not the question you are trying to avoid. We are talking about who put the Bible together into a unit. We aren't talking about the writers of the Bible.

I didn't say a single person did it. I love your use of the passive -- "Scripture was .... "

You said:

"But who physically here in the world put them together as inspired Scripture?"

I could print it off and physically put it together. What is the significance of that?


Who had the prophetic revelation over many centuries??

That is a topic for a larger study than can be addressed in a simple internet discussion forum. But that is not what is important. What is important is who decided that it was scriptural and that is God.

You said:

"But who physically here in the world put them together as inspired Scripture?"

I could print it off and physically put it together. What is the significance of that?



That is a topic for a larger study than can be addressed in a simple internet discussion forum. But that is not what is important. What is important is who decided that it was scriptural and that is God.
Tom! Get a grip! The Bible did not appear in its present form after drifting down from heaven onto your coffeetable. It was a whole bunch of writings done by various people in various places. Who verbally and physically pulled it all together into a volume of 66 books and eliminated those books not considered inspired?

Who put them all together into something we call the Holy Bible in the first place?

St. Jerome is sometimes thought of as the father of the bible. He made an extensive study and translations of various books and collected writings most of which are found in the bible today. He petitioned Pope Damasus to adopt his list for books for canonization. St. Jerome referred to as bibiotheca Divina, “Divine Library”. The name Bible however comes from the Latin Bblia meaning “The Book”. All of which I'm sure you knew. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm)

The short answer is that prior to St. Jerome there were several different lists of books. Sorting through Gnostic and other heretical books as well as candidates for deuterocanonical books. St. Jerome is usually credited with “assembling” the list of books that were ultimately canonized.

Eusebius preserves St. Melito , the bishop of Sardis (c. 170 AD) list of Old Testament canon. The list maintains the Septuagint but only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, (c. 360 A.D), produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. See Canon 60

Pope Damasus, (366-384 A.D), in his Decree, listed the books of today's bible.

The Council of Rome, (382 A.D), was the forum adopted St. Jerome's list of books.

The Council of Hippo (393 A.D), a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books identical to the Holy Scriptures adopted at Trent.

The Council of Carthage (397 A.D), a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books.

The Council of Carthage in (419 A.D.) offered the same list of canonical books.

The Council of Florence (1441) adopted the canonical books.

The Council of Trent (1556) In reaction to the Protestant schism infallibly defined the canonical books currently used as the Vulgate.

JoeT

St. Jerome is sometimes thought of as the father of the bible. He made an extensive study and translations of various books and collected writings most of which are found in the bible today. He petitioned Pope Damasus to adopt his list for books for canonization. St. Jerome referred to as bibiotheca Divina, “Divine Library”. The name Bible however comes from the Latin Bblia meaning “The Book”. All of which I’m sure you knew. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm)

The short answer is that prior to St. Jerome there were several different lists of books. Sorting through Gnostic and other heretical books as well as candidates for deuterocanonical books. St. Jerome is usually credited with “assembling” the list of books that were ultimately canonized.

Eusebius preserves St. Melito , the bishop of Sardis (c. 170 AD) list of Old Testament canon. The list maintains the Septuagint but only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, (c. 360 A.D), produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. See Canon 60

Pope Damasus, (366-384 A.D), in his Decree, listed the books of today's bible.

The Council of Rome, (382 A.D), was the forum adopted St. Jerome’s list of books.

The Council of Hippo (393 A.D), a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books identical to the Holy Scriptures adopted at Trent.

The Council of Carthage (397 A.D), a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books.

The Council of Carthage in (419 A.D.) offered the same list of canonical books.

The Council of Florence (1441) adopted the canonical books.

The Council of Trent (1556) In reaction to the Protestant schism infallibly defined the canonical books currently used as the Vulgate.

JoeT

I would say that after this splendid answer our colleague Wondergirl, and all those that woere worried by who put the Bible together, will now be fully satisfied. Of course, provided they were not aiming to prove that the Bible is not what we Christians believe it is...

How do you know that Scriptures are Holy unless there is an Authority to validate that claim? If the Catholic Church doesn't do this then who does? I see you as having a big problem.

Again Repeated:

1 Thess 5:16-23
Rejoice evermore.

Pray without ceasing.

In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

Quench not the Spirit.

Despise not prophesyings.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Belief without sight... FAITH ... THE WORD

It was a whole bunch of writings done by various people in various places. Who verbally and physically pulled it all together into a volume of 66 books and eliminated those books not considered inspired?

Are you saying that they are not part of the whole scriptures if they are not "physically" together with the rest? If not, then who "physically" pulled the manuscripts together does not matter in the least.

Get with the program and read my prior posts before responding, then you will understand what is being said.

Here's what you provided:


2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Notice that it doesn't say that Scripture is complete, it says "that the man of God may be complete". Nothing is being said here about the completeness--or incompleteness, for that matter--of Scripture. Clearly what is being said is that Scripture is useful for instruction and correction, both of which are important so "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work". This is something pointed out by RickJ already in post #6.

You haven't offered any Scripture in support of the doctrine of sola scriptura. Your repeated mention of the Bereans, like your quotation of 2Tim.3.14-17, doesn't support your sola-scripturist assumptions since these passages show what nobody doubts, namely that Scripture is important, that it is part of God's revelation. Nothing you've said, and none of the Scriptures that you've quoted, show that Scripture alone is the sole standard. Neither have you brought forward any Scripture that provides a list of which books are canonical, so it appears that you are relying upon Tradition in this matter. You also have yet to address those passages cited above which clearly indicate the authoritativeness of oral Tradition. Given that, it is quite evident that it is those who recognize the authority of Tradition who are in fact being Scriptural. Your view, the view that Scriprure alone is the sole standard and authority, has been shown to be un-Biblical. And you have offered nothing but the repetition of your own un-Scriptural assumptions and biases in support of your adherence to the principle of sola scriptura. Your attempt to pass off 2Tim and the account of the Bereans as anything more than an acknowledement of the importance of Scripture further highlights the feebleness of your position (this is all the more glaring since Paul was teaching, i.e. giving oral instruction to, the Bereans).

I would suggest that God, being omniscient, decided that before the foundations of the world.

Do you find this in Scripture or is this just your own opinion?

And if the canon was decided upon before the foundations of the world, how do we here on earth know which books were intended by God for inclusion when the Scriptures do not themselves tell us which books are canonical? There is, after all, no list of canonical books provided by any of the books currently assembled in the canon of Scripture.

When were you born?

Akoue would be a good reference for current thinking re Q.

Hi guys. Sorry, I turned in early last night.

It's important to remember that Q is an explanatory hypothesis adduced in order to explain both the similarities and (perceived divergences) among the synoptics themselves and between the synoptics and the Gospel of John. Q is not the only hypothesized ur-Gospel, though it's been around longest and received the most press. It is the case, though, that there are certain phrases which appear verbatim or nearly verbatim in different Gospels written at different times and in different places, and this is of course what has led some to suspect that the writers of the Gospels had at their disposal some source text which recorded the basic narrative of Jesus's life and ministry along with many of his sayings. It is interesting to compare the canonicall Gospels to the many, many non-canonical Gospels, many of which are relatively late but a few of which appear to be quite early, perhaps even earlier than the Gospel of John (which was composed quite late). Some of these were known to the Fathers at the Council of Nicaea, but many were not and so no decision regarding their authenticity--to say nothing of their canonicity--was made. And, as you know, the decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books from the NT were often quite messy. The Gospel of John was very nearly excluded and it was a condition of its inclusion that the Johannine epistles be accepted as well since, it was felt, the epistles correct certain potentially heretical strains in the Gospel itself. We know that Luther gave serious consideration to the exclusion of the book of Revelation, and in this he was, in a sense, following the Council Fathers since many of them opposed its inclusion and they very nearly won the argument. It's probably fair to say that few of the bishops present at Nicaea left feeling entirely satisfied with the canon that had been established. It took some time, and lots of commentaries by people like Augustine and Chrysostom before people's disquiet really died down (or so it seems).

Hi guys. Sorry, I turned in early last night.

It's important to remember that Q is an explanatory hypothesis adduced in order to explain both the similarities and (perceived divergences) among the synoptics themselves and between the synoptics and the Gospel of John. Q is not the only hypothesized ur-Gospel, though it's been around longest and received the most press. It is the case, though, that there are certain phrases which appear verbatim or nearly verbatim in different Gospels written at different times and in different places, and this is of course what has led some to suspect that the writers of the Gospels had at their disposal some source text which recorded the basic narrative of Jesus's life and ministry along with many of his sayings. It is interesting to compare the canonicall Gospels to the many, many non-canonical Gospels, many of which are relatively late but a few of which appear to be quite early, perhaps even earlier than the Gospel of John (which was composed quite late). Some of these were known to the Fathers at the Council of Nicaea, but many were not and so no decision regarding their authenticity--to say nothing of their canonicity--was made. And, as you know, the decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books from the NT were often quite messy. The Gospel of John was very nearly excluded and it was a condition of its inclusion that the Johannine epistles be accepted as well since, it was felt, the epistles correct certain potentially heretical strains in the Gospel itself. We know that Luther gave serious consideration to the exclusion of the book of Revelation, and in this he was, in a sense, following the Council Fathers since many of them opposed its inclusion and they very nearly won the argument. It's probably fair to say that few of the bishops present at Nicaea left feeling entirely satisfied with the canon that had been established. It took some time, and lots of commentaries by people like Augustine and Chrysostom before people's disquiet really died down (or so it seems).

My comment to WG was that I thought that the Q had somewhat fallen out of favor in academia. Is this true?

BTW, did your boss give you a raise

JoeT

My comment to WG was that I thought that the Q had somewhat fallen out of favor in academia. Is this true?

BTW, did your boss give you a raise

JoeT

If I did get a raise will you expect me to share it with you? If so then, no, no raise.

Q is the most widely accepted solution to the so-called synoptic problem. No, it hasn't fallen out of favor--though some have argued that Q ought to be supplemented by other letters of the alphabet, i.e. that there were additional source texts for the synoptic Gospels. As things stand, though, Q is pretty much taken for granted.

If I did get a raise will you expect me to share it with you? If so then, no, no raise.

Q is the most widely accepted solution to the so-called synoptic problem. No, it hasn't fallen out of favor--though some have argued that Q ought to be supplemented by other letters of the alphabet, i.e., that there were additional source texts for the synoptic Gospels. As things stand, though, Q is pretty much taken for granted.

I was under the impression that it had fallen out of favor primarily because of the lack of Q substantiation in early writings. This lack of historical validation would seem to be a stumbling block for the proponents.

Either way, sorry for the diversion. But yes, always must one show proper appreciation to the Godfather. Guido is on his way over to make an offer you can’t refuse.

JoeT

I was under the impression that it had fallen out of favor primarily because of the lack of Q substantiation in early writings. This lack of historical validation would seem to be a stumbling block for the proponents.

Either way, sorry for the diversion. But yes, always must one show proper appreciation to the Godfather. Guido is on his way over to make an offer you can’t refuse.

JoeT

Ah, trading in ethnic stereotypes, are we? Don't be surprised if you wake up with a horse's head in your bed.

There is considerable disagreement regarding the reconstructions of Q that have been proposed by various people, but not so much regarding the actual existence of Q. There is likewise disagreement concerning supposed references to Q in the writings of the earliest Fathers. But consider that the books of the NT didn't have titles when people like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch were writing, so it is often difficult to know which NT texts they had available to them. When we find a reference in their writings to a particular episode that appears in all three of the synoptic Gospels, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know to which Gospel they are referring unless they use language that is particular to one Gospel only. And it goes with this that we cannot say with any certainty whether in such cases they are referring to the episode as it is told in one of the synoptics or whether they are referring to some proto-Gospel such as Q. They didn't put things in quotation marks, and they certainly didn't refer to the books of the NT by the names by which we know them today (in fact, they didn't refer to them by name at all--the titles hadn't been asigned yet), so this involves a lot of sleuthing and often at least some speculation. It is important to keep in mind that they may not be referring to a written text at all but to the episode as it was told to them by one or more of the Apostles. Ignatius knew Peter, John, and Paul (at the very least--he may have known other Apostles as well), so he had sources available to him that aren't available to us. This is just one of the reasons his writings are so important. The same goes for 1Clement, since Clement was taught directly by both Paul and Peter. Polycarp was a student of John. Whether these guys were referring to Scriptures that are available to us today, or to some now lost Scriptures or even to accounts they heard dirctly from the Apostles themselves, is very difficult to say.

Ah, trading in ethnic stereotypes, are we? Don't be surprised if you wake up with a horse's head in your bed.

There is considerable disagreement regarding the reconstructions of Q that have been proposed by various people, but not so much regarding the actual existence of Q. There is likewise disagreement concerning supposed references to Q in the writings of the earliest Fathers. But consider that the books of the NT didn't have titles when people like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch were writing, so it is often difficult to know which NT texts they had available to them. When we find a reference in their writings to a particular episode that appears in all three of the synoptic Gospels, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know to which Gospel they are referring unless they use language that is particular to one Gospel only. And it goes with this that we cannot say with any certainty whether in such cases they are referring to the episode as it is told in one of the synoptics or whether they are refering to some proto-Gospel such as Q. They didn't put things in quotation marks, and they certainly didn't refer to the books of the NT by the names by which we know them today (in fact, they didn't refer to them by name at all--the titles hadn't been asigned yet), so this involves a lot of sleuthing and often at least some speculation. It is important to keep in mind that they may not be referring to a written text at all but to the episode as it was told to them by one or more of the Apostles. Ignatius knew Peter, John, and Paul (at the very least--he may have known other Apostles as well), so he had sources available to him that aren't available to us. This is just one of the reasons why his writings are so important. The same goes for 1Clement, since Clement was taught directly by both Paul and Peter. Polycarp was a student of John. Whether these guys were referring to Scriptures that are available to us today, or to some now lost Scriptures or even to accounts they heard dirctly from the Apostles themselves, is very difficult to say.

Ahhh sooo, in the way of putting a bottom line to the discussion on Q, it should be obvious to the casual reader that it would be right to say that Holy Scriptures are a product of the Church as opposed to the Church being the product of the ‘Book’. This would in turn lead us to the rightly held conclusion of the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures is special a case of Catholic Tradition.

There, now that wasn’t hard, was it? So, maybe this discussion on the Q wasn't so far outline after all.

Hey! I like horses. I’ve got 250 or so sitting out on the driveway now.

JoeT

Ahhh sooo, in the way of putting a bottom line to the discussion on Q, it should be obvious to the casual reader that it would be right to say that Holy Scriptures are a product of the Church as opposed to the Church being the product of the ‘Book’. This would in turn lead us to the rightly held conclusion of the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures is special a case of Catholic Tradition.
That was what I was driving at, hoping Tom would admit that. It was the Church that pulled together all those mss. And letters and writings to make what is called the Bible.

That was what I was driving at, hoping Tom would admit that. It was the Church that pulled together all those mss. and letters and writings to make what is called the Bible.

For whatever it's worth, this isn't even controversial among academics, be they Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, or secular/atheist. Scholars love to disagree, but on this point one doesn't find scholarly disagreement. The only people I know of who take a contrary view are non-academic polemicists. But their work has been just obliterated by academic historians.

Ahhh sooo, in the way of putting a bottom line to the discussion on Q, it should be obvious to the casual reader that it would be right to say that Holy Scriptures are a product of the Church as opposed to the Church being the product of the ‘Book’. This would in turn lead us to the rightly held conclusion of the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures is special a case of Catholic Tradition.

Right. One finds precisely the same view in the early Fathers, and among the Eastern Orthodox. Scripture is one, indispensable, part of Tradition. But it isn't, and was never intended to be, the whole of it.

Here's what you provided:

Then why did you ask?


Notice that it doesn't say that Scripture is complete, it says "that the man of God may be complete".

If scripture tells you all trhat you need to know about the goispel and to be completrely, thoroughly equippped, then what else do you need? In what way do yopu think scripture is inadequate?

Do you find this in Scripture or is this just your own personal opinion?

The omniscience of God is in scripture.

Why, do you doubt it?

Then why did you ask?



If scripture tells you all trhat you need to know about the goispel and to be completrely, thoroughly equippped, then what else do you need? In what way do yopu think scripture is inadequate?

I asked because 2Tim.3.14-17 doesn't say, nor even intimate, that Scripture is complete, and so I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you had some other Scripture in mind.

Notice that the passage from 2Tim. That you quote doesn't say that Scripture "tells you all that you need to know" in order to be "completely, thoroughly equipped". It says that Scripture--and the Scripture to which it refers is, of course, the OT--is "profitable", i.e. useful. Scripture is useful in matters of doctrine and discipline (something no one here has denied). Usefulness is a long, long way from sufficiency: The passage you have offered says only that Scripture is useful, not that it is sufficient. The same goes for your frequent mention of the episode with the Bereans: That shows the usefulness of Scripture (again, the OT), not that Scripture is by itself the sole standard. Paul commends the Bereans for studying and searching the OT--the Septuagint, which includes books which you reject. Again, everyone who has so far posted here agrees about the usefulness, the importance, of Scripture. What you haven't nearly shown is that Scripture itself endorses your assertion that Scripture alone is the sole standard. Therefore, your claim is itself un-Biblical.

And you seem to be ignoring those many passages, several of which I have cited, which indicate the authoritativeness (and hence usefulness, to say the very least) of oral Tradition. You also haven't given any Scriptural grounds for choosing the canon you use. So I think it's fair to say that I don't find Scripture do be inadequate. It is your understanding of Scripture that it inadequate. You have misunderstood 2Tim.3, you have failed to take any account of the fact that Scripture repeatedly affirms the authoritativeness of oral Tradition, and you have failed to provide any Scriptural justification for both your canon of Scripture and your adherence to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Taken together, these more than adequately demonstrate that you are not a Biblical Christian, that your claims and the views you espouse are not grounded in Scripture. In fact, the canon of Scripture you use is itself a product of Tradition, the very thing you claim to eschew.

The omniscience of God is in scripture.

Why, do you doubt it?

As usual, what I doubt is not Scripture but the veracity of your claims. Where in Scripture is it said that the canon of Scripture was determined by God before the foundation of the world? (This is what you asserted. My question called for you to provide Scriptural evidence for this claim.)

And, if it were determined by God before the foundation of the world, where in Scripture are we told which texts are part of Scripture?

Kindly provide Scriptural validation for your claims.

Tom, et al:

Assuming that ‘Standards’ are critical in our faith, that we must conform to some ‘Standard’ which Standard is Scripturally demonstrated? Why wouldn't Catholic 'Standard' work?

JoeT

Tom, et al:

If 'Standards' are critical for assessing truth, then why must there only be One 'Standard'. I say this considering that In the past you've asserted that one faith was as good as another (excluding Catholicism of course). Why not Catholicism as the One Faith. After commissioning Peter and the Church Christ prayed “And not for them only do I pray…That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”(John 17:20 seq) Is it not the prayer of Christ that we be ONE. If we were ONE after Christ rose from the dead, after the Temple was destroyed, after Constantine made Catholicism the state religion, after St. Thomas and after several hundred Vicars of Christ why then do we need to be the Tom's one standard?

JoeT

Tom, et al:

You have stated the Bible is the only source of revelation of cosmic truths (paraphrasing your comments). This makes the Bible worthy of worship. Do you 'worship' the bible? Is your bible worthy of to receive sacrifice, did your bible hang on a cross, and does a BOOK give your unmerited grace of redemption, salvation, and justification?

JoeT

I asked because 2Tim.3.14-17 doesn't say, nor even intimate, that Scripture is complete, and so I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you had some other Scripture in mind.

Keep repeating it enough times and maybe some people will start believing it.


And you seem to be ignoring those many passages, several of which I have cited, which indicate the authoritativeness (and hence usefulness, to say the very least) of oral Tradition.

No, I am not ignoring them. We have discussed them so many times, that I am choosing not to waste my time on some of your responses. You seem to ignore my answers in any case, constantly repeating the same things over and over even after they have been answered.

Tom, et al:

Assuming that 'Standards' are critical in our faith, that we must conform to some 'Standard' which Standard is Scripturally demonstrated? Why wouldn't Catholic 'Standard' work?

JoeT

Do you mean why won't adding man's words (denominational teachings, adding books to the Bible, etc.) to God work? Because they are man's words not God's.

No, I am not ignoring them. We have discussed them so many times, that I am choosing not to waste my time on some of your responses. You seem to ignore my answers in any case, constantly repeating the same things over and over even after they have been answered.
You never responded to my question last night about how we got the Bible (the canon) as it is today.

Tom, et al:
If ‘Standards’ are critical for assessing truth, then why must there only be One ‘Standard’.

Because, unlike the New Age teachers, Christianity believes that there is one truth, not many conflicting truths.


I say this considering that In the past you’ve asserted that one faith was as good as another (excluding Catholicism of course).

Not only have I NEVER said that, I also have frequently spoken against such a belief. Interesting how people choose to mis-represent when the facts don't go their way.

You never responded to my question last night about how we got the Bible (the canon) as it is today.

I did respond to that issue (post 63, 65 and 70).

Tom, et al:

You have stated the Bible is the only source of revelation of cosmic truths (paraphrasing your comments).

No, I never said that. You are not paraphrasing, you are choosing to mis-represent once again.

I did respond to that issue (post 63, 65 and 70).
No, you didn't. You said God inspired men to write the Scriptures. That wasn't my question.

How did the OT and later the NT end up with the books that are in them and in the order they are? Who decided the Gospel of Thomas was not to be included? Who decided Revelation was to be included?

No, you didn't. You said God inspired men to write the Scriptures. That wasn't my question.

Read again. God chose what was included in scripture.


How did the OT and later the NT end up with the books that are in them and in the order they are?

You think order is important?


Who decided the Gospel of Thomas was not to be included? Who decided Revelation was to be included?

God. You think God could inspire what was written in the Bible but didn't know what books would be in it?

Read again. God chose what was included in scripture.
Whom did He tell? How did we get the Bible with the books that are in it?

Whom did He tell? How did we get the Bible with the books that are in it?

Ever heard of prophetic revelation? Must we keep going around in circles?

Ever heard of prophetic revelation? Must we keep going around in circles?
The books have been inspired and written. That part is done. Who then decided which books and mss. of all that were floating around, were the inspired Scriptures?

The books have been inspired and written. That part is done. Who then decided which books and mss., of all that were floating around, were the inspired Scriptures?

So, let me get this straight. God could inspired the books, but was completely helpless in deciding which books should be part of scripture.

So then how did He know which books to inspire?

Tom, et al:

If ‘Standards’ are critical for assessing truth, then why must there only be One ‘Standard’. I say this considering that In the past you’ve asserted that one faith was as good as another (excluding Catholicism of course). Why not Catholicism as the One Faith. After commissioning Peter and the Church Christ prayed “And not for them only do I pray…That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”(John 17:20 seq) Is it not the prayer of Christ that we be ONE. If we were ONE after Christ rose from the dead, after the Temple was destroyed, after Constantine made Catholicism the state religion, after St. Thomas and after several hundred Vicars of Christ why then do we need to be the Tom’s one standard?

JoeT


Do you mean why won't adding man's words (denominational teachings, adding books to the Bible, etc.) to God work? Because they are man's words not God's.

You tell me, you’re the one that suggested that there must be only ONE ‘Standard’. I merely paraphrased your words so I could ask the question.

JoeT

So, let me get this straight. God could inspired the books, but was completely helpless in deciding which books should be part of scripture.

So then how did He know which books to inspire?
My question is who decided which books to include in the canon that we use today?

My question is who decided which books to include in the canon that we use today?

God. Clear enough for you?

How many different times and different ways must I say it.

Because, unlike the New Age teachers, Christianity believes that there is one truth, not many conflicting truths.



Not only have I NEVER said that, I also have frequently spoken against such a belief. Interesting how people choose to mis-represent when the facts don't go their way.

Oh, yes you did, in 2004

JoeT

God. Clear enough for you?

How many different times and different ways must I say it.
Who was inspired by God to include Revelation but not the Gospel of Thomas?

Oh, yes you did, in 2004

JoeT

Show us the link.

Joe, are we going to go down this road again? Must you lie?

Who was inspired by God to include Revelation but not the Gospel of Thomas?

Many people. Do I know all the names, and where they lived? Do I care and if so why?

Many people. Do I know all the names, and where they lived? Do I care and if so why?
Yes, you should care and know. This is important history.

Yes, you should care and know. This is important history.

Really? Then you should go study it. I am satisfied to know that God is the source.

God. Clear enough for you?

How many different times and different ways must I say it.

Does it say that in Scripture? Does it list the books? Where does it say that the Holy Spirit will bring us different Truths and we're to be tolerant of our individual faiths ? And how do we all have different individual faiths and still be One as John 17 requires. How many different 'standards' are there?

Does it say that in Scripture? Does it list the books?

Are you questioning or judging the Bible?


Where does it say that the Holy Spirit will bring us different Truths and we're to be tolerant of our individual faiths ?

Yes, where does it say that?


And how do we all have different individual faiths and still be One as John 17 requires. How many different 'standards' are there?

One standard. One faith.

Really? Then you should go study it. I am satisfied to know that God is the source.

Do we have a 'standard' history according to Tom? I must’ve missed that verse.

Do we have a 'standard' history according to Tom? I must've missed that verse.

Ah so now after mis-representation, then the lie, now it is going after me personally.

How about dealing with the issue, Joe, or is that just too hard?

Are you questioning or judging the Bible?



Yes, where does it say that?



One standard. One faith.

I'm not judging Scripture; I've got an authority over me to validate the meaning for me. I'm questioning the gospels according to Tom.

Where in Scripture does it say "one standard".

Do we have a 'standard' history according to Tom? I must’ve missed that verse.
He'll never admit who sat around and were inspired to select the books that made it into the Bible.

He'll never admit who sat around and were inspired to select the books that made it into the Bible.

What is more important - Who? Or the fact that God inspired the Bible?

Clearly we have two different views as to what is important.

He'll never admit who sat around and were inspired to select the books that made it into the Bible.

Tom dosen't even admit his own words.

JoeT

What is more important - Who? Or the fact that God inspired the Bible?

Clearly we have two different views as to what is important.

It’s very important, especially if it going to deal with the disposition of my eternal soul.

It’s very important, especially if it going to deal with the disposition of my eternal soul.

My faith for my salvation is in God's word and in my Saviour Jesus Christ, not in the men that God inspired.

Choose as you wish.

My faith for my salvation is in God's word and in my Saviour Jesus Christ, not in the men that God inspired.

Choose as you wish.

Nor is mine "in men" . But do you have that absolute assurance that you have the fullness of faith only the Catholic Church is commissioned by Christ to offer? As WG said,"who sat around and were inspired to select the books that made it into the Bible"

My faith for my salvation is in God's word and in my Saviour Jesus Christ, not in the men that God inspired.

Choose as you wish.
I'm not asking you to give up your faith in Jesus Christ. I'm just asking you who put together the canon as we know it today (sorta like asking what brand toothpaste do you use).

Nor is mine "in men" . But do you have that absolute assurance that you have the fullness of faith only the Catholic Church is commissioned by Christ to offer?

Why would I put my faith in a denomination which is an institution of men founded by a Roman emperor 3 centuries after Christ?

I'm not asking you to give up your faith in Jesus Christ. I'm just asking you who put together the canon as we know it today (sorta like asking what brand toothpaste do you use).

Jesus is not a brand of toothpaste.

Apparently this is important to you, but not to me.

Why would I put my faith in a denomination which is an institution of men founded by a Roman emperor 3 centuries after Christ?

Why would I put faith in your rendition of a Book that according to you was inspired by "an institution of men founded by a Roman emperor 3 centuries after Christ"?

At least you're good to form tonight; you haven't answered a single question. Is it because you don't have the answers. How about an easy one; where did the Bible come from?

Why would I put faith in your rendition of a Book that according to you was inspired by "an institution of men founded by a Roman emperor 3 centuries after Christ"?

I would never suggest that you do.

I use the Bible.

I would never suggest that you do.

I use the Bible.

My first question to protect the salvation of my eternal soul is "who authenticates it"? Where did it come from? My soul is important to me, I Deserve the answer - God doesn't secret himself away, He reveals Himself to all men – if he did we'd be Gnostic

Jesus is not a brand of toothpaste.
You're really reaching. I didn't say that. I was indicating both are innocent questions.

My first question to protect the salvation of my eternal soul is "who authenticates it"? Where did it come from? My soul is important to me, I Deserve the answer - God doesn’t secret himself away, He reveals Himself to all men – if he did we’d be Gnostic

He does reveal Himself. Can fallible man do better than an infinite God at authenticating the truth?

He does reveal Himself. Can fallible man do better than an infinite God at authenticating the truth?

No, that's why God gave us an infallible Church.

A bit of wisdom, “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES. (sic)” Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalismo es Pecado

Interpret scripture without discipline and Scripture will come to mean what pleases you (JoeT ).

The people of Berea were “ more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.” Why, because the Thessalonica Jews rejected Paul's message outright using scripture. And how did they do it; they used 'sola Scriptura' ; they used the Old Testament. In other words, Paul was teaching God's revelationsby word of mouth and the Thessalonians were rejecting those very same revelations by Sola Scriptura.

The Bereans were open-minded or otherwise noble-minded, why because they listened to God's revelations first then went to Scripture to examine the worthiness of Paul's words. In short the Bereans were disciplined in their faith.

JoeT

Tom, et al:

Do you really advise people to adhere to 2 Thess 3:6 “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.” How are you to tell the difference between Catholic Tradition, which by the way, is the “Tradition” taught by Paul, from those of other Traditions? Are you then indorsing the Catholic Church when you tell your faithful to 'withdraw'? If you don't, then being a Sola Scripturist, how do you justify it? And if you don't indorce the Catholic Tradition, are you then indorsing the actions of the Thessalonians in their right to reject Paul's teaching with Sola Scriptura?

JoeT

No, that's why God gave us an infallible Church.

No denomination is infallible.


Interpret scripture without discipline and Scripture will come to mean what pleases you (JoeT ).

Which is why scripture says that we are not to interpret it.

Which is why scripture says that we are not to interpret it.Well if you're not supposed to interpret it, how are you to come to Grow in Christ, then why did the Bereans first listen to Paul, then go to Scripture? Wasn't Paul's word good enough? Why did Paul say they were Nobel if in fact they weren't because they interpret Scripture?

JoeT

Well if you're not supposed to interpret it, how are you to come to Grow in Christ, then why did the Bereans first listen to Paul, then go to Scripture? Wasn't Paul's word good enough? Why did Paul say they were Nobel if in fact they weren't because they interpret Scripture?

JoeT

You still haven't answered any of my questions tonight. Do you not have answers to these questions Tom? There could be a good reason as to why.

JoeT

Tom, et al:
Do you really advise people to adhere to 2 Thess 3:6 “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.”

Scripture tells us that that tradition was written down.


How are you to tell the difference between Catholic Tradition, which by the way, is the “Tradition” taught by Paul, from those of other Traditions?

Since your denomination did not exist at that time, no Paul's "tradition" was not that of yours or any denomination.

Scripture tells us that that tradition was written down.Where?




Since your denomination did not exist at that time, no Paul's "tradition" was not that of yours or any denomination. Since it was Catholic Tradition and you have none, how would you know?

JoeT

Scripture tells us that that tradition was written down.
By the early church fathers.

Since your denomination did not exist at that time, no Paul's "tradition" was not that of yours or any denomination.
The early church evolved into the catholic church which evolved into the Roman Catholic Church which split into the Eastern and Western branches (Great Schism). The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church until Luther's time.

By the early church fathers.

In scripture.

Well if you're not supposed to interpret it, how are you to come to Grow in Christ,

By allowing the word of God to speak to you.


then why did the Bereans first listen to Paul, then go to Scripture?

If you are right, scripture was even required because Paul would have been speaking "tradition" which would be equal to scripture.

By allowing the word of God to speak to you.

This response is circular.

If you are right, scripture was even required because Paul would have been speaking "tradition" which would be equal to scripture.

Evaluating Tradition and Scripture as if they were two independent variables in an algorithm is simply gobbledygook.

Was Paul the first Pope? Wouldn't holding this, in a Bible-only view, be revisionist?

JoeT

P.S. P.S. would you like to discuss your on-line paper regarding Peter or Paul?

No denomination is infallible.

And, of course, we know that you are not infallible. You have given evidence of this with your quite dramatic failure to justify:

1. Your assumption that Scripture alone is the sole standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. You haven't been able to provide a single Scriptural source that clearly supports this doctrine, nor have you taken any account of the several passages already on offer on this thread which clearly demonstrate the authoritativeness of Tradition.

2. Your use of one canon of Scripture in preference to others. This gives the appearasnce that you do not take seriously the importance of using the correct canon of Scripture. So while you have chastised others for appealing to texts which, though part of their canon, are not part of yours, you have provided absolutely no justification for the canon of Scripture to which you appeal.

3. Your tendentious readings of 2Tim.3 and Paul's episode with the Bereans, the latter of which clearly demonstrates that they received oral instruction from him and the former of which manifestly does not make any claim about Scripture beyond affirming its usefulness in matters of doctrine and discipline. In particular, it does not validate your assumption that Scripture alone is the sole standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. Just as I would correct a child who, when asked the sum of two and two, returned the answer "five", so I have explained in a clear and precise way your error regarding these two Scriptural passages to which you have referred a number of times. Rather than persisting in a demonstrably mistaken reading of Scripture, you should take it as an opportunity to learn and either provide Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of sola scriptura or abandon that doctrine on the grounds that it has been shown to be erroneous. To persist in a faulty reading of Scripture for the sole reason that it allows you to maintain your own preconceptions is at once intellectually dishonest and a misuse of Scripture, a personal or private interpretation.

4. Your use of any NT texts, since the references to Scripture in the NT are to the OT, typically to the Septuagint which contained books that you yourself do not regard as canonical.

5. Your use of a canon of Scripture that was handed down by the very Council which you have elsewhere chastised for founding the Catholic Church. You are using a canon derived from Tradition while at the same time denying the authoritativeness of Tradition.

6. Your discredited assertion that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century, a claim you were recently unable to vindicate on a thread devoted to that very topic. This makes it appear as though your insistence upon inserting it into numerous threads is a purely propagandist gambit. If you are interested in the truth, as you claim to be, then you must either vindicate this historical claim or, should you be unable to do so, abandon it as a falsehood of which you have been disabused.

You have repeatedly stated that no denomination is infallible. You have also, on numerous occasions, stated that no person is infallible. It follows from the second of these that you are yourself not infallible. It follows from this that you err in your understanding of Scripture. We have, on this thread, clearly shown that you have erred in your adherence to the doctrine of sola scriptura. It remains for you to amend your beliefs, to bring them in line with the truth. Only you can do this. It is never easy for any of us to do, but it is required when our beliefs are revealed to be false.

In scripture.

Where in Scripture are we told that the whole of Tradition is written down in Scripture? I am justifiably curious, since I have already provided numerous references to Scriptures where the authority of oral Tradition is affirmed.

Where in Scripture are we told that the whole of Tradition is written down in Scripture? I am justifiably curious, since I have already provided numerous references to Scriptures where the authority of oral Tradition is affirmed.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Anything other then what they ensampled for us!

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Because "The Word"made them ensample unto us: and their traditions.( 2 Thess 3:9)

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

**************************************

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

**************************************
Authority of scripture "The Word" = Christ told you

Act 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (1 Thess 5:21)


1 Corinthians 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12: 6-7 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
1 Corinthains 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

1 Corinthian 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Corinthian 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Corinthian 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

ONLY SOME: in the church
1 Corinthian 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Which is why scripture says that we are not to interpret it.

WE that have our hearts open by God can be gifted by the selfsame Spirit and able to interpret what God has revealed to us...

Corinthains 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Right, this clearly and unambiguously affirms the authority of Tradition and instructs us to uphold it. I believe I mentioned this one in an earlier post. It is this verse, and the many others like it, that give the lie to the claim that Scripture alone is the sole standard of truth and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline.


2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Yes, those who reject the authority of Tradition and fail to adhere to it are to be excommunicated.


Because "The Word"made them ensample unto us: and their traditions.( 2 Thess 3:9)

Again, we are to have nothing to do with those who reject Tradition.



2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Right, nobody disputes the authority of Scripture. Everybody is agreed that Paul's Epistles are authoritative in matters of doctrine and discipline. That's just one of the reasons I find it odd that so many wish to denegrate Tradition and refuse to acknowledge its importance. As the references you have provided show, Scripture itself affirms that Tradition is authoritative in matters of doctrine and discipline.



**************************************

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

**************************************
Authority of scripture "The Word" = Christ told you

Act 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (1 Thess 5:21)

Acts 16.14 affirms the importance of oral Tradition. I'm not sure I see the relevance of the other passages to the topic under discussion. I think everyone agrees that we are to be faithful to the Lord. For some reason, which has yet to be justified, many people take the view that one can be faithful to the Lord while rejecting what he has revealed to us by way of Tradition.


1 Corinthians 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12: 6-7 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
1 Corinthains 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

1 Corinthian 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Corinthian 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Corinthian 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

ONLY SOME: in the church
1 Corinthian 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The Church is the body of Christ, and we are members of that body. There is an ecclesiastical hierarchy, with apostles first and then others. This is an interesting bit of Scripture, and one that it would be pleasant to discuss sometime, but I don't see its relevance to the present topic. If the fault is mine, as it may well be, perhaps you could say a bit more about how you take it to bear on the matters we are presently discussing.

Evaluating Tradition and Scripture as if they were two independent variables in an algorithm is simply gobbledygook.

If by tradition, you mean your denominational tradition, they are indeed two very different things.


Was Paul the first Pope? Wouldn’t holding this, in a Bible-only view, be revisionist?

Yes, just as holding to the view that Peter was the first pope.


P.S. P.S. would you like to discuss your on-line paper regarding Peter or Paul?

Sure, but that is a topic for a different thread.

If by tradition, you mean your denominational tradition, they are indeed two very different things.



Yes, just as holding to the view that Peter was the first pope.



Sure, but that is a topic for a different thread.

Quite right, Tom. Let's not change the subject.

How about, then, if you either vindicate your assertion that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline or concede that your assertion was in error and is, in fact, false.

WE that have our hearts open by God can be gifted by the selfsame Spirit and able to interpret what God has revealed to us...

Corinthains 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

How do you perform the function of 'reading' without rationally interpreting what was read?

The initial statement, “scripture says that we are not to interpret it” is meaningless. If you read and can't interpret what good does it do, you're not instructed, and you can't learn.

JoeT

Right, this clearly and unambiguously affirms the authority of Tradition and instructs us to uphold it. I believe I mentioned this one in an earlier post. It is this verse, and the many others like it, that give the lie to the claim that Scripture alone is the sole standard of truth and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline.

Perhaps you did not read the scripture It said hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Let's get this discussion of tradition in the time peroid of which it was meant. By Word being the flesh that walked this earth did testimony for all that is written. And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 says traditions received by us.(our epistel)

Many traditions being enforced and in focus today are like those of the Pharisees. Jesus decribed them as = like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. Jesus warned us concerning man's making void The Word of God. We are told to purge from the old leaven which again was how the Pharisees forced their authority, and justified themselves over the people. Faith does not stand in the wisdom of man but rather in the power of God. Man today have pushed away the law of God as if they can walk their own way, and believe they walk in the light. (Roman 3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.)

We are not enriched by man but rather we are enrich by knowledge in Christ(1 Cr 1:4-7)




Acts 16.14 affirms the importance of oral Tradition.

There was one tradition shown in love of Christ, and how God reveals and opens the heart. How the epistel written and spoken by Paul, confirmed his instruction to follow him by what is written in (1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.)



The Church is the body of Christ, and we are members of that body. There is an ecclesiastical hierarchy, with apostles first and then others. This is an interesting bit of Scripture, and one that it would be pleasant to discuss sometime, but I don't see its relevance to the present topic. If the fault is mine, as it may well be, perhaps you could say a bit more about how you take it to bear on the matters we are presently discussing.

Read again

1 Corinthian 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Corinthian 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Corinthian 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

The church is a building where the fellowship of members dwell... The body is where Christ dwells... whether it be within one member or all members there remains ONE BODY

How do you perform the function of ‘reading’ without rationally interpreting what was read?

The initial statement, “scripture says that we are not to interpret it” is meaningless. If you read and can’t interpret what good does it do, you’re not instructed, and you can’t learn.

JoeT

Joe

Many can not pick up a bible to say, I can understand what is written.

And many have never read the bible because they believe they can not understand it.

It is a blindness which only God reveal differently.

And within what is written holds milk for the babes,and strong meat for those that can go beyond the principle doctrine of Christ Jesus to discern good and evil

Joe

Many can not pick up a bible to say, I can understand what is written.

And many have never read the bible because they believe they can not understand it.

It is a blindness which only God reveal differently.

And within what is written holds milk for the babes,and strong meat for those that can go beyond the principle doctrine of Christ Jesus to discern good and evil

What's being said here is that "if you don't see things my way you're not favored by God like I am". Wouldn’t you agree that it’s condescending if I made the same argument that since you’re not Catholic you don’t know how to read the Bible? Your statement was, as it were, designed to safely put me in my place – well I still don’t agree with you.

What's being said here is that "if you don't see things my way you're not favored by God like I am". Wouldn't you agree that it's condescending if I made the same argument that since you're not Catholic you don't know how to read the Bible? Your statement was, as it were, designed to safely put me in my place – well I still don't agree with you.



No, actually I was in agreement with your statement quoted below. Yet I was also saying the fact still remains whether some can read...they do not necessarily say they understand it. agree?

There are many levels of discerning and interpration... All depends on God's will to reveal



How do you perform the function of 'reading' without rationally interpreting what was read?
The initial statement, “scripture says that we are not to interpret it” is meaningless. If you read and can't interpret what good does it do, you're not instructed, and you can't learn.

Wouldn't you agree that it's condescending if I made the same argument that since you're not Catholic you don't know how to read the Bible?

Joe,

My communication in what I say is not against anyone... It remains my goal to edify the faith of Christ Jesus. In HIS way... HIS POWER... HIS LOVE... HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS of TRUTH

Perhaps you did not read the scripture It said hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Let's get this discussion of tradition in the time peroid of which it was meant. By Word being the flesh that walked this earth did testimony for all that is written. And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 says traditions received by us.(our epistel)

2Thess.3.15 says that we are to abide by and uphold the traditions have received either by word of mouth or by means of the epistle that Paul had written (i.e. 2Thess.). The Greek for "by word" is "dia logou" (by word) not "dia tou logou" (by the word). In other words, it is not referring to the incarnate Word, viz. Jesus Christ. The reference to word and epistle is a reference to the means of transmission. You do realize, don't you, that not every use of the word "word" in the NT is a reference to Christ?


Many traditions being enforced and in focus today are like those of the Pharisees. Jesus described them as = like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. Jesus warned us concerning man's making void The Word of God. We are told to purge from the old leaven which again was how the Pharisees forced their authority, and justified themselves over the people. Faith does not stand in the wisdom of man but rather in the power of God. Man today have pushed away the law of God as if they can walk their own way, and believe they walk in the light. (Roman 3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.)

This is all well and good, but nothing you say here shows that Scripture alone is the sole standard and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. It would be a grave mistake to suppose that any appeal to Tradition is Pharasaic, just as it would be a grave mistake to suppose that any appeal to the Pentateuch is Pharasaic.


There was one tradition shown in love of Christ, and how God reveals and opens the heart. How the epistel written and spoken by Paul, confirmed his instruction to follow him by what is written in (1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.)

I agree that there is one Tradition. I can't see in anything you've said why you would choose to reject it. I also agree that Paul's Epistle(s) contain instructions. Among those instructions is the one that tells us to abide by and uphold oral Traditions received from Christ and the Apostles. If it was important enough for Christ and the Apostles to teach it to others, why isn't it important enough for some to abide by and uphold? I would be very leary about being dismissive of any of God's revelation, whether it be transmitted orally or in writing. Christ didn't write anything that we know of; he seemed to be satisfied with oral teaching.


Read again

1 Corinthian 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Corinthian 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Corinthian 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

The church is a building where the fellowship of members dwell... The body is where Christ dwells... whether it be within one member or all members there remains ONE BODY

I've read it again and I still don't see the relevance to the present topic. As an aside: The church is the body of Christ; it isn't merely a building in which people gather. But we can discuss this at length another time, if you like.

No, actually I was in agreement with your statement quoted below. Yet I was also saying the fact still remains whether some can read...they do not necessarily say they understand it. agree?

And that I can agree with.

2Thess.3.15 says that we are to abide by and uphold the traditions have received either by word of mouth or by means of the epistle that Paul had written (i.e., 2Thess.).

2 Thess 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. KJV





The Greek for "by word" is "dia logou" (by word) not "dia tou logou" (by the word). In other words, it is not referring to the incarnate Word, viz. Jesus Christ. The reference to word and epistle is a reference to the means of transmission. You do realize, don't you, that not every use of the word "word" in the NT is a reference to Christ?

"The Word"

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

2 Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

1 Kings 17:24 And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth.

Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Act 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

1 Cr 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

Revel 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.





This is all well and good, but nothing you say here shows that Scripture alone is the sole standard and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. It would be a grave mistake to suppose that any appeal to Tradition is Pharasaic, just as it would be a grave mistake to suppose that any appeal to the Pentateuch is Pharasaic.

By every word written in scripture saying that God is the authority and the highest of standard far above all else.


Eph 6:10-11 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.



And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God


Who would trade "The Word of God" in scripture, for traditions of man that are not already spoken of in scripture?

Quite right, Tom. Let's not change the subject.

How about, then, if you either vindicate your assertion that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline or concede that your assertion was in error and is, in fact, false.

I have given one passage, but so far all you and your friends have done is to say that it doesn't say what it says, and to try to push your denomination.

Unless you are prepared to have a serious discussion, why should I waste my time posting more passages, only to have you deny, deny, deny.

I have given one passage, but so far all you and your friends have done is to say that it doesn't say what it says, and to try to push your denomination.

Right reasoned responses have been given for the one verse offered. That response found irregularity and error your ideas.


Unless you are prepared to have a serious discussion, why should I waste my time posting more passages, only to have you deny, deny, deny.

“It must be said absolutely that reason can in no way be contrary to the authority of this Scripture, nay, all right reason is in accord with it" (Henry of Ghent, "Summa Theologica", X, iii, n.4). Right reasoning is to move the intellect to Truth which we know to be a term convertible to God; “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” Consequently we can conclude that to move to virtue is to seek an absolute infallible truth in nature as well as Divine law. Accordingly, does the proposition considered here move us towards God's incontrovertible Truth?

The phrase “Standard of Truth” implies that an authority, a concord, or some harmonious agreement, is used to judge what should be the basis of God's Truth. The tenets of Roman Catholic Church hold that She alone is authority to teach infallibly. Both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible. Consequently, this makes Apostolic tradition usually in the form of papal and councils decrees to be the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.

Conversely, the Standard of Truth that relies on consensus can never teach infallibly. The very nature of obtaining a consensus requires compromise. Thus the consensus becomes the arbiter of absolute Truth and the interpretation Scripture. Operating within such a Standard how do we discern that which is absolute and infallible truth and that which isn't? How then do we become one in our faith like Christ is with the Father? (Cf. John 17:11). The Standard of Truth proposed in this proposition contends that the consensus should be based Scriptures alone, Sola Scriptura. That each would define the cosmic meaning of God's revelation for himself. Each would look inwardly to define God's external creation. Hence God becomes defined by capricious will of man. This Sola Scriptura way of reasoning confines God to the will of man instead of man moving toward the absolute Truth of God.

Concluding we can hold 'standard of Truth' as intended here as free thought, thought unconstrained by Truth. Subsequently, “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES. (sic)” Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalismo es Pecado

JoeT

Right reasoned responses have been given for the one verse offered. That response found irregularly and error your ideas.

So far all I have seen is a claim that it does not say what it says and that your denomination must be believed no matter what.

Hardly a compelling argument. Until you can deal with that verse, it is not worth the effort to put up any additional references.

I note that the rest of your response still failed to address the points raised.

I have given one passage, but so far all you and your friends have done is to say that it doesn't say what it says, and to try to push your denomination.

No, in fact, I haven't "pushed" any denomination. I explicitly stated that we can leave those issues to one side (see post #28).

As for my disagreement with your reading of 2Thess.2.16, here's what you quoted:


2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Now you have claimed that this shows that Scripture is "complete" (I put this in quotes because it isn't at all obvious what it would mean to say that Scripture is "complete", this for the reason that "complete" isn't the same thing as "sufficient"--but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being). This says that Scripture is profitable, not that it is complete. It goes on to tell us that Scripture is profitable for the following things: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. This is something no one here has denied: We all believe Scripture to be profitable for these things, which is surely one of the reasons we spend so much time discussing it. These things for which Scripture is profitable--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--equip us for good works, since we need them in order to perform good works; these are the complete set of things required in order to perform genuinely good works, and Scripture is helpful in providing us with them. Again, this is not something with which anyone here disagrees.

Where we do disagree is over your claim that this verse says that Scripture is complete, i.e. the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. I hate to say it, but this is starting to look like a reading comprehension problem, since I can see no way that this verse can be portrayed as making that assertion. I have now explained, yet again, that it is in fact you who persistently "say that it doesn't say what it says". Notice that I have used no interpretive apparatus, nor have I twisted or in any way manipulated the grammar or meanings of words. I have taken it at face-value. The word "complete" does not modify the word "Scripture"; the word "profitable" does, however, modify the word "Scripture". I can see no honest way for you to claim that it asserts that Scripture is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline when it clearly states only that Scripture is profitable in such matters, matters which themselves completely equip us for the doing of good works. In other words, then, I am reading it in precisely the way sola-scripturists state that Scripture ought to be read.


Unless you are prepared to have a serious discussion, why should I waste my time posting more passages, only to have you deny, deny, deny.

I'm afraid it is you who are in denial. And as for serious discussion: Beginning at post #28, I have provided Scriptural, historical, and theological grounds for the claims (a) that the doctrine of sola scriptura is false and (b) that Tradition is, along with Scripture, authoritative in matters of doctrine and discipline. You have steadfastly refused to address the arguments I have provided, and this leads some of us to believe that it is because you lack the wherewithal to defeat those arguments. Instead you have become increasingly truculent. Now whether one agrees or disagrees with what I have said, I don't think I can fairly be accused of being unserious. So what is the real problem that you have? Is it that you find yourself unable to defend a view that you have come to see as indefensible? I can only invite you to defend your view; I can't force you to do so. Or would you like me to defend it for you?

Again, in the interests of clarity, here is what you would have to do in order to vindicate the doctrine of sola scriptura: You would have to show that the passages I cited in post #28 do not, in fact, affirm the authoritativeness of Tradition. You would have to provide Scriptural evidence that unambiguously asserts that Scripture is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. Finally, in order to vindicate your appeal to the Scriptures to which you refer, you would need to provide Scriptural justification for the canon of Scripture you use, this for the reason that sola-scripturist principles prohibit you from using a canon that you have received from Tradition. These constitute the bare minimum, that is to say, they are together the minimal requirement in order to put the doctrine of sola scriptura on anything resembling a firm footing. In the absence of any one of these, this doctrine is nothing more than an un-Biblical and unwarranted assumption, and adherence to it a matter more of personal taste than of anything like principle.

Both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible.

JoeT

Note that in this quoted posted, you have stated the harmonious foundation... That fact is, that scripture says who formed that foundation. The apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief corner stone did set the structure to be harmonious and infallible.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

The foundation they formed should be the foundation of all Christian churches today. They ensampled what we are to mold ourselves, and follow in doing the Will of God.

That is how the church (christain faith) in all it's teaching remains as the body of Christ.

As for my disagreement with your reading of 2Thess.2.16, here's what you quoted:

Now you have claimed that this shows that Scripture is "complete" (I put this in quotes because it isn't at all obvious what it would mean to say that Scripture is "complete", this for the reason that "complete" isn't the same thing as "sufficient"--but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being).

This says that Scripture is profitable, not that it is complete.

What is more complete in knowledge and wisdom then the word of God? According to all that is written the word of God in scriptures has offered us life when we follow HIS words.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.




It goes on to tell us that Scripture is profitable for the following things: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. This is something no one here has denied: We all believe Scripture to be profitable for these things, which is surely one of the reasons we spend so much time discussing it.

These things for which Scripture is profitable--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--equip us for good works, since we need them in order to perform good works; these are the complete set of things required in order to perform genuinely good works, and Scripture is helpful in providing us with them. Again, this is not something with which anyone here disagrees.

Where we do disagree is over your claim that this verse says that Scripture is complete, i.e., the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline.

Romans 13:1-2 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Today the multitude of people are divided, apart with the leaven in traditions of man and apart in the Word of God (made flesh in Christ) set in the foundation of the apostles, and prophets. What the famine of hunger today is, for the multitude to join and seek the Word of God which is in the gospel.

Act 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.



I have taken it at face-value. The word "complete" does not modify the word "Scripture"; the word "profitable" does, however, modify the word "Scripture". I can see no honest way for you to claim that it asserts that Scripture is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline

What is the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit to you?

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

1 Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

What is more complete in knowledge and wisdom then the word of God? According to all that is written the word of God in scriptures has offered us life when we follow HIS words.

Yes, Scripture is the word of God. And so is Tradition. This is the point I've been trying to make all along, to wit, that we ought to accept, uphold, and abide by the whole of God's revelation, and this means accepting, upholding, and abiding by both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture is itself clear on this point.


Today the multitude of people are divided, apart with the leaven in traditions of man and apart in the Word of God set in the foundation of the apostles, and prophets. What the famine of hunger today is, for the multitude to join and seek the Word of God which is in the gospel.

And the gospel is not contained excusively in the Scriptures, but in both Scripture and Tradition. I have shown that sola scriptura is precisely a "tradition of man", and it surely has led to division. And this isn't surprising, since so many reject so much of God's revelation to us when they reject Tradition and abide by the un-Biblical and man-made tradition of sola scriptura.


What is the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit to you?

The word of God in its entirety, i.e. Scripture--all of the Scriptures--along with Tradition. To reject the authority of Tradition is to reject the word of God since Tradition is the word of God, it is to reject God's revelation. And so it is not surprising to find sola-scripturists misunderstanding Scripture since by refusing to accept the whole of God's revelation, they have a distorted view of that portion of it which they do accept. Imagine someone who allowed only the book of Romans into her canon of Scripture. You wouldn't be at all surprised to find her misunderstanding it since she he has rejected so much of God's revelation. In order to understand Romans, we need to understand other parts of Scripture as well. And so when we read Scripture, we read it as a whole, allowing it, as a whole, to inform our reading of any one part of it. Well, the same is true of the relation of Scripture and Tradition: Rejecting Tradition and reading Scripture on its own is like the person who rejects all but the book of Romans. Scripture was never intended to be regarded as the whole of God's word all on its own; this is why Scripture itself instructs us to recognize the authority of Tradition.

Rejecting Tradition and reading Scripture on its own is like the person who rejects all but the book of Romans. Scripture was never intended to be regarded as the whole of God's word all on its own; this is why Scripture itself instructs us to recognize the authority of Tradition.

Rejection of traditions or changing the tradition which are written in scripture, would be the error. Scripture does include those traditions as Paul stated in traditions heard by (word) or (our epistle). That is completed in all that is written by the inspiration of God.

Man made traditions which I reference as the leaven that has raised up today, has changed Passover feast, baptism, prayer, and repenting which were by instructions build and set upon the corner stone. The foundation in the apostles and prophets that taught the Truth. The Word of God ordained from the beginning. (John 1:1)

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

And please don't reframe from understand that by word, does mean God's word. The sword of spirit is the sharp twoedged sword known as the word of God, for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rejection of traditions or changing the tradition which are written in scripture, would be the error.

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all of Tradition--that is to say, the only Tradition we are to uphold and by which we are to abide--is itself contained in Scripture. You are making an assumption that is not itself supported by Scripture. On the other hand, Scripture does repeatedly affirm and instruct us to obey oral Tradition.


Scripture does include those traditions as Paul stated in traditions heard by (word) or (our epistle). That is completed in all that is written by the inspiration of God.


Here again, you are inserting your own interpretive assumptions into Scripture. Paul tells us to abide by those traditions that we have heard by word of mouth or read in his epistle. He precisely does not say that all of the traditions by which we are to abide are themselves written down in Scripture. On the contrary, he acknowledges that there are traditions that are not in Scripture when he distinguishes between those which we learn by word of mouth and those which we read in his epistle. If there weren't traditions outside of Scripture then it would make absolutely no sense for him to tell us to abide by those which we hear by word of mouth.


Man made traditions which I reference as the leaven that has raised up today, has changed Passover feast, baptism, prayer, and repenting which were by instructions build and set upon the corner stone. The foundation in the apostles and prophets that taught the Truth. The Word of God ordained from the beginning. (John 1:1)

I am in complete agreement with you that there are man-made traditions which ought to be rejected. And I have shown that sola scriptura is one of those man-made traditions. Or, rather, Scripture itself shows that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition. In addition to 2Thess.2.15-17, which we have discussed, see also:

1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers "
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard "
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"

These are the verses I listed in my earlier post. Taken together with 2Thess.2.15-17 they make it quite clear that we are instructed by Scripture to recognize the authority of oral Tradition. (Note that this is not an exhaustive list of such verses. These are just the ones that popped into my head. But this is more than sufficient to demonstrate the un-Biblical character of the doctrine of sola scriptura. You may, of course, persist in holding that doctrine despite the fact that Scripture clearly demonstrates its falsity. I cannot change your mind; all I can do is to call your attention to the truth. What you do with that is entirely your own affair. I believe you are honest and thoughtful and I believe you have integrity, sndbay, and so I would urge you to ask yourself why Scripture affirms the authority of oral Tradition, and explicitly instructs us to abide by it, if God wants us to be sola-scripturists. I'm not asking you to concede anything. Just think long and hard about it.)

Note that in this quoted posted, you have stated the harmonious foundation... That fact is, that scripture says who formed that foundation. The apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief corner stone did set the structure to be harmonious and infallible.

This wasn’t a quote, but rather my own words. I used the foundation in the sense of a ‘basis’ from which to lift. This statement: Both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible. Can also be written: Both Scripture and tradition are the rule of faith to be infallible. Come to think of it, the latter statement seems is more concise. Thanks for pointing it out.

St. Augustine never seemed to have misgivings in stating where his authority originated:

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY”

Furthermore, as far as scripture themselves


"But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5


JoeT

And so it is not surprising to find sola-scripturists misunderstanding Scripture
This is exactly what happens in Lutheranland (Protestantland also?). Despite a minister's leadership and confirmation/membership teaching, despite weekly Sunday School and adult Bible classes, despite his regular contact with parishioners, there really is no "one mind" about what the Bible teaches and what Lutherans believe. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone in one of my adult Bible classes told me, "I never thought that passage meant that" or "I have never understood that passage that way" or "Our teacher at X Church explained it this way."

It all begins at the seminary where men come together to learn/relearn the basics of doctrine and to supposedly get on the same page as pastors, but, since each is coming from a different place and because there is a freedom of interpretation to some extent, all don't end up graduating on the same page. Despite sola scriptura, the Book of Concord, and the three ecumenical Creeds, Lutherans even disagree about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Theological conservatives use the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation, while theological liberals use the higher critical method. That right there makes for major confusion. (I personally experienced the dichotomy in college when I took classes from both conservative as well as liberal professors. About that same time, a liberal faction broke off from (or were kicked out of) the very conservative M-S Lutheran Synod to form Lutherans in Exile which eventually became part of ELCA).

This mixed interpretation that has continued to exist came clear to me when my all-time favorite minister posed a question to our Lutheran congregation (350 parishioners): "If you were to die tonight, why would God allow you into His heaven?" The answers he got back were amazingly diverse (and often non-Lutheran). Most of them did not mention any of the three Solas, the core of Lutheranism. Many said that faith and works or merely their good works would be their ticket into heaven. Some did not believe they would go to heaven or even that there is a heaven.

Apparently the charge, taken literally, to "work out your own salvation" has created not only a huge number of Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones. For instance, the conservative Lutheran bodies practice what's known as "close communion" (refusing to commune anyone the pastor does not know and who has not spoken with him before the service), and the more liberal ones open their pulpits to ministers from other denominations/religions and communion to anyone who approaches the altar. There are a number of other differences.

Obviously sola scriptura with no church Tradition/authority alongside it opens the door to dangerous private interpretations of the Scriptures.

As for my disagreement with your reading of 2Thess.2.16, here's what you quoted:

Actually, that is not the passage that we were discussing. You may wish to go back and get back on track.

Actually, that is not the passage that we were discussing. You may wish to go back and get back on track.

That's right. I've been discussing 2Thess.2 with sndbay. You and I were discussing 2Tim.3. I inadvertently inverted the citation. But notice that I quoted the relevant Scripture and carefully explained your misreading of it, so something as simple as this shouldn't have posed any problems for your understanding what I was talking about.

Now, why don't you try addressing the substance of my posts. Or do you intend to continue to pretend that they lack sustance and are unserious (an odd charge, to be sure, since I have discussed Scripture with patience and care--and since I wouldn't have thought that you regard the patient and careful discussion to be an unserious or unworthy thing)? I've shown sola scriptura to be at once un-Scriptual and both historically and theologically unviable. Rather than dancing around the point it would be more profitable both for you and for anyone who may be reading this thread were you either (a) to defend sola scriptura and demonstrate the error of the appeal to Tradition by showing us that the passages I've cited do not affirm the authority of Tradition in matters of doctrine and discipline and that the appeal to Tradition lacks both historical and theological support or (b) to concede that the doctrine of sola scriptura is false and that you have been in error. I'm sure you can find some typos in the present post (I won't re-read it in order to eliminate them), but when you post in order to point out the occasional inverted citation or mis-spelling, etc. all the while blatantly avoiding the substance of the discussion, you give the appearance of precisely avoiding the substance for the reason that you haven't the wherewithal to come to grips with it. It also looks a bit petulant. Please, consider this an invitation to engage in the very thing you yourself so often call for: a serious discussion. I have made numerous attempts to encourage your participation in a substantive exchange. Your refusal has come to reflect rather uncharitably on the merits of your assertions.

(Oh, and there's a dangling preposition in there. You can post in order to call attention to that. Or you can make a serious and thoughtful attempt to vindicate your claim--in the face of considerable evidence of its falsity--that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline.)

This is exactly what happens in Lutheranland (Protestantland also?). Despite a minister's leadership and confirmation/membership teaching, despite weekly Sunday School and adult Bible classes, despite his regular contact with parishioners, there really is no "one mind" about what the Bible teaches and what Lutherans believe. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone in one of my adult Bible classes told me, "I never thought that passage meant that" or "I have never understood that passage that way" or "Our teacher at X Church explained it this way."

It all begins at the seminary where men come together to learn/relearn the basics of doctrine and to supposedly get on the same page as pastors, but, since each is coming from a different place and because there is a freedom of interpretation to some extent, all don't end up graduating on the same page. Despite sola scriptura, the Book of Concord, and the three ecumenical Creeds, Lutherans even disagree about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Theological conservatives use the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation, while theological liberals use the higher critical method. That right there makes for major confusion. (I personally experienced the dichotomy in college when I took classes from both conservative as well as liberal professors. About that same time, a liberal faction broke off from (or were kicked out of) the very conservative M-S Lutheran Synod to form Lutherans in Exile which eventually became part of ELCA).

This mixed interpretation that has continued to exist came clear to me when my all-time favorite minister posed a question to our Lutheran congregation (350 parishioners): "If you were to die tonight, why would God allow you into His heaven?" The answers he got back were amazingly diverse (and often non-Lutheran). Most of them did not mention any of the three Solas, the core of Lutheranism. Many said that faith and works or merely their good works would be their ticket into heaven. Some did not believe they would go to heaven or even that there is a heaven.

Apparently the charge, taken literally, to "work out your own salvation" has created not only a huge number of Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones. For instance, the conservative Lutheran bodies practice what's known as "close communion" (refusing to commune anyone the pastor does not know and who has not spoken with him before the service), and the more liberal ones open their pulpits to ministers from other denominations/religions and communion to anyone who approaches the altar. There are a number of other differences.

Obviously sola scriptura with no church Tradition/authority alongside it opens the door to dangerous private interpretations of the Scriptures.

This is fascinating. Thank you so much for sharing the fruit of your experience in this matter. I think this should give all of us, even those who are not sola-scripturist and who recognize the authority of Tradition, a lot to think about.

Do you have the sense that, among Lutherans, what you describe is regarded as a problem? I guess what I'm trying to get your take on is this: Do you get the sense that many Lutherans see a problem here, or is this sort of thing regarded as nothing to be too bothered about? And, if it is seen as a problem, is there any consensus regarding a solution?

I ask, in part at least, because I don't for a moment believe that this is something that only happens among Lutherans. On the contrary, I suspect it is a fairly widespread phenomenon.

Thanks again for this contribution to the discussion. Really interesting.

That's right. I've been discussing 2Thess.2 with sndbay. You and I were discussing 2Tim.3. I inadvertantly inverted the citation. But notice that I quoted the relevant Scripture and carefully explained your misreading of it, so something as simple as this shouldn't have posed any problems for your understanding what I was talking about.

I saw no reason to read further if you were not addressing the actual scripture reference. It has not been clear from your responses that you have been reading my posts in any case.

I have been watching to see if you would actually deal with any the points that I have been raising.

I saw no reason to read further if you were not addressing the actual scripture reference. It has not been clear from your responses that you have been reading my posts in any case.

I have been watching to see if you would actually deal with any the the points that I have been raising.
You haven't been raising any points. All you have done every fourth page or so is give some form of this, your avoidance to be involved in the discussion: "I have given one passage, but so far all you and your friends have done is to say that it doesn't say what it says, and to try to push your denomination. Unless you are prepared to have a serious discussion, why should I waste my time posting more passages, only to have you deny, deny, deny."

You haven't been raising any points.

Go back to the my first post and start reading.

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all of Tradition--that is to say, the only Tradition we are to uphold and by which we are to abide--is itself contained in Scripture. You are making an assumption that is not itself supported by Scripture.

The assumption is on your part to think they are not the ONLY traditions. Our Father is clear to say nothing of HIS Word is to be changed or added to it.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

My assumption is based on what is written .. Scripture is complete and we should hold stedfast in what God intended as the traditions he ordained without changing them or adding to them..

1 Thessalonians 2:13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.





Here again, you are inserting your own interpretive assumptions into Scripture. Paul tells us to abide by those traditions that we have heard by word of mouth or read in his epistle.

Where does it say word of mouth... Scripture is in reference to the inspiration of God.. His Word and His Will.
(Man can't write or by oral mouth word, make his own bible up for people to follow.)



I am in complete agreement with you that there are man-made traditions which ought to be rejected.

Difficult to find fellowship that hasn't attempted their own ways in some method. Give me one that you feel has held to God's Will? (Different thread someday)



1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers "
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard "
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"

These are the verses I listed in my earlier post. Taken together with 2Thess.2.15-17 they make it quite clear that we are instructed by Scripture to recognize the authority of oral Tradition.

Note:

1 Thessalonians 3:8 For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord.

And you must note that Paul added as commanded--> (2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. )

So we must not go in fellowship with any that teach disorderly or that hold traditions not after that which they provided in scripture for us.

Go back to the my first post and start reading.
All those points you raised 'way back then were addressed. You failed to respond to questions and comments that arose from them.

All those points you raised 'way back then were addressed. You failed to respond to questions and comments that arose from them.

Are we going to go down this route again? You keep doing this - claiming that I have not responded, and many times recently it was a matter that you either ignored my post or missed it.

I did respond. The responses were to deny that the reference said "complete" or to promote the responders denomination. Not compelling.

If you have a more compelling response, or if you gave one that I may have missed, feel free to post it or a link here.

I did respond. The responses were to deny that the reference said "complete" or to promote the responders denomination.
But you offered no counter argument and simply told the responder that you were not going to continually repeat yourself. You offered no food for further discussion.

I saw no reason to read further if you were not addressing the actual scripture reference.

That's an interesting reading habit you've developed. Yikes!


It has not been clear from your responses that you have been reading my posts in any case.

I have been watching to see if you would actually deal with any the points that I have been raising.

Well, I've clearly and precisely responded, in a substantive way, to each of the points you have cared to post. I notice, however, that you have been engaged in an extended program of avoidance. This is all the more striking since your posts early in the thread were so very strident, bordering on cocky. We have seen you go from strident to petulance and truculence. It's come to look like you are trying to avoid actually saying anything, posting the occasional barb, as though you are trying to run out the clock, hoping that the thread will close--as though if you can just avoid conceding your error or posting anything that will show the flimsiness of your position will somehow constitute a victory for you. Again, this is all the more striking since you started the thread in such a strident way. And now all we get are these feeble little barbs--when it's obvious that I've been offering substantive posts and replies to the posts of others. You know as well as we do that I've dealt exhaustively with the very few points you've cared to make.

If you find the conversation here unworthy of you then why do you keep posting barbs? Is it because you know that it would look bad if you just stopped posting altogether? That this would make it looks like you really have nothing to say in defense of an indefensible view? What you may not realize is that the feeble barbs make it look that way too. Your earlier claims have been decimated. You can either concede that, or you can try to resuscitate them by offering some substantive posts, or you can stop posting altogether. I have repeatedly encouraged you to do the second of these, which should put to rest any thought that I am not willing to hear from people who disagree with me. At the same time, you haven't offered a single substantive post addressing the case I've made against sola scriptura and for the authoritativeness of Tradition. Many pages ago you mentioned two bits of Scripture, both of which--it has been shown--you either misunderstood or misrepresented.

So, Tom, you can either continue with the feeble little barbs and snide remarks, or you can try your hand at a meaty, substantive, grown-up vindication of the doctrine of sola scriptura. I'm fine either way: As things stand, it's obvious to anyone who reads this that you can't justify sola scriptura. If you choose to try your hand at what you so often claim to desire, to wit, "a serious discussion", then I win too, since I'd rather have one of those than watch a grown man embarrass himself. I've invited you to participate in a thoughtful conversation more times than I can remember, and I'm not going to ask anymore. You decide how you want to present yourself. You decide what you'd like people to take away from this thread about the merits of sola scriptura.

That's an interesting reading habit you've developed. Yikes!

You mean reading what you are saying?

I noticed that you last post was just a lengthy set of personally demeaning comments. Is that what you define as a detailed scholarly response?

But you offered no counter argument and simply told the responder that you were not going to continually repeat yourself. You offered no food for further discussion.

When I see the points that I raised addressed, I'll comment further.

Is that what you define as a detailed scholarly response?
You somehow missed all his other ones over the previous several pages?

I did respond. The responses were to deny that the reference said "complete" or to promote the responders denomination. Not compelling.

Ooh, that's a wopper!

No one ever denied that the reference said "complete". On the contrary, I have shown several times that you were distorting the use of the word "complete", that the Scripture you quoted did not say--what you claimed it said--that Scripture is "complete"; it said that Scripture is "profitable". The word "complete" was not used the way you said it was. And once that was pointed out to you, you offered no further explanation of or justification for your reading. This is likely because you quite rightly saw, once it was pointed out to you, that you had misunderstood the passage. There's no shame in making a mistake. But there is shame in continuing to insist that your point wasn't addressed (it was addressed by being shown--in a detailed way--to be in error). And there is shame in claiming that anyone denied that the passage included the word "complete": I have acknowledged several times that it did include the word "complete"; I did so in the course of demonstrating that you had either misunderstood or misrepresenting what the passage was saying.

What isn't compelling picking up your toys and going home because you lost a game. And this is what your recent posts amount to: You lost the game and are pouting, complaining that the other kids aren't playing fair, that they are cheating. You don't want to play anymore because you can't win the game. This would be funny but for the fact that this isn't a game: We are adults discussing Scripture. I should think you'd be more interested in the truth, in deepening your understanding of Scripture, than in winning an argument. As I've said many, many times, if you have a case to make for sola scriptura, a case that doesn't rely on the Scriptures you have already been shown to have misunderstood, then please, by all means, make it. If not, why continue to post feeble barbs every couple of hours? I've been enjoying my discussions with sndbay and Wondergirl and Joe. Don't feel obligated to stick around if you don't have anything to say.

Isa 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(KJV)

2 Pet 3:16
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)

Isa 28:9-10
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
(KJV)

Matt 4:4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(KJV)

Rev 22:19
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(KJV)

I see a lot of emphasis on what is WRITTEN in the Bible. These are onlya tiny part of verses that could be presented.

I reject any doctrine formulated after the Apostles passed away. The Holy Spirit is the real author of what they wrote down, and is therefore trustworthy. All else is mere human conjecture and therefore extremely dangerous.

All else is mere human conjecture and therefore extremly dangerous.
Therefore, all Sunday Schools and adult Bible classes are to shut down immediately. Any teaching of doctrine in parochial schools and Christian colleges is to be stopped. Neighborhood Bible studies are verboten.

The assumption is on your part to think they are not the ONLY traditions. Our Father is clear to say nothing of HIS Word is to be changed or added to it.

No, I don't think that is an assumption on my part. The Scriptures I listed affirm the authoritativeness of oral Tradition. I am acknowledging what Scripture itself acknowledges: There are Traditions that aren't written in Scripture. Since Tradition is no less the word of God than is Scripture, upholding and abiding by Tradition isn't adding to or changing it.


My assumption is based on what is written.. Scripture is complete and we should hold stedfast in what God intended as the traditions he ordained without changing them or adding to them..

Where is it written that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people? I've already addressed 2Tim.3--the passage Tom cited earlier--and that verse is clearly not saying that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It says that Scripture is profitable. Is that the Scripture you have in mind when you say that Scripture is complete, or do you have another one in mind?

As far as the completeness of Scripture is concerned: If what is meant by this is that we should not alter Scripture, with this I agree. We should not, for instance, remove verses or add words to verses, etc. But I know of no place in Scripture where we are unambiguously told that Scripture is the sole standard and authority. I have, however, pointed to several places in Scripture where we are told that oral Tradition is authoritative.


1 Thessalonians 2:13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Exactly! Oral Tradition is no less divinely inspired than is Scripture.


Where does it say word of mouth... Scripture is in reference to the inspiration of God.. His Word and His Will.
(Man can't write or by oral mouth word, make his own bible up for people to follow.)

We don't need to make up a Bible. We already have one. But 1Thess.2.13, which you just quoted, thanks God that they received the word of God which they heard. Oral teaching transmitted orally. This is Tradition.


Difficult to find fellowship that hasn't attempted their own ways in some method. Give me one that you feel has held to God's Will?(Different thread someday).

I agree that this would make for an interesting thread topic. If you start a thread on it I'd love to join you in discussing it.


And you must note that Paul added as commanded--> (2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. )

So we must not go in fellowship with any that teach disorderly or that hold traditions not after that which they provided in scripture for us.

Here you've read your own assumption into Scripture when you say that the traditions are "provided in Scripture". Scripture clearly indicates that there is an oral Tradition to which we are beholden. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the whole of God's revelation is limited to Scripture and that none of it is to be found in oral Tradition that isn't also found in Scripture. What's more, Scripture repeatedly refers to oral teachings, oral Tradition, and instructs us to uphold it and abide by it.

You somehow missed all his other ones over the previous several pages?

I have responded many times. Now if you want to keep talking about a response instead of actually discussing the topic, then we are not likely to get very far are we?

Ooh, that's a wopper!

Ho hum. Is that your "scholarly" response?


No one ever denied that the reference said "complete". On the contrary, I have shown several times that you were distorting the use of the word "complete", that the Scripture you quoted did not say--what you claimed it said--that Scripture

I responded to that - did you bother to read my response?


What isn't compelling picking up your toys and going home because you lost a game...

This is the way that it always goes. When you won't or cannot deal with the issue, or it doesn't go the way that you want, you post demeaning comments about others, then the thread gets shut down.

I have responded many times. Now if you want to keep talking about a response instead of actually discussing the topic, then we are not likely to get very far are we?
You have not responded "many times" except to mewl.

I'll discuss if you will. In fact, I have been with those who have something to say. I eagerly await your comments in reply to Akoue.

I'll discuss if you will. In fact, I have been with those who have something to say.

I have never stopped being willing - look back at who turned this personal.

Feel free to start discussing anytime.

Tom, do you have any thoughts on this:

[quote Originally Posted by galveston]
All else is mere human conjecture and therefore extremely dangerous.

[quote = WG]Therefore, all Sunday Schools and adult Bible classes are to shut down immediately. Any teaching of doctrine in parochial schools and Christian colleges is to be stopped. Neighborhood Bible studies are verboten.

Tom, do you have any thoughts on this:

[quote Originally Posted by galveston]
All else is mere human conjecture and therefore extremly dangerous.


Therefore, all Sunday Schools and adult Bible classes are to shut down immediately. Any teaching of doctrine in parochial schools and Christian colleges is to be stopped. Neighborhood Bible studies are verboten.

I don't see see any logical connection between his comment and your response.

I also don't see that you have dealt with my comments on 2 Tim 3:15-16.

Here, let me post my original comment again and see if you have any comments on that:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.

There is your chance to discuss.

This is exactly what happens in Lutheranland (Protestantland also?). Despite a minister's leadership and confirmation/membership teaching, despite weekly Sunday School and adult Bible classes, despite his regular contact with parishioners, there really is no "one mind" about what the Bible teaches and what Lutherans believe. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone in one of my adult Bible classes told me, "I never thought that passage meant that" or "I have never understood that passage that way" or "Our teacher at X Church explained it this way."

It all begins at the seminary where men come together to learn/relearn the basics of doctrine and to supposedly get on the same page as pastors, but, since each is coming from a different place and because there is a freedom of interpretation to some extent, all don't end up graduating on the same page. Despite sola scriptura, the Book of Concord, and the three ecumenical Creeds, Lutherans even disagree about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Theological conservatives use the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation, while theological liberals use the higher critical method. That right there makes for major confusion. (I personally experienced the dichotomy in college when I took classes from both conservative as well as liberal professors. About that same time, a liberal faction broke off from (or were kicked out of) the very conservative M-S Lutheran Synod to form Lutherans in Exile which eventually became part of ELCA).

Gee thanks. This is one issue I've been addressing for almost 2 years now - along comes Akoue and from one post all of a sudden you seem to be catching on. Says, a lot for me doesn't it!

Either way, this one of the reasons in the early Church used a patristic form governance for its corporate body. Heresies seemed to run amuck for the first several hundred years of the Church, a period in which the body of Christ was becoming incorporated under the yoke of Caesar .


This mixed interpretation that has continued to exist came clear to me when my all-time favorite minister posed a question to our Lutheran congregation (350 parishioners): "If you were to die tonight, why would God allow you into His heaven?" The answers he got back were amazingly diverse (and often non-Lutheran). Most of them did not mention any of the three Solas, the core of Lutheranism. Many said that faith and works or merely their good works would be their ticket into heaven. Some did not believe they would go to heaven or even that there is a heaven.

Apparently the charge, taken literally, to "work out your own salvation" has created not only a huge number of Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones. For instance, the conservative Lutheran bodies practice what's known as "close communion" (refusing to commune anyone the pastor does not know and who has not spoken with him before the service), and the more liberal ones open their pulpits to ministers from other denominations/religions and communion to anyone who approaches the altar. There are a number of other differences.

Obviously sola scriptura with no church Tradition/authority alongside it opens the door to dangerous private interpretations of the Scriptures.

In what has been written above I sense something that I'm not quite sure about. I get the impression that WG doesn't see Lutheranism as Protestantism. Is this unique in your thinking or do most other Lutherans see it the same way? I'd be interested in an explanation as how this is rationalized? I'm just curious; I've always thought of Lutheranism as Protestant, in fact the first of Protestantism.

JoeT

Gee thanks. This is one issue I’ve been addressing for almost 2 years now - along comes Akoue and from one post all of a sudden you seem to be catching on. Says, a lot for me doesn’t it!
Well, he DOES have a way with words.

Heresies seemed to run amuck for the first several hundred years of the Church, a period in which the body of Christ was becoming incorporated under the yoke of martyrs.
Precisely!

In what has been written above I sense something that I’m not quite sure about. I get the impression that WG doesn’t see Lutheranism as Protestantism. Is this unique in your thinking or do most other Lutherans see it the same way? I’d be interested in an explanation as how this is rationalized? I’m just curious; I’ve always thought of Lutheranism as Protestant, in fact the first of Protestantism.
I was only pointing out that even Lutherans cannot agree from one synod to the next, much less from one member to the next. So what does that say about Protestantism and sola scriptura?

There are Traditions that aren't written in Scripture.

Traditions not written in scripture? Then you have man made tradtions ..



Since Tradition is no less the word of God than is Scripture, upholding and abiding by Tradition isn't adding to or changing it.

(abiding in traditions that are written in scripture are to be held stedfast)



Where is it written that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people? I've already addressed 2Tim.3--the passage Tom cited earlier--and that verse is clearly not saying that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It says that Scripture is profitable. Is that the Scripture you have in mind when you say that Scripture is complete, or do you have another one in mind?

Exartly the scripture which is complete.. scripture is the complete authority.. because God is the authority in all that is written.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture given by inspiration of God, 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.

note to profitable:
1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

God called according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given in Christ Jesus before the world began.. (2 Timothy 1:9)



As far as the completeness of Scripture is concerned: If what is meant by this is that we should not alter Scripture, with this I agree. We should not, for instance, remove verses or add words to verses, etc. But I know of no place in Scripture where we are unambiguously told that Scripture is the sole standard and authority. I have, however, pointed to several places in Scripture where we are told that oral Tradition is authoritative.


So if you are saying the traditions that are written in scripture then we agree.



Exactly! Oral Tradition is no less divinely inspired than is Scripture.

We don't need to make up a Bible. We already have one. But 1Thess.2.13, which you just quoted, thanks God that they received the word of God which they [I]heard. Oral teaching transmitted orally. This is Tradition.

If you hold to scripture which oral traditions were then writtenin scripture, and shown to ensample us.. Then we agree , but you are not saying that...

There is your chance to discuss.
Akoue and the others have done a fine job discussing that passage. My concern is with the merits or failings of sola scriptura.

Akoue and the others have done a fine job discussing that passage.

And failed to deal with the points that I raised. I thought that you said that you were interested in discussing


My concern is with the merits or failings of sola scriptura.

The question is not what the judgments of man are on God's word, but rather whether we are to depend upon on God's word as the standard.

That is the topic of this thread (look at the title).

Now your comments on 2 Tim are?

That is the topic of this thread (look at the title).
Yes, sola scriptura is the topic -- Scripture as the standard. And I have responded.

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

And this is nothing with which anyone has disagreed: The Scriptures instruct us (in this translation "make us wise") in salvation. Of course they do. But here's what this doesn't say: It doesn't say that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It doesn't say that there is nothing to be learned except from the Scriptures. In particular, it doesn't say that we have no need of the instruction of oral Tradition--which makes sense, since I have listed numerous Scriptures, which you still refuse to discuss, which plainly assert that we are to be instructed by oral Tradition.


16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Again, this is nothing with which anyone here has disagreed. So far as I know, everyone who has participated in the present discussion believes that Scripture is divinely inspired and that it is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. I have explicitly recorded my assent (when I responded to your earlier posting of this text) that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness thoroughly equip us for good works. I even explicitly addressed the word "complete": These things--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--render us completely equipped for good works; they give us the whole toolkit, all the resources we need in order to do good works. (Is this sounding familiar? It should since I've said it all before, in response to your quoting of this very passage.)


It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

It says that Scripture is "profitable". Notice what it doesn't say: It doesn't say that Scripture is sufficient. It doesn't, in other words, say that Scripture supplies us with all that is necessary for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It says that it is profitable for these purposes. As indeed it is. No one has disagreed with that. You seem to want to read "profitable" as "sufficient" for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. But that's not what it says.

So while it is true that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness make us thoroughly equipped for good works (NOTE: for good works, not for salvation), they are all the things we need in order to be completely prepared to do good works, it doesn't say that Scripture is all we need for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. So, as I've shown earlier, you have either misunderstood or misrepresented this passage. It does not provide any justification for the doctrine of sola scriptura.


As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.

I'm not worried about the issue about what "the church" means right now. Let's stay on-topic and reserve discussion of this for another thread.

So there: I have once again addressed your point, demonstrating yet again that you are mistaken to suppose that this passage supports the doctrine of sola scriptura. How about if you return the favor and address the points I have made, beginning at post #28. In particular, please provide Scriptural evidence to support the doctrine of sola scriptura.

The question is not what the judgments of man are on God's word, but rather whether we are to depend upon on God's word as the standard.

Everyone agrees that God's word is the standard: God's word speaks to us through the medium of Scripture and through the medium of Tradition. Why do you reject all that God's word has to say to us through the medium of Tradition? Since Tradition is no less God's word than is Scripture, why do you reject it, and by doing so reject God's word?

I was only pointing out that even Lutherans cannot agree from one synod to the next, much less from one member to the next. So what does that say about Protestantism and sola scriptura?

It had nothing to do with sola scriputra. I just thought I read something of a distinction between Lutherans and Protestants in your previous post. Apparently I wasn’t reading it correctly or was reading too much into the statement: “Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones”

JoeT

But here's what this doesn't say: It doesn't say that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It doesn't say that there is nothing to be learned except from the Scriptures.

If it tells us everything that we need to know for salvation and to be fully equipped as a Christians, what do you think God neglected to add? Please be specific - what is deficient about scripture?

Traditions not written in scripture? Then you have man made tradtions ..

Not at all. Scripture itself (as I have shown) refers to Tradition that is not written in Scripture. Tradition is every bit as much the word of God as Scripture is. Scripture even tells us so.


(abiding in traditions that are written in scripture are to be held stedfast)

We are to abide by and uphold the whole of God's word, whether it is written in the Bible or given to us by Tradition. None of God's word is dispensable.


Exartly the scripture which is complete.. scripture is the complete authority.. because God is the authority in all that is written.

I'll do you one better: God is the authority in all that is written and all that is not written. As I've pointed out more times than I can count (and I've provided lots of Scripture to boot), oral Tradition is part of God's revelation; it, like Scripture, is authoritative in matters of doctrine and discipline. Nowhere does Scripture tell us that it is the sole authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. And I have shown you Scripture that affirms the authoritativeness of oral Tradition.



2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, 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.

note to profitable:

See my discussion of this passage in my response to Tom a couple of posts ago.


1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

God called according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given in Christ Jesus before the world began.. (2 Timothy 1:9)

I haven't said anything that is at odds with this.





So if you are saying the traditions that are written in scripture then we agree.



If you hold to scripture which oral traditions were then writtenin scripture, and shown to ensample us.. Then we agree , but you are not saying that...

I am saying that we must abide both by what is in Scripture and what God chose to reveal by way of oral Tradition. Again, I have provided numerous Scriptures which affirm that we are to abide by and uphold oral Tradition as well as Scripture. So, no, I am not saying that we are only beholden to what is written in Scripture. I am saying that we are beholden to all of God's revelation, whether contained in Scripture or in oral Tradition. Christ taught orally; the Apostles taught both orally and by writing; we ought not to reject any of what they taught, whether they wrote it down or not.

If it tells us everything that we need to know for salvation and to be fully equipped as a Christians, what do you think God neglected to add? Please be specific - what is deficient about scripture?

It precisely does not say that Scripture tells us everything we need to know for salvation. Neither does it say that Scripture provides us with everything that we need to know in order to be "fully equipped as Christians". It says that it is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It is these--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--that "fully equip us". It doesn't say that Scripture is sufficient, all on its own, for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It says that Scripture is profitable for these. Notice also that it doesn't say that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness are sufficient for salvation; it says that these are sufficient for doing good works.

I don't think God neglected anything. I think it is quite clear that you have misunderstood what God is saying here. Apparently you think that this should say that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. But it doesn't say that at all, as you have repeatedly been shown.

So I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient. It is perfectly suited to be what it is: A standard of truth and an authority in matters of doctrine and discipline, ordained by God to function with and alongside Tradition.

I have now repeatedly answered your questions. Are you ever going to answer mine? Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you? Why do you reject all that God has revealed to his people through the medium of Tradition? Do you feel that God erred in providing is with Tradition in addition to Scripture? Did Jesus and the Apostles err when then taught orally? Should Christ have written a book rather than preaching to the people of the Galilee? Why do you think it beneath you to obey Scripture when it tells us to honor the authority of Tradition and to uphold it and abide by it?

That is the topic of this thread (look at the title).


Yes, sola scriptura is the topic -- Scripture as the standard. And I have responded.

No the proposition asks what is 'standard'. The question deliberately omits the assumption that 'standard' means 'sola scriptura'

Then it goes on to ask what is the definition of 'standard' and asks what it might be. 'Standard' doesn't exist in this context in 'Church doctrine' nor does it appear in Catholic literature. Frankly, I don't have anything with which to compare 'standard'.

JoeT

It precisely does not say that Scripture tells us everything we need to know for salvation.

2 Tim 3:15-16
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV


Neither does it say that Scripture provides us with everything that we need to know in order to be "fully equipped as Christians".

2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV


I don't think God neglected anything.


I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient.

Then it is complete.


I have now repeatedly answered your questions.

Not true


Are you ever going to answer mine?

I have repeatedly.


Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you? I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient.

That is not a question - that is a misrepresentation.

But the real question is why do you want to add to God written word with man's tradition?

2 Tim 3:15-16
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

When this statement was made, there was no New Testament. Then we can conclude that the Septuagint makes us wise for salvation. But, nowhere in the statement does it say that it and it alone it authoritatively authenticates Scripture.




2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

This makes a case for 'good works' is that the intent. But, again it doesn't authenticate the Scriptures nor does it say 'Scriptures is the sole arbiter of God's revelations to man'.





I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient.

Then it is complete.

More disingenuous gamesmanship, this is far from honest discussion, but expected. Scripture is complete as God wanted in the time that it was written. Since then God has revealed through the Church other revelations, such as the Trinity.


Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you? Christ commissioned the Church of Jesus Christ, why do you find Her unworthy of you?

JoeT

When this statement was made, there was no New Testament.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

- Are you trying to say that you are not aware of the books of the NT that were written at this point in time?

- Are you claiming that the NT is not scripture?

- Are you claiming that when God inspired this that He did not know that the NT was part of His overall revelation?

- Are you claiming that the OT does not provide adequate revelation?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your point.



Then we can conclude that the Septuagint makes us wise for salvation.

You seem hung on on this specific translation of the Bible. I have asked you why but you won't answer. Maybe you are not aware that it is only a translation.



This makes a case for ‘good works’ is that the intent.

Good works as a result of what God works in us after we are saved, I agree.



But, again it doesn’t authenticate the Scriptures nor does it say ‘Scriptures is the sole arbiter of God’s revelations to man’.

It does not say that it provides everything that we need to know about salvation and make a man of God complete and thoroughly equipped.

What do you think that God missed?


Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you?

First, why do you mis-represent what I have said? Is that the only way to defend your position?


Christ commissioned the Church of Jesus Christ, why do you find Her unworthy of you?

I don't. But the true church is not a denomination as you seem to believe it is.

2 Tim 3:15-16
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Right. Where in this pericope do you find it saying that Scripture teaches us everything we need to know about doctrine and discipline? Rather than repeatedly quoting a passage you have been shown to misunderstand, why don't you try explaining how from this you get the idea that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline.

Is it because you have nothing to say in defense of your interpretation. (And yes, we have established that it is very definietly an interpretation.)



2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Yes, as we've seen, doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness thoroughly and completely equip us for good works. Scripture, as it tells us in the bit you've edited out, is "profitable" for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.


Then it is complete.

It is not deficient. It is perfectly suited to complement Tradition, as Tradition is perfectly suited to complement Scripture. Here's what is deficient, though: Your use (which is really a misuse) of Scripture to the neglect of Tradition. It is your use, and hence your understanding of Scripture that is--and has been shown to be--deficient.

If by "complete" you mean that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people and the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline, then no, Scripture itself tells us that is it not complete in that way when it affirms the authority of Tradition and instructs us to uphold and abide by it.


Not true

I've done little else in my recent posts than answer your questions. If you feel that I have not, then you should indicate which questions you believe me to have left unanswered. Otherwise, this just looks like still more petulance.


I have repeatedly.

You haven't answered the questions I posed in my last response to you. You haven't addressed the passages I adduced in post #28. You haven't given any Scriptural justification for the canon of Scripture you use. In fact, I can't off the top of my head think of any substantive questions of mine that you have answered. This is something other posters have also pointed out to you, so I know it isn't just me. Honestly, your avoidance says a good deal more than you might like it to. Let's put this to bed: Why don't you indicate the post #'s of your answers to my questions. You've urged Wondergirl to read back through the thread. Why don't you take some time to read back through the thread and make a list. Then you can post it. Be sure to indicate the posts where you take yourself to have answered my questions, all the questions you have posed to me which you feel I have ignored, and include your answers to any questions I have asked of you and which you have yet to answer. It will be a good little discipline for you. Help you get centered.


That is not a question - that is a misrepresentation.

How is it any less reasonable a question than you're asking me why I find Scripture to be deficient? (In fact, you put it in a rather more petulant way than that.) You have rejected the authoritativeness of oral Tradition, despite Scriptures unambiguous affirmation of it. Why do you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you? And why do you choose to disobey the Scriptures by rejecting oral Tradition?


But the real question is why do you want to add to God written word with man's tradition?

I don't. I want to do what Scripture repeatedly requires: I want to honor God's Tradition. I have no interest in traditions of men, you know, like sola scriptura.

Now, since 2Tim.3 doesn't give credence to your man-made tradition of sola scriptura, perhaps you ought to spend some time thinking deeply about the numerous Scriptures which affirm the authority of oral Tradition and instruct us to uphold and abide by it. Your error has been shown to you. What you do with that is up to you.

You seem hung on on this specific translation of the Bible. I have asked you why but you won't answer. Maybe you are not not aware that it is only a translation.

I can think of at least one great reason to be hung up on it: It was used by Christ and the Apostles and is repeatedly quoted and referred to in the NT. And I'm sure you know that first century Jews did not regard it as "only a translation". I'm also sure you know that early Christians did not regard it as "only a translation": It was the preferred version of the OT for the reason that it was felt that, after the advent of Christianity, the rabbis removed and altered numerous verses of the OT in order to undermine Christians' claim that Christ was the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

I'm sure you know all that. I mention it only for the benefit of those who may read this thread and who are unaware of it.

Right. Where in this pericope do you find it saying that Scripture teaches us everything we need to know about doctrine and discipline?

Please read it.


Yes, as we've seen, doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness thoroughly and completely equip us for good works. Scripture, as it tells us in the bit you've edited out, is "profitable" for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

It seems that you focus in on that one word and ignore the rest of the passage.



It is not deficient.

Then it is complete



If by "complete" you mean that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people and the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline, then no,

Read what it says:

2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Does it say partly equipped? Does it say not equipped? Does it say that he is almost equipped?



Scripture itself tells us that is it not complete in that way when it affirms the authority of Tradition and instructs us to uphold and abide by it.

This is what I was saying earlier. Scripture says that it provides what it needed, you say not. But when asked what it is missing, you won't tell us.


You haven't answered the questions I posed in my last response to you.

You mean your mis-representations? Why do you feel that I must defend what I post as a strawman to mis-represent my views?


Honestly, your avoidance says a good deal more than you might like it to.

Your abuse says a great deal more. If a person really felt that they were in the right, abuse would not be required. Mis-representations would not be required.



How is it any less reasonable a question than you're asking me why I find Scripture to be deficient?

You said that it is not complete. You said it in your last post even. It is only when you are asked what it is missing that you deny it.

I can think of at least one great reason to be hung up on it: It was used by Christ and the Apostles and is repeatedly quoted and referred to in the NT. And I'm sure you know that first century Jews did not regard it as "only a translation".

So you think that the OT was originally in Greek?

It had nothing to do with sola scriputra. I just thought I read something of a distinction between Lutherans and Protestants in your previous post. Apparently I wasn’t reading it correctly or was reading too much into the statement: “Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones”
What was trying to say was that, not only are there Protestant divisions (of which one is Lutheran), but even the Lutherans are divided.

So you think that the OT was originally in Greek?
You're kidding, right?

You're kidding, right?

It is not me who is saying that the Septuagint is something more than a translation of the Bible.

It is not me who is saying that the Septuagint is something more than a translation of the Bible.
No one said that. This was said about it:

It was used by Christ and the Apostles and is repeatedly quoted and referred to in the NT. And I'm sure you know that first century Jews did not regard it as "only a translation".

Please read it.

Mindless repetition isn't going to change what it says. It isn't going to make it say what it doesn't. And what it doesn't say is that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. And it makes perfect sense that it doesn't say that since, as the dozen or so verses I provided in post #28 make evident, Scripture isn't the sole authority and standard of truth. It shares that honor with Tradition.


It seems that you focus in on that one word and ignore the rest of the passage.


Not at all. I've explained the entire passage several times now. You appear to be having difficulty coming to grips with the fact that it doesn't say what you want it to.


Then it is complete

Nope, not in the sense of "complete" that you have in mind. It isn't the complete revelation of God, it isn't by itself complete as the authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It is the perfect companion of Tradition, just as it was intended to be. And so it isn't deficient either. It is the perfect complement to Tradition, as Tradition is the perfect complement to Scripture. Do you find that God's Tradition is dispensable or inadequate? If not, why not acknowldege it?


Read what it says:

2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Does it say partly equipped? Does it say not equipped? Does it say that he is almost equipped?

No, it says that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--those things for which it says Scripture is profitable--make one completely and thoroughly equipped to do good works. Have I not said it enough times yet? Are you insisting on repetition because you know it will get the thread closed?


This is what I was saying earlier. Scripture says that it provides what it needed, you say not. But when asked what it is missing, you won't tell us.

Scripture doesn't say that it provides all that is needed. 2Tim.3.16-17 says that what is needed is doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and that Scripture is profitable for these.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what is missing". If you mean, What else is there for us to know in addition to what is contained in Scripture? then my answer is this: What Scripture refers to when it refers to oral Tradition.


You said that it is not complete. You said it in your last post even. It is only when you are asked what it is missing that you deny it.

Scripture contains all that God intended it to contain. Tradition contains all that God intended it to contain. Together they contain all that God has chosen to reveal to his people.

What was trying to say was that, not only are there Protestant divisions (of which one is Lutheran), but even the Lutherans are divided.

Yeah I got it! I know about subdivisions, planned developments, and all kinds of zoning issues.

JoeT

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

- Are you trying to say that you are not aware of the books of the NT that were written at this point in time?

- Are you claiming that the NT is not scripture?

- Are you claiming that when God inspired this that He did not know that the NT was part of His overall revelation?

- Are you claiming that the OT does not provide adequate revelation?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your point.



You seem hung on on this specific translation of the Bible. I have asked you why but you won't answer. Maybe you are not not aware that it is only a translation.



Good works as a result of what God works in us after we are saved, I agree.



It does not say that it provides everything that we need to know about salvation and make a man of God complete and thoroughly equipped.

What do you think that God missed?



First, why do you mis-represent what I have said? Is that the only way to defend your position?



I don't. But the true church is not a denomination as you seem to believe it is.


This thread was spacifically started so you could define for us what "standard of Truth" is. You've yet to do it. Can we define it ourselves?

JoeT

No one said that.

Deny if you wish.

Mindless repetition isn't going to change what it says.

Exactly my view. I would a[ppreciate it if you would start interacting on the points at hand.


Scripture isn't the sole authority and standard of truth. It shares that honor with Tradition.

Saying it does not make it so.


Not at all. I've explained the entire passage several times now.

You have told us what you believe, but you have not addressed the questions put to you regarding what it actually says.



Nope, not in the sense of "complete" that you have in mind.

We are making progress - for once you admit that it says "complete" :)



It isn't the complete revelation of God, it isn't by itself complete as the authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline.

You opinion does not hold the same authority as scripture.

Once again, what exactly do you think scripture is missing? In what way is it deficient?


Do you find that God's Tradition is dispensable or inadequate? If not, why not acknowldege it?

I answered this before - God tradition is written down in scripture. Now, what do you
Think God left out of scripture? In what way is it lacking?


I'm not sure what you mean by "what is missing". If you mean, What else is there for us to know in addition to what is contained in Scripture? then my answer is this: What Scripture refers to when it refers to oral Tradition.

Oral tradition is not mentioned in scripture as separate from the written word of God. And you did not answer the question. What specifically (specifics doctrine, specifics of the gospel, what exactly) is missing from the Bible that you believe is essential?

This thread was spacifically started so you could define for us what "standard of Truth" is. You've yet to do it.

How many times must I say it - The Bible.


There - bold, underlined and in colour - see it?

Oral tradition is not mentioned in scripture as separate from the written word of God.

I listed a dozen or so examples where oral Tradition is mentioned in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that everything that was taught orally was eventually written down. Since what was written down refers to teachings that were not written down, and affirms their authoritativeness, your assumption that there is no oral Tradition apart from what was written is just that, an assumption, and one that is gainsayed by the written word itself.


And you did not answer the question. What specifically (specifics doctrine, specifics of the gospel, what exactly) is missing from the Bible that you believe is essential?

Here's one example that leaps to mind: An answer to the question, "Which books are to be included in the Bible?"

I listed a dozen or so examples where oral Tradition is mentioned in Scripture.

Many of those references have nothing to do with oral tradition. And I did not deny that there is a reference, but what I said was "Oral tradition is not mentioned in scripture as separate from the written word of God."


Nowhere in Scripture does it say that everything that was taught orally was eventually written down.

Scripture says not to go beyond what is written, and it does say that what the Apostles taught was in written form.



And you did not answer the question. What specifically (specifics doctrine, specifics of the gospel, what exactly) is missing from the Bible that you believe is essential?
Here's one example that leaps to mind: An answer to the question, "Which books are to be included in the Bible?"

I can only assume that you are denying prophetical revelation (and some books are defined as scripture inside the Bible itself), but regardless, all Christians agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally in the canon, so unless you are denying the canon, this is not the question at hand.

You said that the Bible was not complete on the essentials of the Christian faith - please be specific. If that is the best that you can do, then clearly all the doctrinal essentials and the complete gospel would be in the Bible.

How many times must I say it - The Bible.


There - bold, underlined and in colour - see it?

So, according to the Tj3 "Standard of Truth" we are to worship a Book?

And since we all worship a book, including your denomination, and it is the TRUTH of God, then why are you not Catholic?

JoeT

So, according to the Tj3 "Standard of Truth" we are to worship a Book?

Ah, there you go slipping back into mis-representation again. No, Joe, we are not to worship books, pray to dead people, worship statues, call people gods, or in any other way take away from God reverence and exaltation that belongs solely to God.


And since we all worship a book, including your denomination, and it is the TRUTH of God, then why are you not Catholic?

You worship a book? That is interesting.

I am not even a member of a denomination.

I am not Catholic because I accept what the Bible says.

Many of those references have nothing to do with oral tradition. And I did not deny that there is a reference, but what I said was "Oral tradition is not mentioned in scripture as separate from the written word of God."

Perhaps you could unpack this a bit for us. What exactly do you mean when you say that it is not mentioned as separate? I ask because on the most obvious construal this is just plain false. But you may have something rather different in mind, so please, in the interests of clarity and precision, explain a bit more fully what you mean.


Scripture says not to go beyond what is written, and it does say that what the Apostles taught was in written form.

Well, why don't you bring the verses forward in your preferred translation so that we can all discuss them.


I can only assume that you are denying prophetical revelation (and some books are defined as scripture inside the Bible itself), but regardless, all Christians agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally in the canon, so unless you are denying the canon, this is not the question at hand.

I'm a little unclear about what you are saying here. How have I committed myself to the denial of prophetical revelation?

Let's take the books of the NT? 2Pet. Indicates that some of Paul's writings were already regarded as Scripture (I mentioned this in an earlier post), but it doesn't tell us which ones. Maybe all of them. Maybe the lost one. It doesn't tell us. How about the other NT books? Where in the NT are we told which books are to be included in the NT?

And, of course, Christians disagree about the number of books that belong to the canon. Difference in canon can, and does, give rise to difference in doctrine. So I would say that, yes, this is absolutely an important part of the question at hand.


You said that the Bible was not complete on the essentials of the Christian faith - please be specific. If that is the best that you can do, then clearly all the doctrinal essentials and the complete gospel would be in the Bible.

Well, the Bible itself tells us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. So this is prima facie evidence that we ought to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. Also, the Bible doesn't tell us that the whole of God's revelation to his people is exhausted by the Bible. So this also is prima facie reason to regard the doctrine of sola scriptura as erroneous.


You said that the Bible was not complete on the essentials of the Christian faith - please be specific. If that is the best that you can do, then clearly all the doctrinal essentials and the complete gospel would be in the Bible.

Oh, I think the canon of Scripture is of paramount importance. And I most certainly do regard it as an essential matter. It is, after all, the inspired word of God. Getting the canon right is vital. It's a good thing God gave us Tradition to aid us in this.

Perhaps you could unpack this a bit for us. What exactly do you mean when you say that it is not mentioned as separate?

It is written down in the Bible.



I'm a little unclear about what you are saying here. How have I committed myself to the denial of prophetical revelation?

You appear to feel that the definition of scripture is that of what men in your denomination determine it to be.



And, of course, Christians disagree about the number of books that belong to the canon.

Some denominations added some a few hundred years back, but the 66 books originally identified as canonical are accepted by all Christians.


Well, the Bible itself tells us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition.

Really - and you are sure that it says in addition to scripture?

It is written down in the Bible.

And where in Scripture does it say that everything taught orally by Christ and the Apostles was then written down in the Scriptures?


You appear to feel that the definition of scripture is that of what men in your denomination determine it to be.

I haven't said anything about any denominations. Neither have I said anything about which canon of Scripture is the right one. What I have done, repeatedly, is to ask you how you have arrived at the canon of Scripture that you use. After all, as has been pointed out numerous times, there is no book of Scripture that tells us which books are inspired by God and so belong to the canon. You still haven't answered the question.


Some denominations added some a few hundred years back, but the 66 books originally identified as canonical are accepted by all Christians.

Well, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the two earliest mss. Of the Christian Bible, and each contains books other than the 66 that you claim compose the entire canon. So leaving the grinding of denominational axes to one side, how did you arrive at the canon that you use?


Really - and you are sure that it says in addition to scripture?

We are explicitly instructed by Scripture to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all that Christ and the Apostles taught was written down. If you wish to assume that the whole of God's revelation is written down and incorporated into the canon that you use, your can do so. But it is an assumption, and one that flies in the face of the unambiguous words of Scripture.

And where in Scripture does it say that everything taught orally by Christ and the Apostles was then written down in the Scriptures?

Akoue, you do so well as twisting what others say. I never said that.



I haven't said anything about any denominations. Neither have I said anything about which canon of Scripture is the right one.

You keep promoting denominational tradition.


What I have done, repeatedly, is to ask you how you have arrived at the canon of Scripture that you use.

How many times must I repeat it?


We are explicitly instructed by Scripture to uphold and abide by oral Tradition.

Show us where scripture says that we must add denominational traditions to Holy Scripture.


Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all that Christ and the Apostles taught was written down.

No it doesn't. Now show us where it says that the Bible is deficient in those item,s which are not written down and that which was not written down was essential for us.

In the spirit of The Standard:

Is Baptism a requirement for Redemption, a Sacrament?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Catholics believe that this verse, except for special cases, requires the Sacrament of Baptism.

Algorithm of Logic:

Believe + Baptize = saved
Or
NOT believe = NOT saved

Tom: Is it true that those with red hair don't need to be Baptized and are Saved by the Grace of red hair? And what does a logic algorithm? What does it mean that Baptism isn't required by the Gospels? I thought the Standard of Truth was the Bible? As I've shown Baptism is required. I don't understand?



JoeT

In the spirit of The Standard:
Is Baptism a requirement for Redemption, a Sacrament?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Catholics believe that this verse, except for special cases, requires the Sacrament of Baptism.

As any legitimate scholar will tell you, taking verses out of context is not an appropriate way to interpret scripture. Regardless, this is not the baptism thread - we already discussed this and this interpretation was soundly refuted.

As any legitimate scholar will tell you, taking verses out of context is not an appropriate way to interpret scripture. Regardless, this is not the baptism thread - we already discussed this and this interpretation was soundly refuted.

Oh, but it is a "Bible" thread. Remember, The Standard of Truth = Bible?


JoeT

Akoue, you do so well as twisting what others say. I never said that.

Perhaps if you made a little effort to be clear you wouldn't so often find yourself being misunderstood.

Please explain what you meant, since I can't make heads or tails of what you said.


You keep promoting denominational tradition.

What have I said that is denomination-specific? I have been talking about Scripture.


How many times must I repeat it?

Is it the thing about prophetic revelation? Did you receive a prophetic revelation? If that's not it then I have no idea what your answer is.


Show us where scripture says that we must add denominational traditions to Holy Scripture.

Who's twisting who? I've never come close to saying any such thing. I haven't said anything about any denominations.


No it doesn't. Now show us where it says that the Bible is deficient in those item,s which are not written down and that which was not written down was essential for us.

Well, Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. I gave you a bunch of Scriptures back at post #28. Sndbay inadvertently offered a couple more.

As for whether "the Bible is deficient in those items which are not written down": Yeah, well, if they aren't written down in Scripture then Scripture doesn't contain them, right? This is a tautology.

Perhaps if you made a little effort to be clear you wouldn't so often find yourself being misunderstood.

Akoue, it is odd that there are a very small number of people who consistently mis-represent what those who disagree with them say. And for that small group, no matter how often or how clearly things are stated, they always find a way to mis-represent and abuse.

Why don't you just quote what I actually said - perhaps doing so would help you to keep it straight.


What have I said that is denomination-specific? I have been talking about Scripture.

Perhaps you are forgetting once again. A few messages back you spoke about denominational Tradition, claiming that it was necessary in addition to God's word.

"Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. "


Well, Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. I gave you a bunch of Scriptures back at post #28.

I don't see any of those that state that. Why not post the verse that you think presents your strongest argument and let's have a look at it.


As for whether "the Bible is deficient in those items which are not written down": Yeah, well, if they aren't written down in Scripture then Scripture doesn't contain them, right? This is a tautology.

Scripture is only deficient if they are essentials. I am still awaiting your validation of this argument.

Perhaps you are forgetting once again. A few messages back you spoke about denominational Tradition, claiming that it was necessary in addition to God's word.

"Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. "

This mentions oral Tradition. It doesn't say anything about any denominations.


I don't see any of those that state that. Why not post the verse that you think presents your strongest argument and let's have a look at it.

This is just hand-waving. I explained, in detail and repeatedly, your error regarding 2Tim.3. If you think that I have misunderstood or misrepresented the Scriptures that I cited at #28 then, by all means, show that I am in error.


Scripture is only deficient if they are essentials. I am still awaiting your validation of this argument.

So you find Scripture distinguishing between essentials and inessentials? I don't. In fact, I would have thought that all of God's revelation, everything that Christ took the time to teach, is essential. So, if anything that Christ taught, if any part of God's revelation, is not contained in Scripture, then Scripture lacks something that is essential.

I don't know how to respond to your claim more fully until you validate the distinction you introduce between essential and inessentual parts of God's revelation. As I say, I have always been under the impression that the whole of it is essential.

This mentions oral Tradition. It doesn't say anything about any denominations.

What does? Only a small number of denominations reject the sufficiency of scripture to add their own traditions.


This is just hand-waving. I explained, in detail and repeatedly, your error regarding 2Tim.3.

You have told me your own private interpretation which says that the verse does not mean what it says. I don't find that compelling.



So you find Scripture distinguishing between essentials and inessentials? I don't.

You are the one claiming that scripture is missing essentials and thus is deficient. I keep asking you what you think that God omitted from scripture that we need to know, but for some reason you are not telling what your private interpretation is in that regard.

Is Baptism a requirement for Redemption, a Sacrament?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Catholics believe that this verse, except for special cases, requires the Sacrament of Baptism.

Algorithm of Logic:

Believe + Baptize = saved
Or
NOT believe = NOT saved

I thought the Standard of Truth was the Bible? As I've shown Baptism is required.


Added
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. 41 They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

So how can we say that baptism is a free Sacrament?



JoeT

In the spirit of The Standard:
Is Baptism a requirement for Redemption, a Sacrament?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Catholics believe that this verse, except for special cases, requires the Sacrament of Baptism.

As any legitimate scholar will tell you, taking verses out of context is not an appropriate way to interpret scripture. Regardless, this is not the baptism thread - we already discussed this and this interpretation was soundly refuted.



Added
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. 41 They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

So how can we say that baptism is a free Sacrament?

I don't know where you got your translation from but it is wrong:

Acts 2:38-39
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
NKJV

Now, once again, taking verses out of context is a wrong way to find truth, and this is not the baptism thread, so I can only assume that you are trying to distract from the topic at hand.

We have been through the topic of baptism before, and I would gladly do so again - start a new thread and let's discuss.

The Thread Question was:


Where does Scripture say it is the standard?

And, of what is Scripture the standard?

And if Scripture is the standard, shouldn't we be able to find that statement in Scripture?

All scripture which does include the teaching of traditions that had been spoken according to God's will, was profitable because it ensampled godliness. Also credited for reproof which equals conviction to the mind and heart ensamples godliness. And for correction and instruction of righteousness which is godliness.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture. Is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.


Godliness profits Life

************************************************** *********

Nothing done according to man's works! But by the saving grace of God who calls us according to HIS purpose, which was to gives us Christ Jesus before the world began... ordained from the beignning.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

************************************************** ***********

Let us acknowledge in conviction that Jesus said, it is written!

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

************************************************** ************

Let us acknowledge it says by hearing.... so it was spoken.... But it say hearing/spoken (by the word of God)...
Thus what is spoken by the word of God, which was obviously written in scripture as Jesus pointed out in saying (it is written that man lives by every word of God.)

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

************************************************** ************

Now ask yourself what is the WORD of GOD?

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Christ is: the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is The Word of God

************************************************** ************

There is no other word spoken, nor is there any other traditions spoken, That profits anyone in godliness!

Scripture is THE WORD of GOD = CHRIST JESUS = Complete



* red is the blood shed for us, and all Christ fulfilled for us




(unless we plan to follow man and not Christ?) choice..

Therefore, all Sunday Schools and adult Bible classes are to shut down immediately. Any teaching of doctrine in parochial schools and Christian colleges is to be stopped. Neighborhood Bible studies are verboten.

I believe you have misunderstood me. What I''m saying is that all instruction must be solidly based on Scripture.

Why would that eliminate Sunday School, etc.

I want to call attention to something.

Jesus did NOT use tradition in His teaching. Everything He taught was based in the Law and Prophets, all written down. In fact, Jesus did not present anything that was outside of the Law and Prophets.

God has provided us with WRITINGS for our guidance. When you move outside of that, then man's ideas can be substituted, and after a time become accpted simply because the idea is of long standing.

It makes no difference when an idea was presented, if it does not agree with what God has inspired, it is wrong, and therefore dangerous.

I believe you have misunderstood me. What I''m saying is that all instruction must be solidly based on Scripture.

Why would that eliminate Sunday School, etc.?
How much creative teaching is being done that misrepresents or causes misunderstanding of what the Scriptures actually say? Were the shepherds and Wise Men at the manger at the same time? I bet 85-90% of Christians believe so (but they weren't). Does a day in Genesis 1 mean a 24-hour period? Some Christian teachers/pastors believe yes, and others no. Are there mistakes in the Bible? Some SS teachers/pastors say yes, others no.

Sit in on several SS classes or adult Bible studies at a Christian church not in your denomination and let me know what you find out.

I want to call attention to something.

Jesus did NOT use tradition in His teaching. Everything He taught was based in the Law and Prophets, all written down. In fact, Jesus did not present anything that was outside of the Law and Prophets.

God has provided us with WRITINGS for our guidance. When you move outside of that, then man's ideas can be substituted, and after a time become accpted simply because the idea is of long standing.

It makes no difference when an idea was presented, if it does not agree with what God has inspired, it is wrong, and therefore dangerous.

Absolutely. Anytime that Jesus was in a discussion on doctrine and needed to validate a point of doctrine, He referred to the scriptures - never to tradition.

How much creative teaching is being done that misrepresents or causes misunderstanding of what the Scriptures actually say?

What you are arguing against here is the same concern that I have. People who go outside of what the Bible teaches by adding to or altering what the word says. That is the problem with denominational tradition that others on here are defending.

But if you are suggesting that every Sunday School and Bible Study in the country is doing that, then I would suggest that you need to do more research. No doubt many are, and they are at error if they do, but just because they teach error is no reason for the rest of us to blindly follow them.

Jesus did NOT use tradition in His teaching.

Notice I am not red tagging you! Rathering edify (Romans 14:9)

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

And we are commanded to withdraw ourselves from any that are not after those which were received by them.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.



Everything He taught was based in the Law and Prophets, all written down. In fact, Jesus did not present anything that was outside of the Law and Prophets.

Christ did establish the law. Christ suffered to the law in doing everything that was HIS Father's wilt. Christ fulfilled all that HIS Father sent HIM to do.

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Example: Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Notice that this tradition (Unlike the denominational traditions which we see promoted on this thread) were taught in two different forms, oral and written. Since the Apostles are no longer here, we are left with the written only.

What you are arguing against here is the same concern that I have. people who go outside of what the Bible teaches by adding to or altering waht the word says. That is the problem with denominational tradition that others on here are defending.
No, they aren't going outside of what the Bible teaches. They teach what they sincerely believe the Bible teaches yet don't agree with what someone else says the Bible teaches. So go to the Bible and let the Bible support itself by whose understanding and interpretation?

Notice that this tradition (Unlike the denominational traditions which we see promoted on this thread) were taught in two different forms, oral and written. Since the Apostles are no longer here, we are left with the written only.

And I absolutely agree with you on that... And have insisted that we recognize that we can not fall to added traditions (or) to change any that were written.

I have mentioned twice that man's traditions were spoken of as leaven which rises up within the teaching, and Christ himself warned us of this fact. (Matthew 16:6 16:12)

So today we want to be unleaven and purged the conscience from false traditions and false doctrine.

1 Cr 5:7-8 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

No, they aren't going outside of what the Bible teaches. They teach what they sincerely believe the Bible teaches yet don't agree with what someone else says the Bible teaches. So go to the Bible and let the Bible support itself by whose understanding and interpretation?

WG,

You are being inconsistent. Here is what you said (and I quote from post 242):

"How much creative teaching is being done that misrepresents or causes misunderstanding of what the Scriptures actually say?"

Your premise was that they did mis-represent what the Bible said, and thus went outside of what the Bible said.

Your premise was that they did mis-represent what the Bible said, and thus went outside of what the Bible said.
Misrepresent from your pov.