[boatbums]

Excellent video debate between James White and Mitch Pacwa concerning what the "rule of faith" is for a Christian and how we can know we have what we need.

[boatbums]

From The Rule of Faith in the Early Church:

Roman Catholic apologists like to emphasize the tradition of the early church, and claim that other unwritten oral apostolic traditions that Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, are brought out later in church history. The problem is, the main early church fathers, when they explicate what “the tradition of the apostles”, or “the faith” or “the preaching” or “the rule of faith” is, the content is all Biblical content. It is all doctrinal points that are in Scripture, and based on and outlined from the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, organized around The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these are very similar in content to the early creeds such as the Apostles Creed, and the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Nowhere do these early fathers mention anything that Rome has deemed as dogmatic centuries later in these passages. There is nothing about a Pope, or Marian dogmas or piety (except for the virgin birth, which Protestants accept), nothing about indulgences, purgatory, or Transubstantiation, or priests, etc. Nothing.

Since these are all in Scripture, this points to the truth that the early church held to Sola Scriptura, and the fact that no extra Biblical traditions or doctrines are included in these explications of “the tradition” or “the rule of faith” or “the preaching”, it shows that all that was necessary for the church to function and minister in the power of the Holy Spirit was written down in the Scriptures.

This is true apostolic succession – faithfully passing down sound doctrine to the next generation.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It’s a debate that isn’t going to go away any time soon. The nature of valid ongoing revelation is under debate.

I would believe any valid answer is going to be Jesus centered rather than denomination-centered or congregation-centered. Who gets glorified, God or man?

The date for a unified church and the unconfused literal authority associated directly with such a thing, until something happens to reverse it, has passed. Luther and other reformers, from that standpoint, are only late to a sad party that already began with the Roman and Orthodox churches. We are thrown on Christ and the bible by necessity, to weather this dark season of the universal church until Christ shall personally call it back together.

The ultimate test of a part of the church as a vehicle through which Christ leads, would be the visible results. Does this look unmistakably like Christ. Does this look like the work of a God “with which all things are possible”? The presence of complete mortal perfection isn’t needed to see the unique approaches to the holy that the Lord works in this mortal world.

I think there is room for all to get off their own private high horses here.

[Salvation]

Non-Catholic site, folks. Move on.

[Salvation]

Notice: The daily sport of posting Catholic bashing threads on FR stops today. Thanks.

[SkyPilot]

Which one are you going to believe and follow?

Choice A:

________________________________________________________________

Choice B:

[PeterPrinciple]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 – All Scripture is God-breathed . . . in order that the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work. Verse 15 is about the OT, but then verse 16 expands it to include all Scripture, and so this includes by principle, both all OT and NT books, even those not written yet in 67 AD, when 2 Timothy was written. The fact that 1 Timothy 5:18 has both an OT quote and a NT quote shows that Paul understood this.

---

It is amazing that Jesus is almost always referencing the Old Testament.

Here is an example. Even on the cross!

Psa 22:1 ................” My God, my God, why have You abandoned me? Why are You so far away when I groan for help?

Mat 27:46 At about three o’clock, Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means “My God, My God, why have You abandoned Me?”

Jesus battled the Pharisees who referenced the Talmud. And what is the Talmud? The oral interpretation and tradition of the scripture. Does the RCC have oral interpretation and traditions. Does Islam have oral interpretations and traditions? Does Mormon have oral interpretation and tradition? Do protestants have oral interpretation and tradition?

The Bible doesn’t say what we think it says and it says a lot of things that offend our ears. Folks, stop listening to others and start reading it your selves.

[metmom]

Thanks, bb.

[Campion]

it indicates that everything needed was written down in the NT

The NT itself says that not everything was written down in the NT:

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. -- 2 Thess 2:15

The sola scriptura believer has to insist that everything St. Paul said "by word of mouth" was later written in Scripture, but by so insisting, he adds his own tradition to what Scripture actually says!

However, the question "is everything needed written down in the New Testament" misses that point. Arguably, "everything needed" is written down in John 3:16. Everything else is just elaboration.

The real question is whether the Bible, in the hands of an individual Christian believer, the ultimate authority over that believer, or is that Bible given to govern the church which Christ founded on his Apostles and gave over to their governance, a church which is a living being, vivified by the Holy Spirit, and hence not needing to be reinvented by each generation by reverse-engineering the text of the Bible.

Pacwa believes the latter. White, in practice, believes the former.

[DungeonMaster]

“Has the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined a single word of Jesus or an apostle, that is not found in Scripture?”

What?