The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[yuvgotmel]

He doesn't speak for all Christianity -- just for himself and his own interpretation of what scriptures actually say. You're discounting some 250 million other voices...still...

Twice you have responded when I asked you not to. You are now on ignore.

 

[yuvgotmel]

He doesn't speak for all Christianity -- just for himself and his own interpretation of what scriptures actually say. You're discounting some 250 million other voices...still...

Twice you have responded after I asked you not to. And even more so after I called you out on trolling my post on another thread entirely. You are now ignored. Leave me alone.

 

[sojourner]

Twice you have responded after I asked you not to. And even more so after I called you out on trolling my post on another thread entirely. You are now ignored. Leave me alone.

I suggested that you make full use of that feature a while back. Congratulations for taking my advice. Don't hurt yourself rushing to activate that feature!

 

[*Paul*]

From your Post # 89 you said:
"it cannot be proven that the traditions that the apostles held were not also written in scripture at some point."

My response:

You are incorrect my good brother! St John himself taught his community tradtions that were not written in scripture that were to be held to. Consider this passage:
"I have much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink;
I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face." (3 John :13-14)

Who is this letter addressed to? To all the saints? No. To Gaius. One individual. John wanted to discuss a few things with him, what makes you think he is passing on oral tradition.
3Jn 1v1: The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

Also Paul talks about the same thing in 2 thess 2:15
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter".
Nothing in here says that all tradtions were written down. Rather we are to hold fast to them whether they be written or orally passed down!

As I said you can't show or prove that they were not written in scripture, other letters were written after 2 thessalonians. You could prove it quite simplly, show me a tradition that is not contained in the bible and how it is traced back to the first church without reasonable dispute.

You yourself hold to authoritative Oral tradition that is not found int he bible. You believe in the new testament canon which is a oral tradition not found in scripture!

Maybe you didn't read my openeing statement, SOla scriptura does not demand a full canon it simply says that scripture is our highest authority in all matters of faith and practice, some evangelicals don't have anything like the amount of scripture we have in some parts of the world but they get along just fine without any church telling them what to believe becuase they were saved through believing the gospel and have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Read God's smuggler to China by Brother Andrew.

Doesn't this just prove sola scriptura to be false on a practicle level? Becuase in order to even know the new testmanet canon you need to rely on tradition outside of the bible itself and the Catholic councils which gave it to you(Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397, Florence 1439 etc).

They only made official what already was known among Christians, it's not as thought the christians were wondering around for 3-400 years not knowing what was scripture then the Catholic church came along and saved the day is it? Only a few epistles were not universally used and that could just as easily have been down to circulation problems. Besides I don't necessarily view the catholic church as completely apostate at that time excluding florence of course.

There is no passage in scripture that gives us what the new testmant canon is. That was a oral tradition of the Apostles handed down to the church that was formallly looked over and decided in the late 4th century by Catholic fathers, and Popes and councils. So so much for that challenge!

You end the challenge by knocking down the strawman i already knocked down myself at the beginning. Utter brilliance. You can do better athanasius I'm sure you have been itching to defeat another protestant so here is your chance. I am an easy target, i have a poor education & i have been a Christian for 6 and half years. Do your worst.

Tell me what my faith is lacking due to my Sola Scriptura stance that the Church in the book of Acts had. That very first church where people were saved through the preaching of the simple unadulterated gospel and saved by believing it. I really want to know. I am not a dishonest man Athanasius and I will accept it graciously if you teach me something, truth is truth regardless of who presents it.

 

[sojourner]

Who is this letter addressed to? To all the saints? No. To Gaius. One individual. John wanted to discuss a few things with him, what makes you think he is passing on oral tradition.
3Jn 1v1: The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

If you're going to argue that the letter was written to one person, thereby negating the message for everyone else, then you're arguing against the letter being scripture, for scripture is God's revelation to all God's people.

What makes you think that the writer is not passing on tradition to a leader who will, in turn, teach it to the community?

 

[Halcyon]

... it's not as thought the christians were wondering around for 3-400 years not knowing what was scripture then the Catholic church came along and saved the day is it?

Actually, that's a pretty accurate way of describing it. Although from my personal perspective i would say the Catholic Church "saved the day".

The sheer number of Christian sects we have in the first few centuries is staggering, from the five or six Gnostic ones, to the Marcionites, the Montanites (The New Prophecy) to the orthodox - and all the variations in-between. Each used slightly, or drastically, different scriptures. It wasn't until the orthodox rose to dominance and declared the others heretical that Christendom began to take shape and become organised in any real sense - which includes the collection and organisation of the NT.

 

[quietlight]

Getting back to the question that started this thread (I leave for a day and there are suddenly 5 pages of digressions! )...

To those that do believe in sola scriptura - do you know when the Bible took on its current form?

 

[quietlight]

Maybe you didn't read my openeing statement, SOla scriptura does not demand a full canon it simply says that scripture is our highest authority in all matters of faith and practice, some evangelicals don't have anything like the amount of scripture we have in some parts of the world but they get along just fine without any church telling them what to believe becuase they were saved through believing the gospel and have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Read God's smuggler to China by Brother Andrew.

Paul,

Do you believe that the apostles wrote down EVERYTHING that they taught?

 

[*Paul*]

If you're going to argue that the letter was written to one person, thereby negating the message for everyone else, then you're arguing against the letter being scripture, for scripture is God's revelation to all God's people.

What makes you think that the writer is not passing on tradition to a leader who will, in turn, teach it to the community?

It was written to one person, it's usage for the church is what we can learn from it, the things John commends him for, what he says about diotrphees. How labourers for the truth are to be treated and so on. The message was for one person, what can be learned from it is for everyone therefore having use for doctrine and practice for the church.

 

[sojourner]

It was written to one person, it's usage for the church is what we can learn from it, the things John commends him for, what he says about diotrphees. How labourers for the truth are to be treated and so on. The message was for one person, what can be learned from it is for everyone therefore having use for doctrine and practice for the church.

so...it was written to one person, but the message is useful for the whole Church. What about the oral tradition that was passed on? Could it have been told to one person, but passed on to the whole Church?

The tradition was for one person, but what can be gleaned from it is for everyone, therefore having use for doctrine and practice for the Church. Is that what you're saying?

 

[*Paul*]

Actually, that's a pretty accurate way of describing it. Although from my personal perspective i would say the Catholic Church "saved the day".

The sheer number of Christian sects we have in the first few centuries is staggering, from the five or six Gnostic ones, to the Marcionites, the Montanites (The New Prophecy) to the orthodox - and all the variations in-between.

It is no different today. The alternative is to have one authoritative institution having power and authority over all its adherants, e.g a cult.

Each used slightly, or drastically, different scriptures. It wasn't until the orthodox rose to dominance and declared the others heretical that Christendom began to take shape and become organised in any real sense - which includes the collection and organisation of the NT.

Then did the persecuted become the persecutors and became the despots over the consciences of men telling them what to believe "compell" them to come in to the city of God took on a sinister meaning in the years to come.

There were organised and faithful churches before the declaration of the canon, they had their problems as did the churches under the apostles, there were sects arising from the beginning what came of the orthodoxs rise to dominance was a church married to the world instead of a pilgrim church passing through it.

 

[*Paul*]

Paul,

Do you believe that the apostles wrote down EVERYTHING that they taught?

Just what was inspired by God.

 

[*Paul*]

Getting back to the question that started this thread (I leave for a day and there are suddenly 5 pages of digressions! )...

To those that do believe in sola scriptura - do you know when the Bible took on its current form?

Sola Scriptura is not about the canon it is about authority. Sola Scriptura says that our highest authority in all matters of faith and practice is scripture, if a tradition contradicts scripture then scripture is correct. We have nothing against tradition by the way, we have our own but it must not contradict or weaken scriptural doctrine.

 

[logician]

Since I believe The NT is largely myth, and Jesus was not a real person, I would venture to say that who or what Jesus was is open to vast interpretation. Usually believers end up in a church that conforms mostly to their own background socially and economically.

 

[*Paul*]

so...it was written to one person, but the message is useful for the whole Church.

DO you disagree with that evaluation?

What about the oral tradition that was passed on? Could it have been told to one person, but passed on to the whole Church?

It could but there is no way of knowing what was said between them and as I asked before if someone can show me a tradition not in the bible that can be traced back to the apostlic period without dispute I would be most interested in it.

The tradition was for one person, but what can be gleaned from it is for everyone, therefore having use for doctrine and practice for the Church. Is that what you're saying?

If this theoretical tradition could be shown to be from an apostle and not contradict previous revealtion then I would have no problem with it at all.

 

[*Paul*]

Since I believe The NT is largely myth, and Jesus was not a real person, I would venture to say that who or what Jesus was is open to vast interpretation. Usually believers end up in a church that conforms mostly to their own background socially and economically.

You can thank God that you are free to say that openly and not living under a dominating orthodox church state such as we had for over a millenia otherwise you and I would be on the racks for very different reasons.

 

[sojourner]

If this theoretical tradition could be shown to be from an apostle and not contradict previous revealtion then I would have no problem with it at all.

Happily there are any number of "unwritten" traditions that will meet these criteria.

 

[joeboonda]

Sola Scriptura is not about the canon it is about authority. Sola Scriptura says that our highest authority in all matters of faith and practice is scripture, if a tradition contradicts scripture then scripture is correct. We have nothing against tradition by the way, we have our own but it must not contradict or weaken scriptural doctrine.

Right on.

 

[joeboonda]

That text can also be translated that we are saved by grace through the faith of Christ.

That means that Paul may have considered it to be Christ's faith that saves us...not our faith.

The Bible isn't so clear, after all. We need other revelations of Christ, beyond scripture, to inform our spiritual work. Sola scriptura doesn't allow for this.

No, no, no! The Bible CLEARLY teaches that when WE believe in, believe on, trust in, have faith in CHRIST, we are saved. Jesus said it over and over in John, that He who believes in me has eternal life. We have faith in Christ, it is very clear. Now, Christ is faithful to those who have believed on His name, He will never cast them out, and the faith we have toward Christ on the day we got saved, is given to us by God, freely, not of works, lest we should boast.

Acts 20:21
Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 24:24
And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Romans 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Here are some I assume you are speaking of:

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Only notice, this faith 'of Christ' is only for those who have believed IN Christ. Examining the whole Bible it is clear that we believe Christ, we have faith in Him, and THEN He is faithful to us, He cannot deny Himself, as He lives in the heart of every believer via the Holy Spirit which seals us. But this phrase faith of Christ, is simply being 'in the faith', we examine ourselves, to see if we are in the faith, if we have placed our trust in the death and resurrection of Christ, or are following another Gospel, one that introduces works, or special days, or a 'certain' church and sacraments, ceremonies and traditions in addition to simple saving faith in Christ.

Philippians 1:27
Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

This faith of the gospel, or of Christ, is actually the true faith, those who have placed their trust in Christ alone for salvation and nothing else added which would detract from what and who Christ did and is.

Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Here is the plain way of the salvation: Someone is called to preach, they preach the Gospel, we hear it, we believe it (faith), and confess it, very simple:


8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Too often, I am saddled with some Catholics telling me that I ascribe to "Sola Scriptura", which is HIGHLY inaccurate. The difference comes in my relying on the Spirit to guide me into the truth rather than a priest or man made doctrine.

Without the Spirit, we can understand NOTHING about God or his Son.