When the Bible was compiled, why would that negate pre-existing oral tradition? If sola scriptura has never been an ever-lasting and eternal doctrine, on what authority was it created?


Why is that odd? Since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that everything is found in scripture, scripture itself should teach it. However, it does not. How can you justify believing something that is not in scripture, since it is contradictory to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?


On what Biblical basis do you make this assumption?



Not information necessary to run the Church - but it was apparently important enough to be written about. I don't take what is written in the Bible lightly, and have a hard time believing that it was a trivial comment.


You concede that oral tradition was the basis of the Church for nearly four hundred years, yet fail to provide Biblical proof saying that oral tradition should be abandoned. The Catholic Church has always valued Sacred Tradition, and can trace lineage to Peter. Where in the Bible does it say that oral tradition ended?


In other words, you don't have a verse to prove Sola Scriptura.



If you have stories and rules passed down and not all were written, why would you automatically disregard the unwritten ones as untrue?


We're getting off track - let's stick with Sola Scriptura until we're through.


The story of Samuel indicates that God's Word is not always apparent.
The Bible does affirm itself to be the truth. The Catholic Church affirms the Bible to be true as well.
What the Bible does not say is that everything there is to know is contained within itself.


How did you evaluate the Church?


God's chosen people don't believe in Christ! Frankly, their judgement does not concern me.


Good, we agree!
Per Sola Scriptura, if you believe in the Trinity, it must be in the Bible. However, it is not. How can you justify such belief under Sola Scriptura?

One could argue that so much emphasis on Mary (talking about,praying..staues) = Worship of Mary.

SO...

Could so much emphasis on the Bible = worship of a book* or worship of God's word instead of God himself?

*When I say this I do not mean to imply that the Bible is a just book.

I'm not entirely as well versed in Catholic doctrine as Cadet Lee (which is kind of bad since I was raised Catholic and adopted through Catholic charities and such) but I had never heard of the belief that Mary stayed a virgin even after the birth of Jesus. Is that actually part of the Catholic doctrine?

Because everything that was passed down in oral tradition was recorded in the Bible.



As I said before, the Bible identifies nothing else on this planet as a source of truth. If nothing else is a validated and authorized source of truth, the logical conclusion is that the Bible is the only source of truth.



The Bible is the only written record of what happened to these specific people, and what they said. Thus, if the material is not in the only record we have, you can not assume they said things in addition to what is written. To do otherwise would mean that I could (rightfully) claim that Martin Luther King, Jr. at one point said, "My name is Charles Burgundy. I am of the planet Color Purple, and I eat three penguins a day."



If it wasn't trivial, it would have been in the Bible.



Oral tradition was used to pass down what was written in the Bible. Thus, if it's not written in the Bible, it was either not passed down through oral tradition, or not deemed fit for inclusion in the Bible.

In addition, every single Protestant church can trace its lineage back to Peter. It's really not that unique.



In other words, there are plenty of verses in the Bible asserting itself as truth, and no verses that give any other thing on this planet the authority to be asserted as truth. Thus, if the Bible is the only validated, authorized, and approved source of truth, it is the only source of truth.



This is the sequence:

True Oral Traditions >> Oral Traditions compiled into Bible >> Untrue/Unnecessary Oral Traditions



How? I read, and re-read, and yet do not see how this passage says what you say it does.



Of course it doesn't. There's plenty in the world that isn't explained by the Bible at all. But as far as religious truth goes, it's the only source validated as such.



I've attended mass. I've read the history of the church. I've gone to Catholic youth leadership groups. While the Catholic church has done many wonderful things - first foremost that comes to mind are its relief programs - its focus on the central power of the church overriding that of the individuals' rights is too dictatorial for my taste. In St. Louis, we've got a church that has all but been fully ex-communicated simply because they refuse to turn over the deed to the church to the archbishop, because he has a history of selling church property for court settlements. The same archbishop ex-communicated a priest for running mass at this same church. This is driving the church toward becoming independent. Again, a small percentage of the church, but this small percentage is not a powerless lot.



When it concerns the validity of books that we borrow from them, it should.



Simply because the word "trinity" itself does not appear in the Bible does not mean there's no Biblical evidence for it.

Bah, 12 years of Catholic schooling didn't instill me, or a bunch of people I knew, with a fount of knowledge on our own religon. :p

As for the question, I'd have to ask my one friend. He had a religon/sex ed. teacher for a mother

Pat?

Where in the Bible does it say that?


As I said before, there is tradition.


What about the verse that says that Christ did many other things which were not recorded?


And you know this how? Where in the Bible does it say so?


Again, where in the Bible does it say that?


Then part of their lineage would be the Catholic Church, since the Popes can be traced to Peter.


The Bible was validated, authorized and approved by the Council of Hippo (393AD) and the Council of Carthage (397AD). In other words, the Bible was validated, authorized and approved by the Catholic Church, which also teaches Sacred Tradition. How can you accept the Bible approved by Catholics, and not the Tradition as well?


Give me a verse that states this.


Samuel thought God was Eli. God != Eli. As such, what God says is not necessarily apparent. However, this is getting a little off topic..


Even as far as religous truth goes, it does not specifically say that everything is contained therein.


And this is official Church doctrine how? Irrelevant.


So you're willing to accept the Old Testament from them, but disregard the fact that they don't believe that the prophecies were fulfilled? Do they not still believe in the Old Covenant? Either way, it is irrelevant to Sola Scriptura, unless you can provide a verse stating what books are supposed to be in the Bible.. :p


So you will accept that some things do not have to be directly mentioned in order to be true.

I request that you provide Scriptural references to fit these criteria:

1) A verse stating that Scripture is the only source and foundation of Truth
2) A verse stating that we are to abandon traditions passed on from the Apostles
3) A verse stating that nothing (as far as religion/teaching) happened that was not recorded in Scripture

Also known as Semievil333. That's the one. Stupid bum's playing City of Heroes right now... fortunately, his roommate makes for a good pigeon messanger

Apparently the answer is "yes." Huh. I have to say I'm more a fan of the ideas in "Dogma."

Nowhere, specifically. But, if it's not in the Bible or is not supported by the Bible, then why is it worth considering?



Traditions which can not be trusted if not found in the Bible.



And what of them? Are we supposed to live our lives according to what Christ might have done?



Because the Bible is the sole religious document within mainstream Christianity, it wouldn't make sense for God to say, "Okay, I'll put some of the important stuff in here, and let everyone else figure it out as they go along." He didn't do that with the Jews; why would He with Christians?



It isn't. But, again, why include it if it wasn't important?



Because so many of the traditions and doctrines made by the Catholic church do not have scriptural evidence, which is the only document that Christians have that stands today as a record of the events surrounding the lives of Jesus and his Disciples. If one does not seek Biblical evidence, evidence within the Word of God, then one is free to make any doctrine they wish. There is no regulation of the actions of that church.

Where does the pope's authority and power come from? Certainly not the Bible - it comes from the Catholic church.

What's to stop the church from saying that Peter, in fact, required everyone to donate 2.5% of their liquifiable assets to the church (it just wasn't in the Bible - it was a tradition that just didn't make it in there).



See above.



It also says the Word was not revealed to him:

Samuel 3:7 - Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord: The word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him.

How is somebody supposed to recognize what they do not know?



But once you start making decisions and doctrines that can't be supported by the only record of Jesus and His disciples, you are free to make any doctrines or rules that you wish, all based solely on your authority.



Not at all irrelevant. An archbishop, one who has been appointed to represent the Catholic church, is acting in a manner that's grossly inappropriate. He's exiled an entire church because he wants the deed to the church. Why? To "bring them into the fold," he says. God forbid should any member of the Catholic church do something other than blindly follow their leadership, which is staffed by imperfect people who act as though they are God's representatives on this planet. What they are, in fact, are men and women who interpret the Bible the way they think is fit, and then tell people that that is the way they should believe. Imperfection interpreting perfection does not result in 100% guaranteed correct results.



The Old Testament is the Torah. The Torah was constructed by the Jews. The Jews determined, long before Christianity was on the horizon of time, that these were the only books that were divinely inspired. The Catholic church comes along hundreds of years later and say, "Eh. We think these were right, too. Nevermind the fact that these aren't our books, and that we're adding to someone else's scripture. We're right."



1) The Bible asserts itself as truth. The Bible asserts no other source as truth. Thus, the Bible is the only source of truth, because there are no other sources of truth that are asserted by the words of God.

2) Those traditions are found within the Bible. There is no abandonment.

3) Again, if you assume that Biblical evidence is not needed to support doctrine or dogma, then there is nothing - nothing - that prevents a church from bloating up with its own self-importance as it makes rules based on its own authority, and not the authority of the Bible.

and didn't the catholic church already do that during the 1500's?

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. Why is it worth considering?


That's your assumption - where in the Bible does it state this?


Tradition, my friend.


That's why the Church was created.


The entire basis of Sola Scriptura is based on the Bible. For you to believe it, it must be in Scripture!


Again, you fail to provide a Scriptural basis for your statements. If I recall correctly, were we not finishing the discussion on Sola Scriptura first?


Again, irrelevant. Show me Scriptural evidence.


You do not know the Catholic Church. I could say the same to you.


Again, irrelevant - your statements are not backed up by Scriptural references. In order to prove Sola Scriptura, it must be in the Bible!


It is irrelevant to the discussion on Sola Scriptura, and his actions are not official Church teaching, are they...


Again, you make assumptions - also, this is irrelevant to Sola Scriptura.




So by mere absence of information, you will come to a conclusion? You say that if things were not trivial, they would be in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is hardly a trivial doctrine. Why then is it not directly written in the Bible?

Give me a verse that states that the Bible is the only source and foundation of truth.

Sola Scriptura has Biblical evidence, because the Bible asserts itself as truth, and no other source as truth. This alone is the basis of Sola Scriptura. How many times do I have to tell you this before you stop regurgitating the same argument over and over again, or, at the very least, provide some part of the Bible that identifies some other source as a source of truth?



The Bible frequently warns against false prophets. If people who claim to be prophets, such as the pope, don't rely on the existing edition of God's words as a basis for doctrine and dogma, then they are a false prophet. They have no basis for their authority.



Tradition without Biblical basis is the tradition of men.



The Church was created to spread the Word of God. Not to make up its own rules.



Again, show me a quote where the Bible asserts any other source as a foundation of truth, and Sola Scriptura will be disproven. Until such point, the Bible is the only asserted source of truth. Thus, Sola Scriptura.



This isn't about Sola Scriptura. This is about the Catholic church dismissing the Jews' authority to determine what belongs in their own book.



There is no scriptural evidence of a church making its own rules without Biblical evidence. There is, however, a lot of real-world evidence.



Er...what?



It is in the Bible, as I have proven multiple times now. You ignore the evidence and simply recycle the same arguments without countering any of the points I have provided. I countered at least fifteen citations of Scripture, and you have failed to provide any source of Scripture that proves that there are sources of truth outside of the Bible.



He's got the backing of the archdiocese. Rather odd for him to have that support if he's doing something against Catholic teachings. And, yes, it's relevant to Sola Scriptura, because it demonstrates the fallacies and fallibilities of an organization that says, "Trust us to lead you to salvation, but only if you do everything that we tell you to and never question our judgment."



I made no assumptions at all. The books of the Apocrypha were never in the Torah, never in the TANAK. Ask any Jew, any rabbai, and they will tell you the same. These books are not considered to be divinely-inspired, but the Catholic church has decided that the Jews have no authority over the collection of the book, and gave themselves the authority, when no such thing is granted by God in any text, to determine what Jewish books were truly divinely-inspired. Martin Luther and other separatists recognized this for the mistake it was, and removed the books that the Catholics added.



It's simple math. We have one validated and authorized source of truth: the Bible. That's one. Now, we add all the other sources of truth. Here's how the equation works out:

1 + 0 = 1

Is it really that hard for you to understand?

We can boil this entire argument down to this statement:



The burden of proof is on you, since your doctrine is the one which is based entirely on Biblical contents. If you cannot prove Sola Scriptura with a direct scripture reference, it fails by definition alone.

Regardless:

Matthew 28:19-20
Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

However, all that was commanded was not written:


John 20:30
Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

John 21:25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.


Paul does not state only to obey the written letters, but all ordinances that he has delivered to them:
1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

Obviously Paul's letter alone is not enough:
1 Thess. 3:8-10
Because now we live, if you stand in the Lord.

For what thanks can we return to God for you, in all the joy wherewith we rejoice for you before our God,

Night and day more abundantly praying that we may see your face and may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith?

This is confirmed in 2 Thess. 2:14:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say to hold fast to the written letters and forsake Tradition, and nowhere in Scripture does it say Scripture alone is the sole source and foundation of Truth.

What is the foundation of Truth? According to Scripture:
2 Thess. 3:14-15

These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

There it is - straight from Scripture. The pillar and ground/foundation of truth is the Church. Tradition is also upheld in these verses, and nowhere in Scripture does it say to disregard traditions passed on from the apostles. Also, nowhere in Scripture does it say that all teaching was recorded in Scripture.

Actually, you're making the positive claim here. For me to prove my case, I would have to analyze and explain every single line of scripture to prove that the Bible is the only identified source of truth. You have to only provide one, which you still have yet to do.



You're operating on the wrong definition, then. Sola Scriptura dictates that all doctrines must have Biblical evidence, not that every doctrine must be specifically cited within the Bible.

Regardless:



All that was done was not written. Not all that was commanded. Jesus performed miracles and did "other signs," not "issue commandments."



He told and taught them things, and told them to adhere to these things. How does this disprove Sola Scriptura?



Not enough to do what? Keep people faithful? So? How does this disprove Sola Scriptura?



He tells them to hold fast to what he has taught them. How does this disprove Sola Scriptura?



Nowhere in the Bible does it say that anything but the Bible is a source of truth.



What is a church that is not based on the Bible? Not a foundation for truth, that's for sure. You're saying that the church is the foundation of truth, the base of truth. This conflicts with the Bible, which asserts itself as the source of truth. Thus, only a church based on the Bible is a foundation for truth. A church is useless if it does not follow the Bible, that its commandments can not be found within the Bible. The Catholic church blithely ignores this and asserts itself the authority to make rules not based on God's word. You're taking this line of scripture out of context with the rest of the Bible.



Nowhere in Scripture does it say that all teachings are not recorded in Scripture.

(I also think your previous signature was better.)

It's Catholic tradition, but not dogma. There aren't really that many things The Catholic Church has defined as dogma, pretty much everything in the Creed and a couple of other things.

Basically the Church is saying that that is the fact of the matter as the Church's tradition tells it, but since it isn't information necessary for salvation it really doesn't matter what you believe about it.

The traditions that Paul wrote about are truth, or he would not have commanded them to be followed. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that all of those traditions were recorded.

If you find a verse stating to abandon apolostic tradition (the institution of which is referenced in Scripture), we might have something to work with here.


As I stated, Paul wrote and said to hold fast to traditions that were passed on from there forefathers -- not hold fast to letters. These traditions must be truth. There is not a book of "Tradition" in the Bible -- they were passed on from generation to generation (as I pointed out earlier).


Paul wanted them to follow what he had taught orally in addition to what he wrote. As such, such oral teaching (tradition) must have been true. This is another source of truth not contained within Scripture.



Then which Church is the foundation of Truth?



And nowhere does it say that all teachings are recorded. You cannot draw such a significant doctrinal conclusion based on a lack of evidence.

I'll boil it down as concisely as I can:

If Sola Scriptura was correct. the Bible itself would have to affirm so. The foundation of Truth is the Church, and as such, the Church should interpret Scripture. As you can see, we are both reading the same passages and coming to different conclusions. How do we know who is right? The Scriptures specifically warn us about situations such as this:



How can you do away with Tradition, when Paul specifically stated to hold fast to it?

holy ****...

You're assuming, without evidence, that there are traditions not written in the Bible.



The apostles' teachings and traditions are found within the Bible.



What record do you have that proves that these traditions are not found within the letters?



Firstly: none of your citations have claimed oral tradition, just tradition. Yes, these traditions were passed down orally, until they were written and compiled into the Bible.



You have to decide which one for yourself. But you can't expect everyone to share your decision.



You're basing doctrinal conclusions on things that are not found in written record, things that might be. I base my doctrinal conclusions on a written record. And, yet, mine is based on lack of evidence?



It does.



The church is populated by men and women who are imperfect, who may not have your best interests in mind. You say that the Catholic church encourages its followers to read the Bible, but what good is that for beyond rote memorization if you are barred from coming to any interpretation that is contrary to what the church believes?

Your 2 Peter 1:20 quote is terribly out of context. It speaks about how the prophets' messages came not from the prophets, but from God. That has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Again, you've taken a quote out of context. You can't taken random, solitary lines of scripture without consideration of what it means within context of the rest of the paragraph.

Your 2 Peter 3:16, as I've said before, says nothing about Sola Scriptura, only that some people will misinterpret the Scripture, to their own destruction. Are you going to actually reply to my counterpoint this time, or are you going to give me the same, out-of-context Scripture citations that you've been posting for the past few pages?



Traditions and teachings found within the Bible. The Catholic church, however, makes doctrines and dogma based on authority it has granted to itself.

You have no Scriptural proof that all of said traditions were recorded. Since you are the one claiming Sola Scriptura, you need to show how the Bible disproves this. I don't believe that everything is in the Bible, and as such, I do not need to find a verse to back my belief.

You concede that these traditions were passed down orally. As such, they must have been truth. Where in the Bible did God remove the truthfullness from oral tradition, whether it was recorded or not? If oral tradition was good for nearly four centuries, when was it no longer allowed, and by who's authority?


So it's up to me to interpret the Word of God? Did Paul not warn about the dangers of this?


Yes, because Scripture never says Scripture alone is true.


Again, the Bible does not say that it is the sole source of Truth.


Scripture says that the gates of hell will never prevail over the Church. Since the Catholic Church was the true (and only) Church at one time, I believe that it has the authority to interpret scripture. Do you claim to have more knowledge of Scripture than the council of Bishops?


You state that the prophets messages came from God. I'm with you there. However, God did not write to these prophets -- again, not everything God wants us to know is written in Scripture.


Believe me, I'm reading it. The Bible is warning that scripture may be taken out of context. As such, it may be misleading. Without an authority to define the meaning, how are you to know who's wrong? You cannot! You believe I am wrong, and I believe you are wrong. However, we're reading the same passage.


The only authority granted was granted by Christ to Peter. Apolostic succession takes it from there, since God never took this authority away. If he did, show me a verse.

The Bible never says that there are traditions that were not written in the Bible. You're assuming, without evidence, that there are traditions that were not compiled into the Bible.

For example: "The car was driving down the street. It was blue, and the driver was male."

I would say that everything that can be known is found within that statement, concerning those events. We can't assume anything else, because nothing else is stated.

However, your argument states that there could be purple worms, a dragon, and three hundred marching trees with floating snare drums to keep the beat. It doesn't say that they aren't there - so they must be!



See my above argument. The Bible never states that it doesn't have everything.



Those oral traditions were recorded into the Bible.



What gives a Bishop, then, the authority to do this? What makes his word necessarily better? Because the pope says he does? The pope is simply another man, who's giving authority to another man.



Scripture says it is the truth. It never identifies another source as truth. Thus, it is the only source of truth. Again, my example above applies to this situation.



And who's to say that the Church is no longer the Catholic church?



Key words being at one time.



Knowing Scripture and knowing what Scripture means are two very different things.



No, God did not write to these prophets. Instead, the message delivered to these prophets was put into writing: the Bible.



Without an authority to perhaps assist you in interpreting the Bible, you will perhaps misinterpret the Bible. My faith in a correct interpretation is placed in myself, for I know that I will never purposefully lead myself astray for my own personal intentions. Will I always be right? Doubtful, at the very least. But I can much more easily revise my beliefs in the face of new evidence.

You place your faith in individuals, in an organization, which has proven itself to not always have the best interests of its members at heart. You place your faith in individuals who may very well use and manipulate you for their own means - see, again, my example of the St. Louis Polish church that I cited before. That man has the backing of the archdiocese, and, when the parish appealed to the Vatican, their appeal was rejected. Why does the Catholic church need the deed to the land? If they teach what the Catholic church teaches (concerning religion), why is there a need to bring this church back "into the fold"?



If the pope is to be the visible head of the Church on this Earth, where does he get this from? Would not Peter himself have to have granted this power to the first pope, and so forth and so on, all the way through today's Pope Benedict? Did Pope John Paul II lay his hands on Benedict?

Before we get into a debate on the Catholic Church itself, let's finish Sola Scriptura.

I can boil everything down to this:


Says who?

Again, show me where the Bible says to abandon apolostolic tradition.

Define for me what you mean by apostolic tradition - those taught by the apostles, such as Peter, or those taught by those who received apostolic succession?

Apostolic tradition taught by Peter and by those who succeeded him.

Heh, dude gives you a question to answer in the form of a choice between two options, and you answer that question by choosing both.

The prompt for a choice suggests that dude considers the two choices to be mutually exclusive. If you're trying to suggest that they're not mutually exclusive, it might be useful to actually argue that point, rather than give a fantastically useless reply.

"Is it x or y?"
"It's x and y!"

(Bear in mind that, as an atheist, I clearly don't care in slighest whichever choice is adopted, I'm only calling you up on a fuzzy argument)

I'm reading through this page, and, although these people were given the authority to spread the Word of God and ex-communicate people from the church, where were they given the authority given to Peter that all that he held and loosed on Earth would be held and loosed in Heaven?



In his defense, it was poor wording on my part. I did mean, by the latter choice, that, yes, Peter's traditions are to be believed, but asking if he meant those possibly taught by others down the line of apostolic succession.

Could we answer the question on abandoning/maintaining tradition first? At this point, the binding/loosing on Heaven & Earth is irrelevant, since it is not involved with Sola Scriptura.


Thanks for clarifying

Like the trinity!

or something

I disagree; it's extremely pertinent, for, if none of those who received apolostic succession received the authority that Peter received, then such power was limited to him, and, as we can only assume that everything Peter commanded is in the Bible (as there are no other existing documents - that I'm aware of - that were written by him or accounts of Jesus that include commandments not found within the Bible). Thus, no one else had the ability to establish doctrines not based on Biblical evidence.

Just to confirm - you're saying that we can only assume that everything Peter commanded is in the Bible, since the Bible itself does not state that it was all recorded, correct?

The Bible does not state that it was not all recorded - to use your earlier car analogy:


What this statement does not say is that no other cars were on the road. We cannot make a rational decision based on a lack of information.

Sola Scriptura should not need to be disproven with evidence outside the Bible because Luther's doctrine itself does not recognize such evidence.

I don't want to go off-track here, so I don't plan on following up on these questions - at least not until we finish up on Sola Scriptura, but I am curious. Do you follow Luther's teaching/doctrine, Calvin's, or..? Just wondering where you're coming from.

No, we can assume that everything Peter commanded is in the Bible, because the Bible says nowhere that not everything that was commanded is found within the Bible.



The car is blue. It's speeding fast. Here's what the two doctrines would make of it:

Sola Scriptura: "The statement does not say that there is another blue car. If we had to make such a decision, we would say there is no other blue car."

Prima Scriptura: "The statement does not say that there is another blue car. If we had to make such a decision, we would say there is another blue car."

Given the information that is at hand (and ignoring the high probability that there is, indeed, another blue car on the road, because that's irrelevant), we can not assume that there is another blue car.



Evidence, whether it's in the Bible or outside of it, that disproves Sola Scriptura would qualify - given a credible source (such as an original apostle).



I mistakenly said, earlier, that I followed Luther's teaching of Sola Scriptura, but that's because I was under the mistaken impression that there was only one doctrine. Although I'm still unaware of whose exact doctrine I follow, this is my belief:

All doctrines must be concluded from scriptural interpretation. No church leader, regardless of Christian faith, has the right to establish doctrine that can not be referenced against the Bible and critiqued for its accuracy and alignment with the Bible.

I'm posting jsut because this thread has turned into Lee vs. Wolfy arguing over the same shot over and over again.

We have established that Tradition existed without Scripture. Nowhere does Tradition or Scripture say that all teachings were recorded - we're going in circles here.

I don't believe that we can come to a solid conclusion based on a lack of evidence. Just because the Bible doesn't say something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. On the contrary, per Sola Scriptura, it should be referenced in Scripture if it is to be believed.

Courtesy of Catholic.com:
in order for sola scriptura to be a "biblical" doctrine there must be, by definition, at least one Bible verse which says Scripture is sufficient, or that oral Tradition is to be disregarded once Scripture has supplanted it, or that Scripture is superior to oral Tradition.

Sola Scriptura == Scripture Alone
To conclusively prove that Sola Scriptura is correct, by the definition of the phrase, you would have to prove with Scriptural evidence that Scripture alone is the sole source of Truth. We have established that Tradition was instituted, and that Tradition was truth.


Prima Scriptura is more Calvinistic than Catholic.


The burden of proof lies in proving Sola Scriptura, not disproving it -- Tradition existed before the Bible.



Thanks

Exactly, so the only traditions/teachings that are to be applied in a church are found within the Bible.



If the Bible asserts no other source as a source of truth, then how is the Bible not the only source of truth?



Traditions that were taught by Peter and the other apostles, and were then written into the Bible.



...traditions and teachings that were compiled into the Bible.

We both have agreed that Tradition was another source of Truth.



You have failed repeatedly to provide a Bible verse stating that all teaching was recorded, and have also failed to provide a verse stating that we are to abandon Sacred Tradition. Both criteria must be met in order to prove Sola Scriptura.

And they're still at it.

And you're still watching.

It's like a knife fight.

If there were more to the teachings in the Bible, would the Bible not have listed them?



I've not advocated separating from the teachings found within the Bible. There's no evidence, however, that doctrines not established by the original apostles are true doctrine.

Just poke my head in once in a while. I'm not reading anything anymore.

cathloics suck