[paraclete]

speechlesstx,
.
However there are teachings Jesus provided to His disciples that are not in the bible.
But they are in taught tradition.
As Paul, in the bible tells us we should follow taught tradition.

Fred I think it is wonderful when people preach a different Gospel.:confused:

Christ told us that it is by your traditions you nullify the word of God and here you suggest Paul held a contrary view. Perhaps you would like to back that view up with a scripture otherwise it is just a tradition of man

Here are some Biblical thoughts; One from Jesus two from Paul. You will have to work hard on Biblical interpretation to find positive passages about following tradition

Bible Version: New International Version (NIV)

Mark 7:13 NIV (Jesus)
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Galatians 1:14 NIV (Paul)
I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Colossians 2:8 NIV (Paul)
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

It is just possible Fred you have, in fact, fallen into the trap spoken of in that last Scripture

[arcura]

paraclete,
I did not say that others were preaching a different gospel, although I've been told that some few were doing so.
I don't have time to look it up but what Paul said was not in regard to a different gospel but rather to Christian Traditions that had been taught already.
I do believe that God does speak through His Church, as I;m sure you know.
But it is not a different gospel.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[speechlesstx]

speechlesstx,
The bible is the foundation of Christian belief.

Exactly.

However there are teachings Jesus provided to His disciples that are not in the bible.
But they are in taught tradition.
As Paul, in the bible tells us we should follow taught tradition.

I know you said you don't have time but it would be much more helpful to know what Paul said where. I'd really like to know exactly why Sola Scriptura is "unbiblical" to use your term, and I still don't know how the fact there are different translations - with their errors in translation - invalidates Sola Scriptura.

[paraclete]

paraclete,
I did not say that others were preaching a different gospel, altho I've been told that some few were doing so.
I don't have time to look it up but what Paul said was not in regard to a different gospel but rather to Christian Traditions that had been taught already.
I do believe that God does speak through His Church, as I;m sure you know.
But it is not a different gospel.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred I have to tell you that anyone who offers a different interpretation to what the Word of God actually says is preaching a different Gospel. Paul was faithful to Scripture and made it plain the traditions of men are a problem both for himself and for others. As I have told you many times I will take the Word of God over the words of men and I know this disagrees with some of the teachings of established Churches but there you are

[sndbay]

I will take the Word of God over the words of men

Amen Amen




Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 7: 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock

Matthew 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand

Matthew 7:28-29 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

The Shepherd and Bishop of our souls (1 Peter 2:25)

[paraclete]

Matthew 7:28-29 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Ask yourself Fred, who were the Scribes if not the religious people of his day:D

[Akoue]

I know you said you don't have time but it would be much more helpful to know what Paul said where. I'd really like to know exactly why Sola Scriptura is "unbiblical" to use your term,

Here's a great place to start:
2 Thess.2.15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our epistle."

And here a few others you might like to consult:
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"


Sola scriptura is a singularly modern invention, a man-made theological novelty. Moreover, it is incoherent, since no single book of the Bible provides a list of those texts which alone are to be regarded as canonical. This means that extra-Biblical factors are involved in the determination of the canon of Scripture, and this vitiates the doctrine of sola scriptura. Notice, moreover, that nowhere does Scripture itself affirm the doctrine of sola scriptura. The closest it comes is to tell us that the whole of Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for instruction, reproof, correction, and discipline. "Useful" is a world away from "sufficient". Since Scripture does not itself affirm sola scriptura, then, the doctrine is itself incoherent, precisely a man-made tradition of the sort that several posters here claim to scorn.

[Akoue]

Ask yourself Fred, who were the Scribes if not the religious people of his day:D

Wow, you're really playing fast and loose with the Good Book. Probably not a great idea.

Or do you honestly believe that Christ's objection against the scribes is that they are too religious?

[paraclete]

Here's a great place to start:
2 Thess.2.15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our epistle."

And here a a few others you might like to consult:
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"


[I]

You have said that sola scripture is not supported by scripture but yet you seek to prove traditions are supported by scripture but each verse you quote is really speaking of the teachings of the apostles, not some invention hundreds of years later, or the teachings of a person who arrives hundreds of years later or using traditions to overturn the teachings of Jesus. This is what the Jews attempted to do to the early Christians and why Paul was against the circumcision and Judaisers. Remember even Peter had to be corrected more than once. You have to take the totality of Scripture and not pick your verse by word study and taking verses out of context. Each verse is part of a specific discussion of principle. This is why Scripture alone is an important test, if you can't find it in the Word of God then it requires great discernment before you do it.

You should allow Scripture to do its job which is to teach, reprove, instruct and show us the way God would lead us. It comes down to this either you will be led by men or you will be led by God through the Spirit, the two are not interchangeable and there is no infallible man, that is a tradition of man

[paraclete]

Wow, you're really playing fast and loose with the Good Book. Probably not a great idea.

Or do you honestly believe that Christ's objection against the scribes is that they are too religious?

I don't play fast and loose with the Good Book but share what I have learned.

Christ certainly placed the Scribes and the Pharassees in the same boat. Remember when Jesus speaks of the Scribes he is not speaking of some contract letter writer, but those who were in charge of preserving, reproducing and teaching the Scriptures. These were people of position in Judaism

[arcura]

speechlesstx, and others...
On addition to the passages Akoue posted in regard to sola Scriptora to be unbiblical here are some more.
Have a great time studying what the bible says rather than what some folks want to believe what it says.
Sola scriptura
Jn 21:25... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13... Paul speaks of oral tradition.
Acts 2:42... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12... guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Please God, Peace and kindness to and for all,
Fred

[N0help4u]

There is a difference between personal interpretation and what you call sola scriptora.
What you posted I would say is warning against personal interpretation without the Bible to back it up.

[arcura]

N0help4u,
There is far more than that in those passages.
Study them with an open mind.
The reward of truth is tremendous.
I was once a believer in sola scriptora until the Holy Spirit helped open my mind to the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[sndbay]

speechlesstx, and others...
On addition to the passages Akoue posted in regard to sola Scriptora to be unbiblical here are some more.
Have a great time studying what the bible says rather than what some folks want to believe what it says.
Sola scriptura
Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.

Please note that (John 21:24-25) is saying not everything that the disciple testifieth of in witness and in following Christ was written . Yet clearly what was written and testified of was true and seen by what Jesus had shown them or told them.
(Act 1:1-2) says all former that was said by Christ was made both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up. Christ through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles because they were HIS chosen ones. And please note that even when the disciples had to have someone ordained new to witness with them, they then prayed: Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.

None of what was done or taught came from man's tradition or man's doctrine.

John 20:30-31 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through HIS name.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps

[sndbay]

2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral tradition.

And view what is said concerning these verses.

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

Noted: by the word is Christ

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Noted: be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 2:1)

1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Noted: be followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. (because Christ is at the head of every man)

1 Thess 2:13 For 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.

Noted: having receive the Word of God, from the chosen disciples, who witness and testified of Christ.. And we became followers of the churches of God in Christ Jesus: and many today also do suffer like those who were fooled in follow man's doctrine as did the Jews. BEWARE! (1 Thess 2:14)

[speechlesstx]

Sola scriptura is a singularly modern invention, a man-made theological novelty. Moreover, it is incoherent, since no single book of the Bible provides a list of those texts which alone are to be regarded as canonical.

Incoherent? Sola Scriptura in its basic form simply means the scriptures are the only "infallible" authority... the church is subject to the authority of the scriptures and not the other way around.

This means that extra-Biblical factors are involved in the determination of the canon of Scripture, and this vitiates the doctrine of sola scriptura.

How does it vitiate Sola Scriptura? Because the church determined the canon of scripture the scriptures are subject to the authority of man?

Notice, moreover, that nowhere does Scripture itself affirm the doctrine of sola scriptura. The closest it comes is to tell us that the whole of Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for instruction, reproof, correction, and discipline. "Useful" is a world away from "sufficient". Since Scripture does not itself affirm sola scriptura, then, the doctrine is itself incoherent, precisely a man-made tradition of the sort that several posters here claim to scorn.

First of all you need a little emphasis on "all," as in the whole of scripture is "profitable, " not "useful." Secondly the reason is "that the man of God may be perfect (complete), thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Where do we find anything else that the whole of is inspired by God to make man "complete?" Anything else is incoherent.

[Akoue]

Incoherent? Sola Scriptura in its basic form simply means the scriptures are the only "infallible" authority... the church is subject to the authority of the scriptures and not the other way around.

Are you unclear about the meaning of the Latin word "sola"? According to sola scriptura, if a doctrine is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible then that doctrine is to be rejected. Not only does the Bible not affirm the doctrine of sola scriptura, it explicitly rejects it, as the passages I've cited indicate.

How does it vitiate Sola Scriptura? Because the church determined the canon of scripture the scriptures are subject to the authority of man?

The canon of Scripture is not itself included in Scripture. No book of the Bible lists which texts are to be included in the canon. By using a canon of Scripture, therefore, you are appealing to something outside of Scripture, some process of canon-formation (i.e. tradition) that isn't contained in the texts of the Bible.

So how did you decide which books to include in the Bible? Or do you just go with a tradition?

First of all you need a little emphasis on "all," as in the whole of scripture is "profitable, " not "useful." Secondly the reason is "that the man of God may be perfect (complete), thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Where do we find anything else that the whole of is inspired by God to make man "complete?" Anything else is incoherent.

Remarkable how reading comprehension skills go out the window in the face of this passage. It tells us that all of Scripture is inspired by God. (To be maximally precise: The quantifier, "all", ranges over the term "Scriptures".) Scripture is profitable/useful (depending upon the translation you use). What is it profitable/useful for? Why, for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Now these four things (teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness) render one completely or thoroughly furnished... for what? For doing good works (i.e. not for salvation).

And you claim to get sola scriptura out of that? There's nothing here that even remotely hints at sola scriptura. Oh, but there are lots of passages that affirm the authority of oral tradition. I cited a few of them in my earlier post.

[speechlesstx]

Are you unclear about the meaning of the Latin word "sola"? According to sola scriptura, if a doctrine is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible then that doctrine is to be rejected. Not only does the Bible not affirm the doctrine of sola scriptura, it explicitly rejects it, as the passages I've cited indicate.

Um, no, I'm quite certain about the meaning of sola. You seem to be uncertain of what the doctrine means however, which I've explained in numerous, simple ways. If you prefer to allow the scriptures to be subordinate to man instead of man being subordinate to the scriptures then that's your choice.

The canon of Scripture is not itself included in Scripture. No book of the Bible lists which texts are to be included in the canon. By using a canon of Scripture, therefore, you are appealing to something outside of Scripture, some process of canon-formation (i.e. tradition) that isn't contained in the texts of the Bible.

I think it was in my first post that I said Sola scriptura does not preclude the use of other resources in our understanding. Sola scriptura is not believed "in a vacuum," so this argument along with that of the OP on versions and errors is irrelevant to the discussion.

So how did you decide which books to include in the Bible? Or do you just go with a tradition?

How do you decide what to believe? How do you decide what a passage means? How do you decide if a tradition or a decree is scriptural? Go ask someone else? Blindly accept it?

Remarkable how reading comprehension skills go out the window in the face of this passage. It tells us that all of Scripture is inspired by God. (To be maximally precise: The quantifier, "all", ranges over the term "Scriptures".) Scripture is profitable/useful (depending upon the translation you use). What is it profitable/useful for? Why, for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Now these four things (teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness) render one completely or thoroughly furnished... for what? For doing good works (i.e. not for salvation).

You chose the passage, not me.

And you claim to get sola scriptura out of that? There's nothing here that even remotely hints at sola scriptura. Oh, but there are lots of passages that affirm the authority of oral tradition. I cited a few of them in my earlier post.

I made no such claim, I expounded further on the passage you chose. Tell me, where did this doctrine come from and why? What's the unbiased, unvarnished history behind it?

[arcura]

The bible itself is a Tradition and it speaks of things that Jesus taught which were Not recorded therein.
Do you or do you not believe that what the first apostles taught their followers was of things Jesus taught them?
There are many documents that record those teachings whicj are not in the bible.
They are referred to as Tradition (with a large case "T").
Personally I believe that Jesus teaching by word and example did not end with what is recorded in the bible.
Therefore Scripture Only is not complete and is unbiblical just as the bible itself says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[speechlesstx]

The bible itself is a Tradition and it speaks of things that Jesus taught which were Not recorded therein.

First of all Fred I didn't get into this to give a thorough defense of sola scriptura, but to clarify what it means. However, for the third time, it's not believed "in a vacuum." Of course things were passed down orally, of course the bible speaks of things Jesus "did" (not said) which are not in the bible, and the bible clarifies that in John 20...

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Do you or do you not believe that what the first apostles taught their followers was of things Jesus taught them?
There are many documents that record those teachings whicj are not in the bible.
They are referred to as Tradition (with a large case "T").

Of course I believe what the apostles taught were the things of Jesus. Akoue argued that the process of forming the Canon invalidates sola scriptura. Were the things contained in the Canon valid before it was formalized as the Canon? When the church listed the Canon did it confer some authority that didn't already exist? What is found outside of the Canon that is necessary for faith and practice, or is all that's necessary contained in the scriptures? Must a doctrine be found explicitly in the Canon to be valid, or are there any other doctrines not explicitly found in the Canon that you believe to be true?

Personally I believe that Jesus teaching by word and example did not end with what is recorded in the bible.

When does it end? Are there still thing being discovered or revealed today that aren't recorded already?

Therefore Scripture Only is not complete and is unbiblical just as the bible itself says.

Sorry Fred, the bible does not say Sola Scriptura is "unbiblical," it tells us what things of Jesus were recorded and why, "that ye might believe."