Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't sola scripture mean that only the scriptures in Bible count and any scriptures outside of the Bible, like the EnochX scrolls don't count ?
Scripture itself is derived from scribe. Scriptures were the scrolls written by scribes.
But sola scripture only counts the scriptures contained within the Bible to be sacred.
That is my understanding. Am I off ?
A bit.
Sola scriptura is defined early on in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.
If one doesn’t believe the Scriptures are from God, what’s the point of discussing whether Sola Scriptura is Scriptural? This is precisely why I won’t discuss any topic with Mystic. We have no common ground. You & I disagree on many things, but we both believe the Scriptures are the word of God, and I’m very grateful for that. It’s one reason I enjoy our discussions so much.
What if one believes Scripture is from God,
and loves the Scriptures,
but recognizes that scripture itself SHOWS that scripture ALONE is NOT the sole way that God communicates?
for example: The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech,
they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Psalm 19:1-3
Oral tradition is worthless without the witness of scripture! Anyone can invent new doctrine and claim it to be oral tradition handed down by the apostles.
2000 years of Christian history testifies to the fact that oral tradition is most definitely NOT worthless.
It's true that anyone can invent a new doctrine and claim it to be apostolic tradition. That's why we have the Apostolic Church, so that we can know what is truly apostolic and what is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
Jesus believed in Scripture alone. Three times he was tempted by the Devil and each time he replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: "IT IS WRITTEN"
Never did Jesus refer to oral tradition or the doctrines of men to prove or defend truth. In fact, Jesus condemned teachings of men: “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” (Matthew 15:9)
Jesus never relied upon the teachings of men outside of the Scriptures. He relied on Scripture alone.
Jesus did reference oral tradition in Matthew 23:2, as there is nothing in the Old Testament about Moses' seat of authority.
Matthew 2:23 references the prophecy that "He would be called a Nazarene". This prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament, so was an oral tradition.
In Acts 20:35, Paul says that Jesus said "it is better to give than to receive". This quote from Jesus is not found in the Gospels, but is an oral tradition.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul says that a spiritual rock followed the Israelites in the wilderness. This is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but is an oral tradition.
In Hebrews 11:37, the author says that past martyrs of the faith were cut in two; but there is no record of anyone being cut in two in the Old Testament, so this is an oral tradition.
In Jude 9, he claims that the Archangel Michael and the devil had a dispute over Moses' body; but this is not written in the Old Testament so is an oral tradition.
In Acts 20:35, Paul says that Jesus said "it is better to give than to receive". This quote from Jesus is not found in the Gospels, but is an oral tradition.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul says that a spiritual rock followed the Israelites in the wilderness. This is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but is an oral tradition.
In Hebrews 11:37, the author says that past martyrs of the faith were cut in two; but there is no record of anyone being cut in two in the Old Testament, so this is an oral tradition.
In Jude 9, he claims that the Archangel Michael and the devil had a dispute over Moses' body; but this is not written in the Old Testament so is an oral tradition.
The apostles actually received direct revelation. You aren't an apostle. Nor is any of your church's leaders.
The apostles actually received direct revelation. You aren't an apostle. Nor is any of your church's leaders.
Correct. All of which have nothing to do with the fact that the apostles relied on oral tradition, and oral tradition can be just as valid as written scripture.
If one doesn’t believe the Scriptures are from God, what’s the point of discussing whether Sola Scriptura is Scriptural? This is precisely why I won’t discuss any topic with Mystic. We have no common ground. You & I disagree on many things, but we both believe the Scriptures are the word of God, and I’m very grateful for that. It’s one reason I enjoy our discussions so much.
I believe the scriptures were inspired by God, Miss Kate, but they were interpreted by ignorant primitive men using their barbaric beliefs about God that Jesus came to correct! They are not the dictated "words of God" and are misunderstood. But when you use the "mind of Christ" of the Word of God (Jesus) as the True Nature of God, you can discern what was actually being communicated to be compatible with the loving God Jesus personally revealed instead of the wrathful God our ancestors believed in. You are correct that this provides no common ground with those who believe they are the actual words of God and are inerrant and infallible.
What if one believes Scripture is from God,
and loves the Scriptures,
but recognizes that scripture itself SHOWS that scripture ALONE is NOT the sole way that God communicates?
for example: The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech,
they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Psalm 19:1-3
I believe the scriptures were inspired by God, Miss Kate, but they were interpreted by ignorant primitive men using their barbaric beliefs about God that Jesus came to correct! They are not the dictated "words of God" and are misunderstood. But when you use the "mind of Christ" of the Word of God (Jesus) as the True Nature of God, you can discern what was actually being communicated to be compatible with the loving God Jesus personally revealed instead of the wrathful God our ancestors believed in. You are correct that this provides no common ground with those who believe they are the actual words of God and are inerrant and infallible.
I see a HUGE contradiction in your words. In your very first sentence, you say that you believe the Scriptures were inspired by God. Then in your last sentence you write that there is no common ground with those who believe they are the actual words of God.
Please help me to understand your position. If you believe the Scriptures are inspired by God, then we have common ground to discuss them.
Who are the ignorant men you refer to in the second half of your first sentence? Do you mean Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon and the Prophets who were lead by the Holy Spirit to write the Old Testament?
What exactly do you mean by “using the mind of Christ?” Do you mean seeing into the mind of Jesus through the words He spoke, which are recorded in the gospels? Or do you mean Jesus speaks to you directly, and therefore, you know the mind of Christ?
In Acts 20:35, Paul says that Jesus said "it is better to give than to receive". This quote from Jesus is not found in the Gospels, but is an oral tradition.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul says that a spiritual rock followed the Israelites in the wilderness. This is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but is an oral tradition.
In Hebrews 11:37, the author says that past martyrs of the faith were cut in two; but there is no record of anyone being cut in two in the Old Testament, so this is an oral tradition.
In Jude 9, he claims that the Archangel Michael and the devil had a dispute over Moses' body; but this is not written in the Old Testament so is an oral tradition.
Keep in mind that Jesus spoke directly to Paul, and he wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The author of Hebrews wrote by inspiration.
Jude also wrote by inspiration.
The oral traditions these men wrote about came via the Holy Spirit.
No one now or ever in the Catholic or any other church has written or spoken by inspiration of the Holy Spirit since the last apostle died.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
