the church

Cruciform

New member
Hardly.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" II Timothy 3:16

Sola Scriptura, being inspired by God, is mankinds' final authority regarding the truths of God. (Sola Scriptura does not mean Christians are forbidden to read anything but the bible.)
Here Paul says that the Scriptures are "profitable," not that ONLY the Scriptures are profitable---the former must be read into the biblical text, as you have done here. Also, "profitable" is certainly not equivalent to "numerically sufficient." Try again.


 
Last edited:

Cruciform

New member
The traditions of men are not inspired.
Yes, "traditions of men" such as sola scriptura, which was unheard of in Church history prior to the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion.

Sola Scriptura is the final authority and sole basis in a Christian's life of faith.
Please cite a single biblical text that actually teaches any such thing.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Here Paul says that the Scriptures are "profitable," not that ONLY the Scriptures are profitable---this you must read into the biblical text, as you have done here. Also, "profitable" is certainly not equivalent to "numerically sufficient." Try again.


I am defining Sola Scriptura as being the Christian's sole and final authority regarding the truths of God, on the revelation that "all scriptures is inspired by God . . ." II Timothy 3:16

Your counter, disputing "profitability," is just an attempt to distract from my biblical definition of the term.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Yes, "traditions of men" such as sola scriptura, which was unheard of in Church history prior to the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion.


Sola Scriptura is a term, not a "tradition," used to sum up the divine authority of the Word of God.


Please cite a single biblical text that actually teaches any such thing.

II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:20-21, Romans 15:4, Matthew 4:4 (cp Deut. 8:3)
 

Cruciform

New member
I am defining Sola Scriptura as being the Christian's sole and final authority regarding the truths of God, on the revelation that "all scriptures is inspired by God . . ." II Timothy 3:16
The apostles themselves taught that Apostolic Tradition is also the Christian's authority regarding the truths of God" (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 2 Tim. 1:13; Titus 1:9). Therefore, Scripture simply cannot be, as you claim, "the Christian's SOLE and FINAL authority," which Scripture itself nowhere teaches, or even implies.
 

Right Divider

Body part
But presently, in Christ, there is neither Jew nor gentile? :confused:
That is correct. It is hard for you to understand?

What about "neither male nor female"? That should tell you something.

So was Paul not part of any church?
Did I say that he was not part of "any church"?

Or was he part of a separate church?
He was the first member of a NEW CREATURE.

2Cor 5:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more. (5:17) Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he][ is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

The RCC and so many others want so badly to associate with Christ in His earthly ministry to Israel that they neglect (or twist) these scriptures to miss or deny the meaning.

Paul's singular apostleship as the apostle of the gentiles is clearly different than that of the TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes of Israel.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The apostles themselves taught that Apostolic Tradition is also the Christian's authority regarding the truths of God" (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 2 Tim. 1:13; Titus 1:9).


Prior to the canonization of the Scriptures we possess today, yes. Now, the sole authority is the Word of God (that included what the early Apostles wrote).


Therefore, Scripture simply cannot be, as you claim, "the Christian's SOLE and FINAL authority," which Scripture itself nowhere teaches, or even implies.

There are no living Apostles (eye-witnesses of the incarnated Christ)existent in this age; thus only some of their historical writings have been authorized by God as being inspired Scripture, and preserved for the benefit of all Christians.

This is just one subject that separates the RCC from the Reformed Faith.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Now, the sole authority is the Word of God (that included what the early Apostles wrote).

How do you know that's true?
And how do you know which writings constitute the Word of God, and which do not?



thus only some of their historical writings have been authorized by God as being inspired Scripture, and preserved for the benefit of all Christians.

How do you know which writings they are?
 

Cruciform

New member
Sola Scriptura is a term, not a "tradition"...
In fact, it is a tradition invented by men during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion, and which was unknown before that time.

...used to sum up the divine authority of the Word of God.
The authority of the Scriptures is not in dispute between Catholics and Protestants. Both sides wholeheartedly affirm the divine authority of the Bible. What Catholics dispute is the Protestant's claim that ONLY the Bible possesses divine authority. Again, the Bible itself teaches otherwise. The Bible being authoritative is one thing (and we agree entirely on that point); the Bible being the ONLY authority is another matter entirely (and this we must reject as an unbiblical tradition of men).

II Timothy 3:16...
Says that Scripture is "inspired" (Greek, theopneustos: "God-breathed"), divinely authoritative---NOT that ONLY the Bible possesses divine authority. This text in no way teaches sola scriptura. [SOURCE]

...II Peter 1:20-21...
Again, this text affirms the divine authority of Scripture (which Catholics also affirm), but it nowhere even hints at the supposed numerical sufficiency of Scripture (which sola scriptura asserts). Again, this text in no way teaches sola sriptura.

...Romans 15:4...
As with your two previous proof-texts, this one merely speaks of the divine authority of the Tanach (Old Testament). It says nothing whatsoever, though, about any supposed numerical sufficiency of Scripture. Catholics agree with the former, but have never accepted the latter, since [1] It is nowhere taught in Scripture itself, and [2] it violates the teaching of Scripture itself.

...Matthew 4:4...
Yes, we are to live according to the "word" (message) of God, in whatever form it happens to take, whether written or spoken (2 Thess. 2:15). And God's "word" (message), in whatever form, carries divine authority. On this, Catholics and Protestants fully agree. But the notion that ONLY the written word of God is authoritative is merely a tradition created by men during the 16th-century Protestant Revolt.

...(cp Deut. 8:3)
Note that man is to live "by every word that proceeds from God's mouth"---not only by every written word from God. It is thus more than plain that Scripture itself nowhere teaches the Protestant assumption of sola scriptura, and in fact teaches precisely otherwise.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

Cruciform

New member
Prior to the canonization of the Scriptures we possess today, yes. Now, the sole authority is the Word of God (that included what the early Apostles wrote).
Now please cite the biblical text which states that "Now, the sole authority is the [written] Word of God."

There are no living Apostles (eye-witnesses of the incarnated Christ)existent in this age...
Very true there are no more apostles. There are, however, the historical successors of the original apostles---the bishops---who possess the very same ecclesiastical and doctrinal authority as those apostles whose apostolic ministry the bishops were ordained to carry on throughout Christian history.
 

Right Divider

Body part
So Paul is part of a church.
And the 12 are part of a church.

But they are not parts of the same church. Is this right?
That is correct. Both have Jesus Christ as their foundation.

Have you not ever wondered how Paul could say that HE laid the foundation?

1Cor 3:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. (3:11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

And yet Paul was careful NOT to build on upon another man's foundation.

Rom 15:20 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:20) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Same Christ, difference messages. Nothing that contradicts in either message.
 

ThreeAngels

New member
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear
Jesus was speaking to Peter as the representative of the believers. Jesus did not appoint Peter chief otherwise the disciples should not be so often found squabbling over who was greatest.
The keys of the kingdom are all the words of Scripture. They specify the conditions upon which men are accepted or rejected by heaven.
 

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
The problem is that you don't learn at all---not even from the basic principles of rational thought.
christian church means just that. when Roman Catholics read the word "catholic" from early church writers & equate it to themselves would be like homosexuals reading someone from a hundred years ago using the word rainbow & equating it to themselves.
 
Top