Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

You haven't been raising any points.

---

Go back to the my first post and start reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Is that what you define as a detailed scholarly response?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Ooh, that's a wopper!

---

Ho hum. Is that your "scholarly" response?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Tom, do you have any thoughts on this:

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

There are Traditions that aren't written in Scripture.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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 [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:
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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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 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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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