[Tj3]

This thread was spacifically started so you could define for us what "standard of Truth" is. You've yet to do it.

How many times must I say it - The Bible.


There - bold, underlined and in colour - see it?

[Akoue]

Oral tradition is not mentioned in scripture as separate from the written word of God.

I listed a dozen or so examples where oral Tradition is mentioned in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that everything that was taught orally was eventually written down. Since what was written down refers to teachings that were not written down, and affirms their authoritativeness, your assumption that there is no oral Tradition apart from what was written is just that, an assumption, and one that is gainsayed by the written word itself.

And you did not answer the question. What specifically (specifics doctrine, specifics of the gospel, what exactly) is missing from the Bible that you believe is essential?

Here's one example that leaps to mind: An answer to the question, "Which books are to be included in the Bible?"

[Tj3]

I listed a dozen or so examples where oral Tradition is mentioned in Scripture.

Many of those references have nothing to do with oral tradition. And I did not deny that there is a reference, but what I said was "Oral tradition is not mentioned in scripture as separate from the written word of God."

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that everything that was taught orally was eventually written down.

Scripture says not to go beyond what is written, and it does say that what the Apostles taught was in written form.

And you did not answer the question. What specifically (specifics doctrine, specifics of the gospel, what exactly) is missing from the Bible that you believe is essential?

Here's one example that leaps to mind: An answer to the question, "Which books are to be included in the Bible?"

I can only assume that you are denying prophetical revelation (and some books are defined as scripture inside the Bible itself), but regardless, all Christians agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally in the canon, so unless you are denying the canon, this is not the question at hand.

You said that the Bible was not complete on the essentials of the Christian faith - please be specific. If that is the best that you can do, then clearly all the doctrinal essentials and the complete gospel would be in the Bible.

[JoeT777]

How many times must I say it - The Bible.


There - bold, underlined and in colour - see it?

So, according to the Tj3 "Standard of Truth" we are to worship a Book?

And since we all worship a book, including your denomination, and it is the TRUTH of God, then why are you not Catholic?

JoeT

[Tj3]

So, according to the Tj3 "Standard of Truth" we are to worship a Book?

Ah, there you go slipping back into mis-representation again. No, Joe, we are not to worship books, pray to dead people, worship statues, call people gods, or in any other way take away from God reverence and exaltation that belongs solely to God.

And since we all worship a book, including your denomination, and it is the TRUTH of God, then why are you not Catholic?

You worship a book? That is interesting.

I am not even a member of a denomination.

I am not Catholic because I accept what the Bible says.

[Akoue]

Many of those references have nothing to do with oral tradition. And I did not deny that there is a reference, but what I said was "Oral tradition is not mentioned in scripture as separate from the written word of God."

Perhaps you could unpack this a bit for us. What exactly do you mean when you say that it is not mentioned as separate? I ask because on the most obvious construal this is just plain false. But you may have something rather different in mind, so please, in the interests of clarity and precision, explain a bit more fully what you mean.

Scripture says not to go beyond what is written, and it does say that what the Apostles taught was in written form.

Well, why don't you bring the verses forward in your preferred translation so that we can all discuss them.

I can only assume that you are denying prophetical revelation (and some books are defined as scripture inside the Bible itself), but regardless, all Christians agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally in the canon, so unless you are denying the canon, this is not the question at hand.

I'm a little unclear about what you are saying here. How have I committed myself to the denial of prophetical revelation?

Let's take the books of the NT? 2Pet. Indicates that some of Paul's writings were already regarded as Scripture (I mentioned this in an earlier post), but it doesn't tell us which ones. Maybe all of them. Maybe the lost one. It doesn't tell us. How about the other NT books? Where in the NT are we told which books are to be included in the NT?

And, of course, Christians disagree about the number of books that belong to the canon. Difference in canon can, and does, give rise to difference in doctrine. So I would say that, yes, this is absolutely an important part of the question at hand.

You said that the Bible was not complete on the essentials of the Christian faith - please be specific. If that is the best that you can do, then clearly all the doctrinal essentials and the complete gospel would be in the Bible.

Well, the Bible itself tells us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. So this is prima facie evidence that we ought to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. Also, the Bible doesn't tell us that the whole of God's revelation to his people is exhausted by the Bible. So this also is prima facie reason to regard the doctrine of sola scriptura as erroneous.

You said that the Bible was not complete on the essentials of the Christian faith - please be specific. If that is the best that you can do, then clearly all the doctrinal essentials and the complete gospel would be in the Bible.

Oh, I think the canon of Scripture is of paramount importance. And I most certainly do regard it as an essential matter. It is, after all, the inspired word of God. Getting the canon right is vital. It's a good thing God gave us Tradition to aid us in this.

[Tj3]

Perhaps you could unpack this a bit for us. What exactly do you mean when you say that it is not mentioned as separate?

It is written down in the Bible.

I'm a little unclear about what you are saying here. How have I committed myself to the denial of prophetical revelation?

You appear to feel that the definition of scripture is that of what men in your denomination determine it to be.

And, of course, Christians disagree about the number of books that belong to the canon.

Some denominations added some a few hundred years back, but the 66 books originally identified as canonical are accepted by all Christians.

Well, the Bible itself tells us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition.

Really - and you are sure that it says in addition to scripture?

[Akoue]

It is written down in the Bible.

And where in Scripture does it say that everything taught orally by Christ and the Apostles was then written down in the Scriptures?

You appear to feel that the definition of scripture is that of what men in your denomination determine it to be.

I haven't said anything about any denominations. Neither have I said anything about which canon of Scripture is the right one. What I have done, repeatedly, is to ask you how you have arrived at the canon of Scripture that you use. After all, as has been pointed out numerous times, there is no book of Scripture that tells us which books are inspired by God and so belong to the canon. You still haven't answered the question.

Some denominations added some a few hundred years back, but the 66 books originally identified as canonical are accepted by all Christians.

Well, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the two earliest mss. Of the Christian Bible, and each contains books other than the 66 that you claim compose the entire canon. So leaving the grinding of denominational axes to one side, how did you arrive at the canon that you use?

Really - and you are sure that it says in addition to scripture?

We are explicitly instructed by Scripture to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all that Christ and the Apostles taught was written down. If you wish to assume that the whole of God's revelation is written down and incorporated into the canon that you use, your can do so. But it is an assumption, and one that flies in the face of the unambiguous words of Scripture.

[Tj3]

And where in Scripture does it say that everything taught orally by Christ and the Apostles was then written down in the Scriptures?

Akoue, you do so well as twisting what others say. I never said that.

I haven't said anything about any denominations. Neither have I said anything about which canon of Scripture is the right one.

You keep promoting denominational tradition.

What I have done, repeatedly, is to ask you how you have arrived at the canon of Scripture that you use.

How many times must I repeat it?

We are explicitly instructed by Scripture to uphold and abide by oral Tradition.

Show us where scripture says that we must add denominational traditions to Holy Scripture.

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all that Christ and the Apostles taught was written down.

No it doesn't. Now show us where it says that the Bible is deficient in those item,s which are not written down and that which was not written down was essential for us.

[JoeT777]

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

[Tj3]

In the spirit of The Standard:
Is Baptism a requirement for Redemption, a Sacrament?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Catholics believe that this verse, except for special cases, requires the Sacrament of Baptism.

As any legitimate scholar will tell you, taking verses out of context is not an appropriate way to interpret scripture. Regardless, this is not the baptism thread - we already discussed this and this interpretation was soundly refuted.

[JoeT777]

As any legitimate scholar will tell you, taking verses out of context is not an appropriate way to interpret scripture. Regardless, this is not the baptism thread - we already discussed this and this interpretation was soundly refuted.

Oh, but it is a "Bible" thread. Remember, The Standard of Truth = Bible?


JoeT

[Akoue]

Akoue, you do so well as twisting what others say. I never said that.

Perhaps if you made a little effort to be clear you wouldn't so often find yourself being misunderstood.

Please explain what you meant, since I can't make heads or tails of what you said.

You keep promoting denominational tradition.

What have I said that is denomination-specific? I have been talking about Scripture.

How many times must I repeat it?

Is it the thing about prophetic revelation? Did you receive a prophetic revelation? If that's not it then I have no idea what your answer is.

Show us where scripture says that we must add denominational traditions to Holy Scripture.

Who's twisting who? I've never come close to saying any such thing. I haven't said anything about any denominations.

No it doesn't. Now show us where it says that the Bible is deficient in those item,s which are not written down and that which was not written down was essential for us.

Well, Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. I gave you a bunch of Scriptures back at post #28. Sndbay inadvertently offered a couple more.

As for whether "the Bible is deficient in those items which are not written down": Yeah, well, if they aren't written down in Scripture then Scripture doesn't contain them, right? This is a tautology.

[Tj3]

Perhaps if you made a little effort to be clear you wouldn't so often find yourself being misunderstood.

Akoue, it is odd that there are a very small number of people who consistently mis-represent what those who disagree with them say. And for that small group, no matter how often or how clearly things are stated, they always find a way to mis-represent and abuse.

Why don't you just quote what I actually said - perhaps doing so would help you to keep it straight.

What have I said that is denomination-specific? I have been talking about Scripture.

Perhaps you are forgetting once again. A few messages back you spoke about denominational Tradition, claiming that it was necessary in addition to God's word.

"Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. "

Well, Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. I gave you a bunch of Scriptures back at post #28.

I don't see any of those that state that. Why not post the verse that you think presents your strongest argument and let's have a look at it.

As for whether "the Bible is deficient in those items which are not written down": Yeah, well, if they aren't written down in Scripture then Scripture doesn't contain them, right? This is a tautology.

Scripture is only deficient if they are essentials. I am still awaiting your validation of this argument.

[Akoue]

Perhaps you are forgetting once again. A few messages back you spoke about denominational Tradition, claiming that it was necessary in addition to God's word.

"Scripture explicitly and unambiguously instructs us to uphold and abide by oral Tradition. "

This mentions oral Tradition. It doesn't say anything about any denominations.

I don't see any of those that state that. Why not post the verse that you think presents your strongest argument and let's have a look at it.

This is just hand-waving. I explained, in detail and repeatedly, your error regarding 2Tim.3. If you think that I have misunderstood or misrepresented the Scriptures that I cited at #28 then, by all means, show that I am in error.

Scripture is only deficient if they are essentials. I am still awaiting your validation of this argument.

So you find Scripture distinguishing between essentials and inessentials? I don't. In fact, I would have thought that all of God's revelation, everything that Christ took the time to teach, is essential. So, if anything that Christ taught, if any part of God's revelation, is not contained in Scripture, then Scripture lacks something that is essential.

I don't know how to respond to your claim more fully until you validate the distinction you introduce between essential and inessentual parts of God's revelation. As I say, I have always been under the impression that the whole of it is essential.

[Tj3]

This mentions oral Tradition. It doesn't say anything about any denominations.

What does? Only a small number of denominations reject the sufficiency of scripture to add their own traditions.

This is just hand-waving. I explained, in detail and repeatedly, your error regarding 2Tim.3.

You have told me your own private interpretation which says that the verse does not mean what it says. I don't find that compelling.

So you find Scripture distinguishing between essentials and inessentials? I don't.

You are the one claiming that scripture is missing essentials and thus is deficient. I keep asking you what you think that God omitted from scripture that we need to know, but for some reason you are not telling what your private interpretation is in that regard.

[JoeT777]

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

[Tj3]

In the spirit of The Standard:
Is Baptism a requirement for Redemption, a Sacrament?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Catholics believe that this verse, except for special cases, requires the Sacrament of Baptism.

As any legitimate scholar will tell you, taking verses out of context is not an appropriate way to interpret scripture. Regardless, this is not the baptism thread - we already discussed this and this interpretation was soundly refuted.

Added
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. 41 They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

So how can we say that baptism is a free Sacrament?

I don't know where you got your translation from but it is wrong:

Acts 2:38-39
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
NKJV

Now, once again, taking verses out of context is a wrong way to find truth, and this is not the baptism thread, so I can only assume that you are trying to distract from the topic at hand.

We have been through the topic of baptism before, and I would gladly do so again - start a new thread and let's discuss.

[sndbay]

The Thread Question was:

Where does Scripture say it is the standard?

And, of what is Scripture the standard?

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

All scripture which does include the teaching of traditions that had been spoken according to God's will, was profitable because it ensampled godliness. Also credited for reproof which equals conviction to the mind and heart ensamples godliness. And for correction and instruction of righteousness which is godliness.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture. Is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

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


Godliness profits Life

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

Nothing done according to man's works! But by the saving grace of God who calls us according to HIS purpose, which was to gives us Christ Jesus before the world began... ordained from the beignning.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

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

Let us acknowledge in conviction that Jesus said, it is written!

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

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

Let us acknowledge it says by hearing.... so it was spoken.... But it say hearing/spoken (by the word of God)...
Thus what is spoken by the word of God, which was obviously written in scripture as Jesus pointed out in saying (it is written that man lives by every word of God.)

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

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

Now ask yourself what is the WORD of GOD?

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Christ is: the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is The Word of God

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

There is no other word spoken, nor is there any other traditions spoken, That profits anyone in godliness!

Scripture is THE WORD of GOD = CHRIST JESUS = Complete



* red is the blood shed for us, and all Christ fulfilled for us




(unless we plan to follow man and not Christ?) choice..

[galveston]

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

I believe you have misunderstood me. What I''m saying is that all instruction must be solidly based on Scripture.

Why would that eliminate Sunday School, etc.