Open Your Bibles...

[GoodSamaritan]

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony:

exactly. testimony is oral tradition. therefore, oral tradition AND written tradition are what we are to follow. it's what the Jews followed as well. to say they followed the Torah ALONE is a fallacy. Moses came down from Sinai with a written law and an oral torah--this is a fact of history.

The article quotes the TImothy verse again but doesn't deal with my argument. Not a single verse he quotes says NT Scripture (which didn't even exist yet, nor was it declared inspired by ANYONE then) is to be the SOLE authority. He claims that Akin uses no Scripture--well, I did. The verses I quoted go ignored by this article. The author actually PROVES Akin's point that oral tradition, in a time where no NT Scripture existed, was what produced the mass amounts of conversions.

to negate the undisputed fact that in those early centuries multiplied thousands of people became Christians, grew in the faith, and died with the hope of heaven, upon the basis of the simple gospel message.

if no writings were available, how did the gospel spread, by osmosis? For belivers in Scripture alone, i see an amazingly small number of Scripture references that say what the question asks.

GS

[GoodSamaritan]

We could post links all day long. The questions still remain. We've looked at 2 Timothy and how it's used here out of context. Here are the questions again:

1.Where in the Bible do we find The Bible set up as the sole and exclusive authority for Christian faith?

2.Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith must be based on a single book or that anyone other than John in Revelation was to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

3. Finally, what does the Bible claim as the foundation of Christian truth and did the First Christians believe in sola scriptura despite the creeds of the early Church saying nothing about Scripture as a tenet of faith?

I want to hear how the backers of the Bible alone reconcile the Scripture that itself says tradition is equally authoritative. Did Paul misspeak? If so, why? Did he also misspeak when he called the Church, not Scripture, the pillar and foundation of the Truth? Considering he wrote that statement when no NT existed, it seem Paul was exhorting us to follow the Church in conjunction with the written word, especially when he says that the law has 'lost its usefulness and has passed away'. Take the verses i've posted and show me how they fail.

BTW, as a Catholic, I don't put my faith in tradition alone, but in Scripture AND Tradition. Absent an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, it becomes just like the law Paul spoke of--'lacking in purpose and not binding.' If you'd prefer to take Jackson's arguments one at a time, we can do that, though, he didn't answer these questions either.

GS

Edited June 24, 2004 by GoodSamaritan

[Ovedya]

We could post links all day long. The questions still remain.

Exactly. Given the fact that Catholics and Protestants have disagreed over this issue for centuries proves that we would probably not gain much more ground on either side than those who have gone before us. Therefore, what's the point?

[AllforJesustheLord]

Anyone who says they believe in all the bible, should recognize the bible, has teachings from the apostles, and therefore can see what they taught is of God, now we should not go against the bible, but should establish the bible. We believe in the bible, and some chose to add more, but for those who choose to add more, they should recognize what the believe, which is in the bible, does not go against itself in teachings, therefore, anything which goes against what you believe, does not need to be understood as being as important as the other scriptures which they believe in anyway.

[BigJer]

How about this verse?

Jude

3Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

[nebula]

Did Paul misspeak? If so, why? Did he also misspeak when he called the Church, not Scripture, the pillar and foundation of the Truth? Considering he wrote that statement when no NT existed, it seem Paul was exhorting us to follow the Church in conjunction with the written word, especially when he says that the law has 'lost its usefulness and has passed away'. Take the verses i've posted and show me how they fail.

Absent an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, it becomes just like the law Paul spoke of--'lacking in purpose and not binding.' If you'd prefer to take Jackson's arguments one at a time, we can do that, though, he didn't answer these questions either.

GS

Hey, Good Samaritan!

I'm trying to figure out the bottom line of where you are going with this, but I'll add some more thoughts anyway.

1.Where in the Bible do we find The Bible set up as the sole and exclusive authority for Christian faith?

The New Testament aspect of the Bible was a compilation of letters written by the apostles and those directly associated tot he apostles to teach others about Jesus and to further guide them in their walk with Christ and functioning as a church or as a servant of the Lord. A century or two later, Church leaders put those writings together to complement what was given from the Torah (Old Testament).

What else would there be to go on to teach us about Jesus and how to live?

What other authority do you believe exists for the Christian faith?

2.Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith must be based on a single book or that anyone other than John in Revelation was to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

You lost me here. The Bible is a series of books, letters, poems, stories, . . . . It is not one single book. You know, books of the Bible?

Again, what do you suggest our Christian faith be based on?

3. Finally, what does the Bible claim as the foundation of Christian truth and did the First Christians believe in sola scriptura despite the creeds of the early Church saying nothing about Scripture as a tenet of faith?

Again, Jesus and the Apostles used the Torah.

I want to hear how the backers of the Bible alone reconcile the Scripture that itself says tradition is equally authoritative. . . .

BTW, as a Catholic, I don't put my faith in tradition alone, but in Scripture AND Tradition.

You know the counter-argument to this? How many times did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees et al for their traditions? It was quite a few. (I can post them if you need to see them.)

So, you got to be careful about following "tradition" just for tradition sake. Really.

[Guest Calamity]

GoodSamaritan:

if no writings were available, how did the gospel spread, by osmosis? For belivers in Scripture alone, i see an amazingly small number of Scripture references that say what the question asks.

The article quotes the TImothy verse again but doesn't deal with my argument. Not a single verse he quotes says NT Scripture (which didn't even exist yet, nor was it declared inspired by ANYONE then) is to be the SOLE authority.

This isn't in Timothy, but it does declare that what he wrote to them were "commandments of the Lord."

1Cor.14

[37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

This may or may not apply here, but thought I'd throw it in.

[AllforJesustheLord]

I have a question to some people, and do not be mistaken I have thought this sometimes.

My question is, do some believe when the scriptures say, in The Laws of Moshe, that they will last forever, that that means everyone for all time will have to continue to do all those things as much as they can?

If they do believe that way, then they would also believe that the New Testament in Greek is some kind of ploy to stop people from being blessed, correct?

By making them turn to Christ, and making them not do the different areas of the law of Moses, they would believe that maybe the Catholic church, changed what Christ really did say, and made it so sometimes people would have to not do the different laws of Moshe, so they could not receive all the blessing of the Older Testament.? Is this a correct thought.

If these thoughts are correct then, how can we see, and know without any doubt, that the Catholic church did not invent many things, teachings which are in the New Testament of the bible, I mean leading people away from the Law of Moses, and saying Christ said things when He did not truly say things?

These are some thoughts I have, yet try not to entertain them, until I can see they are true, and if they are not true, I will never entertain them.

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings AllForJesusTheLord,

Do you believe this:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

1 Corinthians 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

1 Thessalonians 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

2 Timothy 1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;

Where does the Catholic church fit into this?

Do you want to reach a Jew or a Sythian, or a Greek or a Chinese for Christ? You will not get them "saved" by reason, or by logic, or by proofs, but only by the "power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ". It was Paul that taught this, NOT the Catholic church.

Please give this some consideration.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[Guest Genxpastor]

1.Where in the Bible do we find The Bible set up as the sole and exclusive authority for Christian faith?

2.Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith must be based on a single book or that anyone other than John in Revelation was to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

3. Finally, what does the Bible claim as the foundation of Christian truth and did the First Christians believe in sola scriptura despite the creeds of the early Church saying nothing about Scripture as a tenet of faith?

Again, use Scripture, not speculation. God Bless! 

GS

Can I give you an answer without too much detail? I don't have time right now.

Jesus makes references to the writings of Moses in the New Testament as well as plenty of O.T. passages. Also, in the Gospels there is a reference to the blood of Abel to Zechariah. I read once (haven't checked it) that in an old Jewish Canon, Zechariah is the last book. Prophecies abound about Christ in the Isaiah. Also read the authors of the New Testament and see how they tie the Old Testament into their writings. It's virtually everywhere...Acts, Romans, etc. To sum up this rambling: Due to the references by Christ and His followers to the O.T. it becomes obvious of the connection. Study how the Canon was formed. I believe you'll find your answers there.

Like I said, I haven't the time to give you verse by verse.

Hope this helps

As to question 3? Given the content about heresies and false doctrine why wouldn't the apostles believe in sola scriptura? confusion came to the church after they died.

Edited June 26, 2004 by Genxpastor