Pure bombast and insolence. Far from being beaten with anything, you have refuted absolutely nothing that i posted, but have majored in sarcasm and psychology.
However, i will provide a chance to be reason-able, in discussing this with me, who is not bound by traditions of men.
In invoking Luke 2:29, i presume you mean 2:26. This deals with private revelation, and if you had seen post #20 you would have known that i do not see this as militating against Sola Scriptura:
“Sola Scriptura does not hold that miracles, history, and reason play no part is discerning what Scripture means, nor that God cannot “speak” to souls today (esp. during the offering:), but that all such is subject to the Bible in determining its veracity.”
There are far more texts than Lk. 2:26 which reveal that the Word of God is not restricted to Scripture, but as Scripture is the only objective authority that is assuredly declared to be wholly inspired, (2Tim. 3:16) than that is what any revelation must be tested by.
While God spoke to men like Abraham before any scripture was written, and confirmed it by supernatural attestation, once revelation was established as wholly inspired and written, then it became the authority for obedience, and for testing revelation.
Thus it is abundantly substantiated:
Ex. 17:14: 24:7; 34:1; 34:27; Dt. 10:2; 17:18,19; 27:8; 29:21; 30:10; 31:11,19,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,34,35; 23:6; 24:26; 1Ki. 2:3; 12:22; 2Ki. 14:6; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9;2Ch. 34:14,15,21; 35:12; Ezr 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 30:2; 36:2,28; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 2:5; 4:4,6,7,10; 11:10; 21:13,42; 22:29; 26:24,31,54,56; Mk. 1:2; 9:12,13; 14:21,47; 12:24; 14:49; Lk. 2:3; 3:4; 10:26; 19:46; 20:17; 22:37; 24:27,32,45,46; Joh 5:39; 6:45; 12:14l 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; 15:15; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 4:13; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:7; 1Pet. 1:16; 2Pet. 3:16 Mk. 7:3; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 10:35;
It is not extraBiblical traditions that Peter refers to as providing “exceeding great and precious promises that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,” or being the “more sure word of prophecy” (2Pt. 2:19), but the Scriptures. (v. 20)
That there was a body of literature recognized as Scripture in the time of Christ is internally evident, and that it was this, and not Jewish traditions, which the apostles directed the disciples to look to:
Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
In addition to private revelation, or pubic declaration as in 1Cor. 14, and which was to be judged, one may be said to “preach the word” in declaring Scripturally sound teaching, as is seen esp. in Acts, and disobedience to which is disobeying the Scriptures upon which it is based.
Though when the apostles preached the Word of God, (1Thes. 2:13) they may have contained words which were not later written in Scripture, yet they would be consistent with it, as Act 17:11 infers:
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
They and others also wrote or spoke words which would become part of the body of Scripture, yet, in addition to the Scriptural integrity of such, this was before the canon of Scripture was closed. To hold any further revelation as equal in authority to Scripture is to essentially add to the canon.
While not all information that could be given is contained in Scripture (Jn. 21:25; Rev. 10:4) only the objective class of revelation called Scripture is established as wholly inspired, and thus is superior in authority.
The uncodified class of revelation called church tradition being held as equal to Scripture is esp. problematic, due to the Biblically unwarranted nature of what has been dogmatically affirmed from it, and the presumption of infallibility which presumes it may establish it as such. Unlike the Jews, Rome’s authority is based upon her own declarations of authority, not Biblical faith, upon which (and by extension, its Object) the body of Christ is founded and overcomes.
oh do hang on while i digest your reply!
Doubtless, you could have saved yourself much effort by responding with a simple "nuh uh," but of course that would not have provided you with sufficient rhetorical "chaff" to camouflage your double-mindedness.
I'm particularly amused by how you even presume error on my part to better mesh with your wishful interpretations of scripture.
No, I cited Luke 2:29, because that is the scripture I intended. It is the specific verse that tells us Simeon, while under the influence of the Holy Spirit, declared his private revelation to be God's Word, and thus scripturally invalidates the protestant dogma that the Bible "is" the Word of God as opposed to "contains" the Word of God.
YOU may " not see this as militating against Sola Scriptura," but trust me, your theological "leaders" certainly do. You simply haven't yet recognized the second and third order implications to Protestant theology and interpretation of disconnecting the phrase "Word of God" from the canon of scripture!
For example, that favorite Protestant pastime of accusing Catholics of "disobeying, or contradicting, the Word of God" is meaningless without the prior assumption that nothing that isn't contained in the Bible can be the authoritative Word of God. Thus, reverence for Mary isn't just a disagreement over "dunk or sprinkle," but a trumped up opportunity to condemn the ungodly!
Also, I find particularly humorous your assertion:
...Scripture is the only objective authority that is assuredly declared to be wholly inspired, (2Tim. 3:16) than that is what any revelation must be tested by.One would think you never read Peter's admonition in 2 Peter 3:16 regarding those who "wrest" scripture to their own destruction! Your assertion is exactly the same used by the Moslems when they claim "men have no authority to make laws, but only Allah" though you both seem to be practicing the same studied ignorance that refuses to recognize "interpreting" God's revelation IS speaking for God!
It is seldom recognized that those who haughtily say "so-and-so doesn't speak for God!" are claiming exactly the same authority for themselves, albeit negatively rather than positively, that they would deny to the one they denounce.
That would be fine if they actually had an authoritative source for such denunciations, but as we see in the case of Marian devotion, these denunciations are strictly predicated of "interpretation" of Scripture, rather than "command" of Scripture.
No, instead we see "rules" grown out of men's interpretation of scripture such as
...once revelation was established as wholly inspired and written, then it became the authority for obedience, and for testing revelation.so they can accuse the innocent of "harvesting on the Sabbath."
Truly, there is not one verse in your grocery list of citations that says what you claim above, apart from a Pharisaical interpretation motivated to find fault.
How can one take serious the Biblical scholarship of one who claims:
...it was this, and not Jewish traditions, which the apostles directed the disciples to look to...when it is clear the ONLY reason for most of the rules given to the gentiles in Acts 15 is in deference to the sensibilities formed by Jewish tradition. While this does not mean there is a direct parallel between Jewish, and Catholic tradition, it certainly doesn't make early Christians the iconoclasts Reformation thinkers wish to paint them.
Indeed, it seems the number of man-made interpretations with no other reason for being aside from the preservation of the Sola Scriptura dogma never ends! Empty conjecture about what "would become part of the body of Scripture" and postulates designed to create a conflict where there is none between Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition seem to be totally immune to Paul's 1Thes 5:21 injunction to test ALL things, not just the ones you dislike.
Is there no limit to the nonsensical prattling that can be embraced so long as it's goal is the rejection of the CHURCH Jesus left us, as opposed to the BOOK codified hundreds of years after Pentecost?
I'm sure you intended your closing sentence:
Unlike the Jews, Rome's authority is based upon her own declarations of authority, not Biblical faith, upon which (and by extension, its Object) the body of Christ is founded and overcomes.to be your coup de gras!
Unfortunately, you seem to have overlooked the fact, as is stated in 1 Tim 3:15, the "pillar and foundation of the truth" is the CHURCH, not "biblical faith," thus making your crescendo decidedly hollow.