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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
|
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
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.Quote:
(abiding in traditions that are written in scripture are to be held stedfast)
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.Quote:
Exartly the scripture which is complete.. scripture is the complete authority.. because God is the authority in all that is written.
See my discussion of this passage in my response to Tom a couple of posts ago.Quote:
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:
I haven't said anything that is at odds with this.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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?
No the proposition asks what is 'standard'. The question deliberately omits the assumption that 'standard' means 'sola scriptura'Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3That is the topic of this thread (look at the title).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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
2 Tim 3:15-16Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.
NKJV2 Tim 3:16-17Quote:
Neither does it say that Scripture provides us with everything that we need to know in order to be "fully equipped as Christians".
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV
Quote:
I don't think God neglected anything.
Then it is complete.Quote:
I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient.
Not trueQuote:
I have now repeatedly answered your questions.
I have repeatedly.Quote:
Are you ever going to answer mine?
That is not a question - that is a misrepresentation.Quote:
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.
But the real question is why do you want to add to God written word with man's tradition?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
- 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 aware that it is only a translation.Quote:
Then we can conclude that the Septuagint makes us wise for salvation.
Good works as a result of what God works in us after we are saved, I agree.Quote:
This makes a case for ‘good works’ is that the intent.
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.Quote:
But, again it doesn’t authenticate the Scriptures nor does it say ‘Scriptures is the sole arbiter of God’s revelations to man’.
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?Quote:
Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you?
I don't. But the true church is not a denomination as you seem to believe it is.Quote:
Christ commissioned the Church of Jesus Christ, why do you find Her unworthy of you?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.)
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.Quote:
2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV
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.Quote:
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, 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.
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.Quote:
Not true
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.Quote:
I have repeatedly.
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?Quote:
That is not a question - that is a misrepresentation.
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.Quote:
But the real question is why do you want to add to God written word with man's tradition?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
Please read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It seems that you focus in on that one word and ignore the rest of the passage.Quote:
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 completeQuote:
It is not deficient.
Read what it says:Quote:
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,
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?
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.Quote:
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.
You mean your mis-representations? Why do you feel that I must defend what I post as a strawman to mis-represent my views?Quote:
You haven't answered the questions I posed in my last response to you.
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.Quote:
Honestly, your avoidance says a good deal more than you might like it to.
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.Quote:
How is it any less reasonable a question than you're asking me why I find Scripture to be deficient?
So you think that the OT was originally in Greek?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
What was trying to say was that, not only are there Protestant divisions (of which one is Lutheran), but even the Lutherans are divided.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
You're kidding, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It is not me who is saying that the Septuagint is something more than a translation of the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
No one said that. This was said about it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
It seems that you focus in on that one word and ignore the rest of the passage.
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?Quote:
Then it is complete
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?Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Yeah I got it! I know about subdivisions, planned developments, and all kinds of zoning issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
Deny if you wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Exactly my view. I would a[ppreciate it if you would start interacting on the points at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Saying it does not make it so.Quote:
Scripture isn't the sole authority and standard of truth. It shares that honor with Tradition.
You have told us what you believe, but you have not addressed the questions put to you regarding what it actually says.Quote:
Not at all. I've explained the entire passage several times now.
We are making progress - for once you admit that it says "complete" :)Quote:
Nope, not in the sense of "complete" that you have in mind.
You opinion does not hold the same authority as scripture.Quote:
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.
Once again, what exactly do you think scripture is missing? In what way is it deficient?
I answered this before - God tradition is written down in scripture. Now, what do youQuote:
Do you find that God's Tradition is dispensable or inadequate? If not, why not acknowldege it?
Think God left out of scripture? In what way is it lacking?
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?Quote:
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.
How many times must I say it - The Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
There - bold, underlined and in colour - see it?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Here's one example that leaps to mind: An answer to the question, "Which books are to be included in the Bible?"Quote:
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?
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Scripture says not to go beyond what is written, and it does say that what the Apostles taught was in written form.Quote:
Nowhere in Scripture does it say that everything that was taught orally was eventually written down.
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.Quote:
Here's one example that leaps to mind: An answer to the question, "Which books are to be included in the Bible?"Quote:
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?
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.
So, according to the Tj3 "Standard of Truth" we are to worship a Book?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And since we all worship a book, including your denomination, and it is the TRUTH of God, then why are you not Catholic?
JoeT
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
You worship a book? That is interesting.Quote:
And since we all worship a book, including your denomination, and it is the TRUTH of God, then why are you not Catholic?
I am not even a member of a denomination.
I am not Catholic because I accept what the Bible says.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, why don't you bring the verses forward in your preferred translation so that we can all discuss them.Quote:
Scripture says not to go beyond what is written, and it does say that what the Apostles taught was in written form.
I'm a little unclear about what you are saying here. How have I committed myself to the denial of prophetical revelation?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.
It is written down in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
You appear to feel that the definition of scripture is that of what men in your denomination determine it to be.Quote:
I'm a little unclear about what you are saying here. How have I committed myself to the denial of prophetical revelation?
Some denominations added some a few hundred years back, but the 66 books originally identified as canonical are accepted by all Christians.Quote:
And, of course, Christians disagree about the number of books that belong to the canon.
Really - and you are sure that it says in addition to scripture?Quote:
Well, the Bible itself tells us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition.
And where in Scripture does it say that everything taught orally by Christ and the Apostles was then written down in the Scriptures?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
You appear to feel that the definition of scripture is that of what men in your denomination determine it to be.
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?Quote:
Some denominations added some a few hundred years back, but the 66 books originally identified as canonical are accepted by all Christians.
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.Quote:
Really - and you are sure that it says in addition to scripture?
Akoue, you do so well as twisting what others say. I never said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
You keep promoting denominational tradition.Quote:
I haven't said anything about any denominations. Neither have I said anything about which canon of Scripture is the right one.
How many times must I repeat it?Quote:
What I have done, repeatedly, is to ask you how you have arrived at the canon of Scripture that you use.
Show us where scripture says that we must add denominational traditions to Holy Scripture.Quote:
We are explicitly instructed by Scripture to uphold and abide by oral Tradition.
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.Quote:
Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all that Christ and the Apostles taught was written down.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Oh, but it is a "Bible" thread. Remember, The Standard of Truth = Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
Perhaps if you made a little effort to be clear you wouldn't so often find yourself being misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Please explain what you meant, since I can't make heads or tails of what you said.
What have I said that is denomination-specific? I have been talking about Scripture.Quote:
You keep promoting denominational tradition.
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.Quote:
How many times must I repeat it?
Who's twisting who? I've never come close to saying any such thing. I haven't said anything about any denominations.Quote:
Show us where scripture says that we must add denominational traditions to Holy Scripture.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Why don't you just quote what I actually said - perhaps doing so would help you to keep it straight.
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.Quote:
What have I said that is denomination-specific? I have been talking about Scripture.
"Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. "
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.Quote:
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.
Scripture is only deficient if they are essentials. I am still awaiting your validation of this argument.Quote:
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.
This mentions oral Tradition. It doesn't say anything about any denominations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Scripture is only deficient if they are essentials. I am still awaiting your validation of this argument.
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.
What does? Only a small number of denominations reject the sufficiency of scripture to add their own traditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
This is just hand-waving. I explained, in detail and repeatedly, your error regarding 2Tim.3.
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.Quote:
So you find Scripture distinguishing between essentials and inessentials? I don't.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I don't know where you got your translation from but it is wrong:Quote:
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?
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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..
I believe you have misunderstood me. What I''m saying is that all instruction must be solidly based on Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Why would that eliminate Sunday School, etc.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10 PM. |