Define Idolatry

Wrong! Everything is written down in the scriptures that is necessary for the man of God to be "perfect" (complete) and "thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works"! If the Bible does not teach it, then it is not necessary for faith or practice.

 

We have the full and complete revelation of God in the Bible...

freely/fully justified by God, by the Grace of the Cross of Christ...

Have the HS to empower us to live for Christ...

have the local church to assemble with...

WHAT are we lacking in from God IF not RCC again?

 

Then Sola Scriptura, by that logic, is not necessary for faith or practice... I mean, since it's not taught in the bible and all.

WM

 

Our participation is what is lacking. Pretty simple.

WM

 

Sola Scriptura is taught explicitly and implicitly by the scriptures. 2 Tim. 3:15-4:4 teaches it explicitly; Isaiah 8:20 teaches it implicitly.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the words "perfect" and "throughly furnished" and "all" demands that "scripture" provides everything necessary for those words to be used in this context.

The man of God is not "perfect" = complete - if the scriptures do no provide what complete doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof.

The man of God is not "throughly furnished unto ALL good works" if WHAT the scriptures furnish for the man of God is not complete for "ALL" good works.

In the preceding context it is the SCRIPTURES ALONE that were the source for instruction by Timothy's grandmother, mother and for Paul. No other source is named or provided for their instruction of Timothy. No other source is NAMED by Paul in 2 Tim. 3:16 to be "profitable" or for USE for doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof by the man of God for "ALL" good works.

 

Good works? Hmmm....

Let it be noted that the phrase "scripture alone" isn't found in scripture anywhere and extrapolating it towrd infinity isn't going to change that. It's just not there. Besides, you are aware are you not, that much of scripture was delivered via ORAL tradition.

WM

 

You do realise that those traditions were the doctrines that were revealed by God already in the OT and the Apsotles themselves, so they were inspired by God and encoded into the doctrines of the NT...

NO revelation came forth from God after revelation, so NO tradition after the bible can be established as being revelation from God any more!

 

Apostolic tradition came before the writen word of the NT. Thus there is no New Apostolic Tradition. The entire Apostolic Tradition is recorded in the deposit of Faith which includes scripture

 

That is both hilarious and absurd. What NT tradition came before the Apostles when there were no Apostles. There was nothing to record before the Apostles, who recorded NT revelation. From there both tradition and revelation began. Tradition started with the Apostles.

It was Jesus himself that said: "Foolish and slow to learn what the prophets have taught..."

 

That Apostolic tradition was from the HS given inspired revelation to JUST the Apostles of jesus, after John deceased, God stopped giving forth any inprired revelation, either orally or wriiten form!

 

So according to you the full teaching of the Gospel died out with the Apostles?

Nonsense. The full gospel is in the deposit of faith. Catholics agree there is no new revelation. And in fact we were the first to say that.

 

Let it be noted that the word "Trinity" is not found in scripture anywhere. However, the absence of the term does not deny the implicit evidence that supports that term.

You argument is empty and you know it. It is perfectly theologically acceptable to argue on the basis of necessary inference or implicity Biblical evidence. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 provides Biblical evidence to implicitly teach "sola scriptura." Isaiah 8:20 provides Biblical evidence for the necessary inference of "sola scriptura."

 

Right... and Sola Scriptura originated when? Hmmm...

Let’s take an analytical look at 2 Tim. 3:16

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Scripture is profitable (yielding advantageous results) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Again, Amen! Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative. However, nowhere does the verse state that scripture is sufficient. Further, nowhere in scripture do we find the words scripture alone. If scripture were the only authority, then one would expect to find it explicitly stated in scripture. It isn’t, therefore, Sola Scriptura (ironically by your own standard) is not scriptural.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 places yet another nail in the coffin of this doctrine.
So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Dissecting this verse:
Traditions taught by word of mouth = oral traditions
Traditions taught by letter = written traditions

There you have it; the word of God in written and spoken forms: Sacred scripture AND sacred traditions.

Consider 2 Timothy 2:2
And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Notice the Paul uses the word heard and not read, indicating an another example of oral tradition directly in scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. Again, this is an example of passing on sacred oral traditions.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God constantly for this that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is; the word of God, which is at work in you believers So, they received as the word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in scripture.

Ultimately, Sola Scriptura is logically flawed as well.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura dictates scripture as the only/sole authority regarding matters of faith and morals
Scripture does not say that about itself
Therefore, Sola Scriptura is a FALSE doctrine.


WM

 

If Catholics agree there was no new revelation, then the Assumption of Mary would not have been declared an official doctrine in just 1950. The doctrines of Purgatory, Limbo, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, indulgences, etc. would not have been declared doctrine well after the canonization of Scripture. The RCC does believe in the addition of new revelation.

 

that principle of the Bible being SOLE authority to judge all doctrines/practices, as it ALONE is inspired revelation from God to Man...

Started when Moses penned down Genesis, and continued to this very day!

 

YES!

IF the RCC accepted in truth that the Bible was ONLY revelation fromn god to man...

There would be NO other unauthorized additions to the Christian faith once and for all delivered to the saints, as per Jude!

 

What you mean is let us ISOLATE 2 Tim. 3:16 from its immediate context and then let us go down the merry land of proof texting.

Thanks but no thanks as that is the very tactic of all cults when they want to ignore a contextual defined text.

 

Let me help you create an intelligent post here.

It originated when God first had Moses write down the scriptures. It is the biblical principle that the Bible is the sole authority to judge all doctrines and practices because it alone is the inspired revelation from God. And it continues today as well.

 

That wasn't a new revelation. Ridiculous. You can go back to the 2nd Century and see pictoral representations on Christian catacombs and statements fromt he ECF about the dormition and assumption of Mary. It has always been there. Just nothing was said or discussed about it until the 1800's when the issue came up. It's like the trinity. It was always believed but not declared until Nicea in 325. Though Tertullian uses the term 100 years before that.

 

But it was never part of the Scriptures among orthodox Christianity. Tertullian himself was not Orthodox, as you yourself will admit. The doctrines I mentioned are not part of Orthodox Christianity and cannot be defended using Scripture alone. That is your problem. They are extra-Biblical. They are additions to the Scripture.