ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

[Cruciform]

But because Isaiah said THE Law and THE Testimony, he was referring to a specific body (or bodies) or scripture. So I don't agree that there was no authoritative scripture. Thus, sola scriptura was alive then.

QUESTION: Who authoritatively determined what was "authoritative scripture," and what was not, for the Old Testament believers? That is, how did they know what qualified as "authoritative scripture"? :think:

 

[nikolai_42]

QUESTION: Who authoritatively determined what was "authoritative scripture," and what was not, for the Old Testament believers? That is, how did they know what qualified as "authoritative scripture"? :think:

While that is an interesting question, I'm simply taking from the scripture that there was such a thing. THE Law and THE testimony implies it. Whether I know what they determined was authoritative or not is immaterial - the point is that they had a specific set of scriptures, the Lord told them not to deviate from them and if anyone did, it was because "there is no light in them". Sounds like sola scriptura to me....

 

[CabinetMaker]

Matthew 15:6 (NIV) 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

 

[Cruciform]

While that is an interesting question, I'm simply taking from the scripture that there was such a thing. THE Law and THE testimony implies it. Whether I know what they determined was authoritative or not is immaterial - the point is that they had a specific set of scriptures, the Lord told them not to deviate from them and if anyone did, it was because "there is no light in them". Sounds like sola scriptura to me....

My point is that they necessarily held to a fundamental teaching---i.e., the canonical content of "Scripture"---which came from outside the "Scriptures" themselves." Therefore, no sola scriptura. Case closed.

 

[Bright Raven]

What other things are there to believe besides the scriptures.

 

[Cruciform]

Matthew 15:6 (NIV) 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

• The general authority of Scripture (which is taught in this passage) is not under dispute here. Rather, what is disputed is the assumption that ONLY Scripture is authoritative.
• Also, not all "tradition" is forbidden in Scripture. Indeed, adherence to apostolic Tradition is commanded in the New Testament (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2; cf. 1 Thess. 2:13).

Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

What other things are there to believe besides the scriptures.

According to the Scriptures themselves, apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2; cf. 1 Thess. 2:13).

 

[oatmeal]

According to the Scriptures themselves, apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2; cf. 1 Thess. 2:13).

Where is the list of the traditions Paul speaks of?

The only thing of note is the scriptures themselves.

II Thessalonians 2:15 is very clear

the epistles are scripture, and the word is scripture which although may have been spoken was written down in the form of scripture.

 

[nikolai_42]

My point is that they necessarily held to a fundamental teaching---i.e., the canonical content of "Scripture"---which came from outside the "Scriptures" themselves." Therefore, no sola scriptura. Case closed.

THE Law and THE Testimony = THE scriptures

 

[oatmeal]

Now go ahead and indicate exactly where in your proof-text the words "Scripture, "written," or "Bible" appear.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Are you suggesting that the word Jesus referred to is not scripture, or written?

Where did Jesus teach a truth or concept that was not within the parameters of scripture?

He taught directly from scripture or taught principles from scripture or received from his Father what he should say or do just like is recorded in scripture.

Although Jesus did not use the Latin phrase "sola scriptura" he most certainly adhered to it.

He deplored the traditions of men, he exalted scripture, "it is written" and "have you not read?"

 

[CabinetMaker]

• The general authority of Scripture (which is taught in this passage) is not under dispute here. Rather, what is disputed is the assumption that ONLY Scripture is authoritative.
• Also, not all "tradition" is forbidden in Scripture. Indeed, adherence to apostolic Tradition is commanded in the New Testament (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2; cf. 1 Thess. 2:13).

Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So post 63 stands as posted as you remain unable to provide a list of the specific traditions that Paul was referring to. There is nothing in any of those verses that indicates there would be continued revelation of new traditions. Just remember this verse and be 100% comfortable that when you stand before Jesus He will not ask you why nullified the word of His Father for the sake of your traditions.

 

[Cruciform]

Where is the list of the traditions Paul speaks of?

A false assumption on your part. Try again.

II Thessalonians 2:15 is very clear. the epistles are scripture, and the word is scripture which although may have been spoken was written down in the form of scripture.

Now go ahead and indicate exactly where it says any such thing in the text.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

THE Law and THE Testimony = THE scriptures

It may refer to SOME scriptures. It certainly does not refer to "the Bible," let alone "Scripture ALONE."

 

[Cruciform]

Are you suggesting that the word Jesus referred to is not scripture, or written?

Absolutely. Generally in Scripture, "word" means "message"---in whatever form it happens to be communicated.

Where did Jesus teach a truth or concept that was not within the parameters of scripture?

See this.

Although Jesus did not use the Latin phrase "sola scriptura" he most certainly adhered to it.

Nope.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

...provide a list of the specific traditions that Paul was referring to.

I've answered this several times on this forum. Do a thread search.

 

[nikolai_42]

It may refer to SOME scriptures. It certainly does not refer to "the Bible," let alone "Scripture ALONE."

I don't know...but "...if they speak not according to the Law and the Testimony...there is no light in them" sounds pretty much like it certainly is sola...

 

[oatmeal]

A false assumption on your part. Try again.


Now go ahead and indicate exactly where it says any such thing in the text.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Sorry, but you are sadly mistaken.

Where is the list of traditions Paul speaks of?

What are those traditions?

Do they contradict scripture?

How do you know?

If they are not important for God to have them written down, then how were they communicated?

If they were but oral tradition, not worthy to be written down, then why bother with them?

How could you bother with them if you do not know what they are?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I've answered this several times on this forum. Do a thread search.

You have NEVER answered this question. You have asserted several times that the teachings of the RCC are the traditions referred to in scripture. You have never been able to prove your assertion by providing a list of the specific traditions the Apostle Paul taught.

 

[Cruciform]

I don't know...but "...if they speak not according to the Law and the Testimony...there is no light in them" sounds pretty much like it certainly is sola...

No more than "If one doesn't have water, he cannot live" means that one needs ONLY water to live.

 

[Cruciform]

Sorry, but you are sadly mistaken.

...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions that you've derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

Regarding Tradition, see this, this, this, and this.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+