One of the foundations of the Protestant Revolt (aka "Reformation") was that a Christian only needed a firm knowledge of Holy Scripture as guided by the Holy Spirit. No institution, let alone a corrupt heresy teaching "Church" could override this reliable rule of faith for believers...
But is it really?[/u]
Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Moderator: Moderators
Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Post #21Eloi wrote: [Replying to Saber Bob]
And somehow you think that RCC traditions are "oral apostolic traditions", right?
Many are, but it's not the false dicotomy of "either/or", it's more often "and/also".
-
Eloi
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Post #22[Replying to Saber Bob]
Well, drinking blood was not an oral apostolic tradition.
Acts 15:28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!�
Oral apostolic traditions can't go against written teachings ... that's a sure thing.
Well, drinking blood was not an oral apostolic tradition.
Acts 15:28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!�
Oral apostolic traditions can't go against written teachings ... that's a sure thing.
Re: Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Post #23[Replying to post 13 by PinSeeker]
PinSeeker, in regards to your claim the Sacraments don't convey salvific grace, I invite you to read all of my posts on the "eat my body, drink my blood" thread.
PinSeeker, in regards to your claim the Sacraments don't convey salvific grace, I invite you to read all of my posts on the "eat my body, drink my blood" thread.
Re: Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Post #24[Replying to post 22 by Eloi]
And that also was dealt with my answers to common objections to the Real Presence.
By the way, by the Holy Spirit being able to "favor" anything, that certainly seems another text in support of his Personhood.
And that also was dealt with my answers to common objections to the Real Presence.
By the way, by the Holy Spirit being able to "favor" anything, that certainly seems another text in support of his Personhood.
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Re: Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Post #25Peace to you Saber Bob,
That might not be how you meant to word it, but still...
As for your question:
I agree that scripture alone is not scriptural.
Even in what is written, God said to listen to His Son. His Son is the Living Word of God, and He said "Come, follow me!" He also said that His sheep would listen to His voice, and that if we love Him, then we will obey His commands.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Well, I am not a "Protestant" or a "Catholic"... but yeah, lol, it would be much better to have a firm knowledge of the scriptures as guided by the (Holy) Spirit, than it would be to follow a corrupt heresy teaching "church"! Obviously!Saber Bob wrote: One of the foundations of the Protestant Revolt (aka "Reformation") was that a Christian only needed a firm knowledge of Holy Scripture as guided by the Holy Spirit. No institution, let alone a corrupt heresy teaching "Church" could override this reliable rule of faith for believers...
But is it really?[/u]
That might not be how you meant to word it, but still...
As for your question:
I agree that scripture alone is not scriptural.
Even in what is written, God said to listen to His Son. His Son is the Living Word of God, and He said "Come, follow me!" He also said that His sheep would listen to His voice, and that if we love Him, then we will obey His commands.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Post #26I did.Saber Bob wrote: [Replying to post 13 by PinSeeker]
PinSeeker, in regards to your claim the Sacraments don't convey salvific grace, I invite you to read all of my posts on the "eat my body, drink my blood" thread.
-
PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Post #27Right, which is what it really means to eat His body and drink His blood. I'm not really saying this for your benefit, Tam, because we seem to see eye to eye on this. It's really for Bob.tam wrote: Even in what is written, God said to listen to His Son. His Son is the Living Word of God, and He said "Come, follow me!" He also said that His sheep would listen to His voice, and that if we love Him, then we will obey His commands.
Grace and peace to all.
Re: Scripture Alone is NOT Scriptural!
Post #28Yes, Jesus clearly commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood, Jn 6:52-57.PinSeeker wrote:Right, which is what it really means to eat His body and drink His blood. I'm not really saying this for your benefit, Tam, because we seem to see eye to eye on this. It's really for Bob.tam wrote: Even in what is written, God said to listen to His Son. His Son is the Living Word of God, and He said "Come, follow me!" He also said that His sheep would listen to His voice, and that if we love Him, then we will obey His commands.
Grace and peace to all.
He provided NO figurative or metaphorical or symbolic meaning, in public or in private.
He confirmed his listeners literal understanding SIX TIMES..
Post #29
Scripture is important, perhaps of prime importance, since it is the only record we have of Jesus' life, death, and actions.
But likewise we cannot disregard its limitations. We cannot get past the fact that it must be viewed in the context in which it was written, and also that in which it is being read.
As to the first, the context (of the N.T.) was often simply issues which were of significance to the early Church. Much of Paul, for example, addresses specific issues in the churches which he founded; it is somewhat ironic that we only know he was familiar with the Lord's Supper because the Corinthians were (in his view) celebrating it improperly. In fact, scripture is often not probative in some issues of later (or continuing) dispute, such as Baptism. Nowhere in scripture does it definitively say "You may Baptize infants", but neither does it say "Do not Baptize infants."
As to the context in which it is being read, we cannot for example blame 12th century Christians for fully believing in a literal 6-day Creation. But for a 21st Century Christian to hold such a view is ridiculous.
The Wesleyan "Scripture, tradition, reason and experience" seems to hit the nail on the head.
But likewise we cannot disregard its limitations. We cannot get past the fact that it must be viewed in the context in which it was written, and also that in which it is being read.
As to the first, the context (of the N.T.) was often simply issues which were of significance to the early Church. Much of Paul, for example, addresses specific issues in the churches which he founded; it is somewhat ironic that we only know he was familiar with the Lord's Supper because the Corinthians were (in his view) celebrating it improperly. In fact, scripture is often not probative in some issues of later (or continuing) dispute, such as Baptism. Nowhere in scripture does it definitively say "You may Baptize infants", but neither does it say "Do not Baptize infants."
As to the context in which it is being read, we cannot for example blame 12th century Christians for fully believing in a literal 6-day Creation. But for a 21st Century Christian to hold such a view is ridiculous.
The Wesleyan "Scripture, tradition, reason and experience" seems to hit the nail on the head.
