Sola Scriptura 2

[Mjh29]

But who was Jesus? Was he a 'good teacher?' Was he a non-deity human prophet? Was He God in the flesh?

That's why we read the Bible. To find out.

You cannot read the Scriptures without a theological, presuppositional backdrop from which you make inferences.

I most certainly can read Scripture without all that theological presuppositional backdrop for inference.

A child can read the Bible and know what the Bible says. Only such theological presuppostionally backdropped pseudo-scholars cannot read the Bible and simply know what it says and believe it.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

I'll trust the Scriptures anyday over any such scientifically theologicized and presupposed backdroppings.

Sola Scriptura: Just read the Scriptures and leave the outer droppings to others.

You cannot read anything without seeing it through a personal tint of sorts: your life story is different than mine, and thus your experiences will influence what you read. You can't just "read". We're always inferring, always interpreting, because to read without interpretation is impossible.

We are told to study Scripture "So that ye may know how ye ought answer every man"

Can you defend what you believe? If you say yes, then try to defend your beliefs without any personal interpretation of Scripture. (You can't.)

If you say no, then you deny the Scriptures that tell us to defend our faith.

you will either read Scripture and interpret what you read to glean from it , or you won't read at all.

 

[robert derrick]

You cannot read anything without seeing it through a personal tint of sorts: your life story is different than mine, and thus your experiences will influence what you read. You can't just "read". We're always inferring, always interpreting, because to read without interpretation is impossible.

We are told to study Scripture "So that ye may know how ye ought answer every man"

Can you defend what you believe? If you say yes, then try to defend your beliefs without any personal interpretation of Scripture. (You can't.)

If you say no, then you deny the Scriptures that tell us to defend our faith.

you will either read Scripture and interpret what you read to glean from it , or you won't read at all.

You cannot read anything without seeing it through a personal tint of sorts

Now that sounds better than them other big words.

Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

We never stop coming as little children to Jesus and His Word of Scripture.

Little children have not learned to put a bunch of vain imagination in their minds, nor to have a hidden agenda.

We come to Scripture with minds ready to be cleared of any and all falsehoods, whether of tradition, imagination, cherished belief, etc...If Scripture conflicts with what we think, we change what we think, rather than trying to change the Scripture to what we think.

I.e. Scripture is always right and true, and it is up to us to renew our minds to be conformed to Scripture.

Can you defend what you believe? If you say yes, then try to defend your beliefs without any personal interpretation of Scripture. (You can't.)

We can if we rightly divide Scripture from our private interpretations of Scripture. And we do that by rightly dividing between what is written,and what is not.

What we believe of a certainty ought be what is written, and therefore easily answered, such as I believe Jesus is the Christ and Lord and Saviour.

When asked about what we believe, therefore, we ought answer according to the scriptures, even as the gospel is preached according to the Scriptures.

We ought not be answering from our own minds about our own personal interpretations, ideas, and practices.

I know the difference; therefore, it is easy to do so.

Can you defend what you believe?

Case in point. I know the difference between what is written and what is not, and what you say here is not written, nor is it true.

We don't defend what we believe. We don't defend ourselves. We defend the gospel, as Paul said he stood in defence of, and we defend the Scriptures as truth of God.

"So that ye may know how ye ought answer every man"

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Our answer is not our defence, but rather the answer we ought to have is the reason for our hope and joy, when asked: Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

I don't ever bother trying to 'defend myself' with others. If they want to know what I believe and why, I tell them: Jesus is the Lord, because the Bible tells me so.

Simple and easy.

I have my private interpretations of Scripture, and I ever give them as Scripture not the truth of scripture. I can offer them for review with the Scriptures I have for them, but the only true interpretation of Scripture is by Scripture itself.

Scripture interprets Scripture perfectly.

 

[robert derrick]

You failed to understand what I was saying before and you are still failing to understand (whether deliberately or not I don't know).
Sacred Tradition is not in Scripture by definition, but it still of God by definition.



Who is that aimed at. Are you just trying to insult me?



As I have pointed out before when the apostles (or other) preached to Gentiles they did not hand out Scripture.
They preached orally (that's what preaching is).
The Gentiles would not know any Scripture (unless they were God-fearers) but could still believe without knowing any Scripture.

You failed to understand what I was saying before and you are still failing to understand (whether deliberately or not I don't know). Sacred Tradition is not in Scripture by definition, but it still of God by definition.

As are you with me.

That which is not written as Scripture, nor is confirmed by Scripture as true, is still not of God by definition: Sola Scriptura.

Men can call it Sacred all they want, but if it is not proven true by Scripture, without any reasoning of scripture, then it is not true of God.

Perhaps, what you are failing to understand is the difference between distinctly written Scripture, and the reasonable teaching and reasoning out of Scripture.

Example: Jesus Christ is the risen Lord and Saviour for all mankind, to save them that believe on His name, and He has died on the cross for all the sins of the world, without respect of persons, whether Jew or Greek.

That is not a quote of Scripture, but it certainly is a true reading and sense of Scriptures that are written.

Therefore, any teaching of doctrine and tradition of God must either be written distinctly, or reasonably taught from the Scriptures. Anything that cannot be confirmed as true by Scripture is therefore not to be taught as true of God: Sola Scriptura.

Are there any traditions and teachings you hold to, that cannot be supported by Scripture?

Who is that aimed at. Are you just trying to insult me?

Once again, do you have any 'Sacred' traditions, that Scripture does not confirm as necessarily true, and yet you would still teach them as doctrine and truth of Christ? I mock them that call 'Sacred' of God, and yet is not proven true by Scripture of God.

As I have pointed out before when the apostles (or other) preached to Gentiles they did not hand out Scripture.

And once again, I have addressed this in multiple ways, and you still refuse to believe.

Paul reasoned out of the scriptures and preached according to the scriptures, and the Gentiles knew the Scriptures of the Old covenant, because the Septuagint had been around for several hundred years, and Paul even quoted from it in (Heb 10:5)

And if there was anything Paul preached that was new to Scripture, then it would either be written as Scripture, or confirmed by Scriptures written. If anyone claims knowledge of that which was written to Laodicea, then that claim is proven true or not, by whether that knowledge agrees with what is written to Corinth, and to Rome, and to the 12 tribes scattered abroad...

The Bible didn't float down out of the air, as you say, and neither are their any words of Paul floating around in the air, that either are not written, or cannot be confirmed by what is written.

They preached orally (that's what preaching is).

And they preached orally according to the Scriptures, which is the gospel of Christ. That's what preaching the gospel of Christ is.

And they that preach orally not according to the Scriptures, it is another accursed gospel. That's what another accursed gospel is.

And so finally:

Do you believe any oral teaching and preaching as true of Christ, that cannot be confirmed by Scripture: whether distinctly written, nor a reasonable sense of what is written?

 

[Mungo]

You failed to understand what I was saying before and you are still failing to understand (whether deliberately or not I don't know). Sacred Tradition is not in Scripture by definition, but it still of God by definition.

As are you with me.

That which is not written as Scripture, nor is confirmed by Scripture as true, is still not of God by definition: Sola Scriptura.

Men can call it Sacred all they want, but if it is not proven true by Scripture, without any reasoning of scripture, then it is not true of God.

Perhaps, what you are failing to understand is the difference between distinctly written Scripture, and the reasonable teaching and reasoning out of Scripture.

Example: Jesus Christ is the risen Lord and Saviour for all mankind, to save them that believe on His name, and He has died on the cross for all the sins of the world, without respect of persons, whether Jew or Greek.

That is not a quote of Scripture, but it certainly is a true reading and sense of Scriptures that are written.

Therefore, any teaching of doctrine and tradition of God must either be written distinctly, or reasonably taught from the Scriptures. Anything that cannot be confirmed as true by Scripture is therefore not to be taught as true of God: Sola Scriptura.

Are there any traditions and teachings you hold to, that cannot be supported by Scripture?

Who is that aimed at. Are you just trying to insult me?

Once again, do you have any 'Sacred' traditions, that Scripture does not confirm as necessarily true, and yet you would still teach them as doctrine and truth of Christ? I mock them that call 'Sacred' of God, and yet is not proven true by Scripture of God.

As I have pointed out before when the apostles (or other) preached to Gentiles they did not hand out Scripture.

And once again, I have addressed this in multiple ways, and you still refuse to believe.

Paul reasoned out of the scriptures and preached according to the scriptures, and the Gentiles knew the Scriptures of the Old covenant, because the Septuagint had been around for several hundred years, and Paul even quoted from it in (Heb 10:5)

And if there was anything Paul preached that was new to Scripture, then it would either be written as Scripture, or confirmed by Scriptures written. If anyone claims knowledge of that which was written to Laodicea, then that claim is proven true or not, by whether that knowledge agrees with what is written to Corinth, and to Rome, and to the 12 tribes scattered abroad...

The Bible didn't float down out of the air, as you say, and neither are their any words of Paul floating around in the air, that either are not written, or cannot be confirmed by what is written.

They preached orally (that's what preaching is).

And they preached orally according to the Scriptures, which is the gospel of Christ. That's what preaching the gospel of Christ is.

And they that preach orally not according to the Scriptures, it is another accursed gospel. That's what another accursed gospel is.

And so finally:

Do you believe any oral teaching and preaching as rue of Christ, that cannot be confirmed by Scripture: whether it be distinctly written, or it be a reasonable sense of what is written?

Once again thank you for your opinions. That they are false is shown by your inability to provide any evidence to back them up.

Sacred Tradition is not in Scripture by definition, but it still of God by definition. That what it is.

Sola Scriptura is not Biblical and is contradicted by Scripture as I have shown you many times. You keep ignoring the Scriptures I gave for that because you have no answer to them.

You have not, and cannot, show me any Scripture that proves Sola Scriptura.

 

[Addy]

Once again thank you for your opinions. That they are false is shown by your inability to provide any evidence to back them up.

a compliment followed by an insult... HAHA... Good one.... GOOD morning to you @Mungo ... It's SUNDAY!!!

 

[Mungo]

a compliment followed by an insult... HAHA... Good one.... GOOD morning to you @Mungo ... It's SUNDAY!!!

Good morning Addy,
I hope you are keeping well.

Normally I don't get the compliment first - just the insult.

 

[Addy]

Good morning Addy,
I hope you are keeping well.

All is very well... thank you... I am kind of proud of the fact that I have stayed on your good side. LOL

Have a good one.

 

[robert derrick]

Once again thank you for your opinions. That they are false is shown by your inability to provide any evidence to back them up.

Sacred Tradition is not in Scripture by definition, but it still of God by definition. That what it is.

Sola Scriptura is not Biblical and is contradicted by Scripture as I have shown you many times. You keep ignoring the Scriptures I gave for that because you have no answer to them.

You have not, and cannot, show me any Scripture that proves Sola Scriptura.

We have at least provided Scriptures to your demand, and you reject them.

You have yet to answer the simple question:

Do you believe any oral teaching and preaching as true of Christ, that cannot be confirmed by Scripture: whether distinctly written, nor a reasonable sense of what is written?

 

[robert derrick]

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

There are the traditions of God in Scripture, and then there are the traditions of men called 'fathers', that are not confirmed by Scripture.

Those zealous for their fathers' traditions will persecute those that keep the traditions of Scriptures only, when they have power to do so.

The 'Jews' of the old covenant did so, and the 'Christians' of the new covenant have done so.

Those who hold to Sola Scriptura only reject the rest as heretical rubbish, and tell them to take a hike.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.

 

[Mungo]

We have at least provided Scriptures to your demand, and you reject them.

I rejected them because they do not support Sola Scriptura, as I clearly showed.
But at least I addressed them which is more than you do for the Scriptures I provide. I can understand that because they refute Sola Scriptura and you have no answer.

You have yet to answer the simple question:

If I have yet to answer it is because you are only just asking it.
I don't generally answer questions before they are asked.

Do you believe any oral teaching and preaching as true of Christ, that cannot be confirmed by Scripture: whether distinctly written, nor a reasonable sense of what is written?

If the teaching is doctrine formally defined by the Catholic Church then yes, I would because it would carry the authority of Christ.

 

[Mungo]

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

There are the traditions of God in Scripture, and then there are the traditions of men called 'fathers', that are not confirmed by Scripture.

Those zealous for their fathers' traditions will persecute those that keep the traditions of Scriptures only, when they have power to do so.

The 'Jews' of the old covenant did so, and the 'Christians' of the new covenant have done so.

Those who hold to Sola Scriptura only reject the rest as heretical rubbish, and tell them to take a hike.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.

Once again thank you for your opinions. That they are false is shown by your inability to provide any evidence to back them up.

 

[n2thelight]

Let's just do this ,where are these writings outside of scripture ?Since the Catholic church knows ,please share

Thanks in advance

 

[Mungo]

Let's just do this ,where are these writings outside of scripture ?Since the Catholic church knows ,please share

Thanks in advance

I think I know what you are looking for but it doesn't work like that.

The Church doesn't derive it's doctrines from a set of writings whether scripture or not.
That is a fundament difference between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants.
Protestants start from writings and develop doctrines based on their personal interpretation of those writings.
But Jesus never wrote anything. He taught orally. The apostles taught orally.
Yes, eventually much of what Jesus and the apostles taught was written down. But the doctrine (teaching) was initially passed on orally.
Luke wrote his gospel so that "Theophilus" might be assured of what he had already been taught. with an orderly account.

There many writings claimed to be about Jesus but the Church had to discern which were true, reliable and inspired by the Holy Spirit, which were useful with authentic teching, and which were simply apocryphal. That took several centuries. Some, like the gospels and Paul's writings were generally accepted by 130 AD, others much later. Some such as Hebrews and 2 Peter were not accepted universally until the 4th century. The canon was not closed until late 4th century.

"A Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon" compiled by Dave Armstrong from Protestant sources that shows this. Have a look.

There isn't (as far as I know) a neat list of non canonical writings. As with scripture, it's not a simple as that. Teaching would be passed on orally and found in the writings of the ECFs (Early Church Fathers) and in liturgies.

Some examples.
1. There is (or was) a thread in this forum disputing whether we should baptised "in Jesus name" only or "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Another argument that goes on and on is whether baptism should be by immersion only or whether pouring water over the head is acceptable.
According to the Didache (probably dated about 70 AD) , also know as "The Teaching of The Twelve Apostles"
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. But if you have no living [running] water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” (chap 7)

2. Another argument about baptism is, does it regenerate us?
Justin Martyr wrote extensively in the 2nd century
"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.'...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles" (The First Apology 61:14-17 [inter A.D. 148-155]).

3. Another long running argument is was Peter ever in Rome.
Irenaeus of Lyon was a disciple if Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. He writes
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1)

 

[robert derrick]

You are just recycling scripture that has already been refuted.

How do we know Scripture has been refuted? When someone that rejects Sola Scriptura says has been refuted.

Them that reject Jesus is the Lord God also say Scripture showing such, is 'refuted'.

Those who reject Scripture as authority of God and Jesus as God, do not refute Scripture and Jesus, but only keep rejecting it and Him.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

'Refute' is nice-speak for trampling rejections.

 

[robert derrick]

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Those who love their 'Sacred' traditions as necessary alongside Scripture, trample the pearls of Scripture in order to get at their tastier Sacred muck and mire.

Their Sacred traditions are no longer 'accompanying' Scripture, but rather Scripture becomes buried deep within the muck and the mire, making the pearls dirty to touch.

And so they teach their followers to touch not the unclean things of Scripture:

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Mammon is man-made traditions outside of Scripture, taught as 'necessary accompaniment' to Scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

The devil loves that doctrine for it divides and divides.

The dividing doctrine of the devil begins with not rightly dividing between Scripture and what is not, between light and darkness, and good and evil.

The division comes when deceived followers of what is not Scripture, come out from the written doctrine of the apostles to separate themselves from the believing body of Christ, no longer holding to the true Head Jesus Christ only.

40,000 splintered Protestant denominations

One splintered protestant denomination among 40,000, is far better than 40,000 traditions of one religion splintered from the body of Christ.

 

[robert derrick]

Yes we are to study Scripture. But that does not say that we can "rightly divide" Scripture without outside help. Scripture warns against that. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (2Pet 1:20)

I.e. I don't have a clue what God is talking about in Scripture, so I hand over all understanding of Scripture to others that don't believe Scripture is sufficient to know the truth of God, and so gladly bring in outside sources of Scripture to teach alongside Scripture.

It never occurs to them that their 'outside help' is giving their own interpretation by outside source, not found in Scripture.

Outside believers look for outside help. Inside believers only seek inside help:

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you...when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.

 

[robert derrick]

It was the Thessalonians who were less noble because they did not accept Paul's teaching. They were Sola Scriptura.

And here is the grand lie. The ones that did not search the Scriptures to confirm Paul's words as true of God, are Sola Scriptura.

Which is based upon another lie contrary to Scripture:

But you cannot teach the Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus from the OT. Paul preached new teaching they had no heard before.

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. (Acts 17)

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24)

Which is why that lie leads the same type to another lie: You can believe in God without knowing any scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

It is correct to believe Scripture to be authoritative (true and reliable) - if properly interpreted. but also reject Sola Scriptura.

I.e. Scripture itself is not true and reliable, until outside sources confirm it as such.

Yes we are to study Scripture. But that does not say that we can "rightly divide" Scripture without outside help...First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.

We cannot confirm Scripture to be true and reliable, until a 'proper interpretation' says so, and since we cannot do that ourselves, we must trust in outside help to do so for us.

I.e. We must not presume to read Scripture for ourselves, but rather must have outside help to tell us what to properly think.

And since Scripture alone is not sufficient to prove things of God one way or the other, then who needs Scripture?

We have our very own outside helpers and leaders, that we can see and hear and maybe even touch in a most 'Sacred' moment of divine communion.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

 

[robert derrick]

I agree that if doctrines contradict Scripture then they are wrong. But it does not follow that they have to be Scripturally confirmed.

Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. I've given many examples (see post #211) which you have failed to address.



Untrue. It is correct to believe Scripture to be authoritative (true and reliable) - if properly interpreted. but also reject Sola Scriptura



People who believe in the false teaching of Sola Scriptura which contradicts Scripture itself are honoring Scripture with their lips, while practising traditions contrary to Scripture with their lives.

Likewise, they speak the name of Jesus with their lips only, while idolizing their own selves with a tradition of men that rejects Scripture of God.

I've given many examples (see post #211) which you have failed to address.

I simply reject the reading of them, and you reject my reasoning in turn.

Impasse.

There is no agreement about Scripture between one who reads Scripture only as truth of God, and one who looks to outside help from outside sources to read alongside Scripture.

Which of course is why one is giving lip service to Scripture and the other is not.

I wonder which one? The one who declares Scripture to be the only authority of God's Word, or the one that does not.