Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: John Leland 1789
"I didn’t see anything in the article that actually refutes Sola Scriptura,"

1) It clearly indicated that it was never practiced.

2) That Tradition is not of men but of God:

"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" (1 Thess. 2:13).

tradition:

2 : the process of handing down information, opinions, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example : transmission of knowledge and institutions through successive generations without written instruction

--Webster's Unabridged

223 posted on 12/31/2010 12:37:01 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]


To: GonzoII
1) It clearly indicated that it was never practiced.

2) That Tradition is not of men but of God:

"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" (1 Thess. 2:13).

tradition:

2 : the process of handing down information, opinions, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example : transmission of knowledge and institutions through successive generations without written instruction

--Webster's Unabridged

The purpose of those kinds of definitions is merely so that a religious organization can teach anything that will tend to give power to itself and subject others to it.

Nothing there refutes Sola Scriptura.

225 posted on 12/31/2010 12:42:11 AM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson