Should Christians Follow Scripture Alone or Scripture and Traditions?

[Jackson123]

no one worships Mary ???

Maybe someone should of reminded pope pius X11

FULGENS CORONA
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
PROCLAIMING A MARIAN YEAR TO COMMEMORATE THE CENTENARY OF THE
DEFINITION OF THE DOGMA OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
“18. and proposed and confirmed by the greatest and highest decision of the Church" (Bull Ineffabilis Deus), so that to pastors and faithful there is nothing "more sweet, nothing dearer than to worship, venerate, invoke and praise with ardent affection the Mother of God conceived without stain of original sin. (Ibidem.)
33. But where -- as is the case in almost all dioceses, there exists a church in which the Virgin Mother of God is worshipped with more intense devotion, thither on stated days let pilgrims flock together in great numbers and publicly and in the open give glorious expression to their common Faith and their common love toward the Virgin Most Holy. We have no doubt that this will be done in an especial manner at the Grotto of Lourdes, where there is such ardent devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived without stain of sin.
34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman peopleâ€

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p.../hf_p-xii_enc_08091953_fulgens-corona_en.html

I put one of Indonesian catholic pray to Mary into Google translate device

seem to me they believe to Mary almost like God
they as Mary in to their heart as we do to jesus( dominate our will,
they believe mary able to hear billion catholic pray to her as she was god and Omni present
why they believe Mary have capacity to hear billion catholic and able to dominate their mind


hmm

mary is god

Mother Mary, Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ,mind)
You are the most noble Queen of the World.
May you be the Queen of us all.
Show us the way to holiness,
and guide us not to go astray.
Dominate our minds,
so we only look for the right one.
Dominate our will,
so that we want only the good.
Dominate our hearts,
so that we may love one another as brothers.
Take control of each one of us and the whole family.
Dominate all citizens, all nations,
and the rulers of the world.
May you be the rope that binds them all
in firm union.
Dominate all mankind.
Open the way of faith for those who don't know
Your son Jesus.
Help all nations unite
live in peace and harmony.
Shade all mankind,
the more so being persecuted and chased.
Strength them in oppression,
and enlighten them in the darkness,
to remain faithful to Jesus, your Son.
Send all of our requests
before your Son,
The Maharaja of the Kingdom of Peace,
where every prayer of supplication is answered,
every burden of the heart is lightened,
and every weakness is healed.
May all who know His power,
and put my hope in Him,
once saw the splendor of your Son's kingdom,
who is with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
live and reign, now and forever.
Amen.
Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD
RELATED

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Well, yes, He told that to His 12 Apostles, the Great Commission. Then later, in Acts, He commissioned St. Paul to do the same, and St. Paul taught us, as part of the Apostolic Teaching, in 2 Thess 2:15, to hold the Traditions received from the Apostles.

Here, we are not speaking of a tradition of man invented in say, 1850, by e.g. the Jehovah's witnesses that Jesus is not God, or something. Rather, the Tradition of what the Apostles handed down to the Church, and what the Early Church believed.

God Bless.

the Apostles, especially Paul, merely defined the meaning to what Jesus preached. they did not create doctrines, creeds, or traditions. traditions come from people afterwards. these people were not Inspired by the Holy Spirit. no reason any of us should be following the traditions/creeds these people made.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I wonder if those saying that scripture alone is not a teaching found in the Bible believe the same concerning the Trinity. Where is the word trinity mentioned in the Bible?
Clearly an idea can be seen in scripture that isn't labeled as such.

it appears clear but God in the Flesh, the Father whom dwelled in Christ and did the works [John 14:10], nor the Holy Spirit Inspired man to make such a claim.

why would God make it appear He is triune but never confirm it Himself?

is it like the iguana who can have its legs ripped off and grow new ones that causes Science to believe in
evolving?

God is presenting many things that causes man to confuse himself.

that's exactly what a Tradition does!

 

[Cameron143]

it appears clear but God in the Flesh, the Father whom dwelled in Christ and did the works [John 14:10], nor the Holy Spirit Inspired man to make such a claim.

why would God make it appear He is triune but never confirm it Himself?

is it like the iguana who can have its legs ripped off and grow new ones that causes Science to believe in
evolving?

God is presenting many things that causes man to confuse himself.

that's exactly what a Tradition does!

I appreciate your response but my comment doesn't actually apply to you if you don't believe in the trinity. I was merely trying to point out the inconsistency of employing a line of reasoning to different arguments and coming to opposite conclusions.
I personally find many traditions helpful with the understanding that they are subject to a singular authority " scripture.

 

[Cameron143]

it appears clear but God in the Flesh, the Father whom dwelled in Christ and did the works [John 14:10], nor the Holy Spirit Inspired man to make such a claim.

why would God make it appear He is triune but never confirm it Himself?

is it like the iguana who can have its legs ripped off and grow new ones that causes Science to believe in
evolving?

God is presenting many things that causes man to confuse himself.

that's exactly what a Tradition does!

And, in my opinion, it is not your example that has led men to believe evolution over creation, but, rather, their failure to believe science itself.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

And, in my opinion, it is not your example that has led men to believe evolution over creation, but, rather, their failure to believe science itself.

or do they fail to believe scripture that makes it plain

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

if we hear and believe that forst scriptire in the Bible creation wins the argument

if we hear it and then Try to reason in our heads and figure out how it could be possible that’s different but if we hear the t and then conclude “ God created the world and all things in the universe “


We have believed and heard a word of faith science isn’t faith but hearing and believing the scripture is faith

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:3‬ ‭KJV‬‬

we understand by faith that God spoke and then it was so this isn’t somethkng science can ever prove to a secular mind seeking evidence it’s something we hear and believe which is faith if we follow the simplicity of faith God will imprint the right thinking from the scripture we hear and believe and his word becomes the only evidence we need

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

science is the evidence that is seen making up the substance and eliminates any form of Hope or faith

faith is the substance created by hearing Gods declaration of truth and believing and is itself the faith within us the evidence of what is not yet seen , we know of God said it it is sore to come like when he said “ let there be light and then there was light “

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭10:17‬ ‭

I’m not at all saying all science is bad just saying when science contradicts the word of God , it’s proven itself error and should never guide even an iota of faith

like evolution , this theory begins asking the question “ how could everything exist if there is no Creator of the Bible is wrong how can we explain it ?”

once we reject the first scripture in the Bible we’re already losing ground and opening ourselves up to mans theory of how things became without a creator

so they conclude “ it must have taken billions and billions of years for this to have accidentally happened , there must have just been some random explosion in space on day and then over billions of years things ustbhave accidentally formed planets by the mysterious energy the explosion produced

and the. Billions and billions of years later water must have formed and the. Cells and then tadpoles must have morphed into frogs and then fish and then birds and then mammals and then humans And that’s how we must have done to be “


Then a group says “ yep that’s probably what happened “ then they build schools and make those things into “ scientific fact “ and they show you a rock and say this is proof it took billions of years

they dig up some ancient creature that’s extinct by the flood and say “ proof of evolution “ the. Eventually “ that ole Bible is just a story invented from
Man we proved it “

they look at Gods work and try to figure out how it could be without a God. Well he speaks and in a moment billions of years of work happens in a moment they begin without faith and work to
Prove it

 

[Cameron143]

or do they fail to believe scripture that makes it plain

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

if we hear and believe that forst scriptire in the Bible creation wins the argument

if we hear it and then Try to reason in our heads and figure out how it could be possible that’s different but if we hear the t and then conclude “ God created the world and all things in the universe “


We have believed and heard a word of faith science isn’t faith but hearing and believing the scripture is faith

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:3‬ ‭KJV‬‬

we understand by faith that God spoke and then it was so this isn’t somethkng science can ever prove to a secular mind seeking evidence it’s something we hear and believe which is faith if we follow the simplicity of faith God will imprint the right thinking from the scripture we hear and believe and his word becomes the only evidence we need

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

science is the evidence that is seen making up the substance and eliminates any form of Hope or faith

faith is the substance created by hearing Gods declaration of truth and believing and is itself the faith within us the evidence of what is not yet seen , we know of God said it it is sore to come like when he said “ let there be light and then there was light “

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭10:17‬ ‭

I’m not at all saying all science is bad just saying when science contradicts the word of God , it’s proven itself error and should never guide even an iota of faith

like evolution , this theory begins asking the question “ how could everything exist if there is no Creator of the Bible is wrong how can we explain it ?”

once we reject the first scripture in the Bible we’re already losing ground and opening ourselves up to mans theory of how things became without a creator

so they conclude “ it must have taken billions and billions of years for this to have accidentally happened , there must have just been some random explosion in space on day and then over billions of years things ustbhave accidentally formed planets by the mysterious energy the explosion produced

and the. Billions and billions of years later water must have formed and the. Cells and then tadpoles must have morphed into frogs and then fish and then birds and then mammals and then humans And that’s how we must have done to be “


Then a group says “ yep that’s probably what happened “ then they build schools and make those things into “ scientific fact “ and they show you a rock and say this is proof it took billions of years

they dig up some ancient creature that’s extinct by the flood and say “ proof of evolution “ the. Eventually “ that ole Bible is just a story invented from
Man we proved it “

they look at Gods work and try to figure out how it could be without a God. Well he speaks and in a moment billions of years of work happens in a moment they begin without faith and work to
Prove it

I agree. I was just looking at it from their own perspective.
The law of entropy itself argues against evolution. It's terribly inconsistent to laud science on the one hand and not apply it on the other.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I agree. I was just looking at it from their own perspective.
The law of entropy itself argues against evolution. It's terribly inconsistent to laud science on the one hand and not apply it on the other.

yes I understood and agree and was just showing the opposite perspective hoping to further what you had said

 

[Dirtman]

Dirtman you quote correctly, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I agree with that. But your quote from Scripture basically says that Scripture is useful and profitable for every good work. And, for sure that's not the same as saying that 'ONLY' Scripture is useful and profiitable.

Secondly, your quote states that Scripture will make us equipped for goood work but nothing about being the sole source of God's truth. I thought we didn't belieive in the necessity of good works??????????

Your quote shows the importance of Scripture, but in no way does it address 'Scripture Alone' as being the only source of God's truth.

So complete isnt complete?
What else do you think it promotes?
Or even allows for?

 

[Athanasius377]

Well, firstly, I quoted 3 sources earlier. Any thoughts on that? First, 2 Macc 12:46, written before the NT. When the Canon of the Bible was determined in the 4th Century, using Church Tradition, these books, 1 and 2 Maccabees, were included in it. Luther took it out, after more than 1000 years of it being in the Canon, because he could not explain why it taught Purgatory. But purgatory is also taught in the NT in 1 Cor 3:13-15; it says some Christians are rewarded for their good works done in faith, while other Christians are not, but suffer loss and are saved only through fire. Finally, from the earliest ages after Christ and His Apostle, as is historically demonstrable, the Christian Church prayed for the departed, which shows a belief in purgatory.

Lets examine 2 Macc 12:46 and put it back into context. :

Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and they kept the Sabbath there.
39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchers of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, imploring that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of 2,000 drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

2 Mac 12:38–4 ESV

The dead had committed willful idolatry for which God smote them. Idolatry, which last time I checked would put you solidly into the Mortal sin in the mortal/venial divide (Deut 7:25-26). So even if this is somehow indicative of a widespread praying for the dead it would do absolutely no good in furthering an argument for purgatory since even if a place did exist these fellows would not see it anyway. Also, there is the problem that such a sin offering given all the above would be a violation of Lev 4.

The other point is that the church had a canon long before the late fourth century as evidenced by the writings of the ECF, the Muratorian fragment, Athanasius' Festival letter XXXVIV and so forth. Also the council of Nicaea could not have functioned if there was no canon in use. And to put it bluntly, the See of Rome didn't define the canon officially until 1546.

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?
5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

1 Co 3:1–15 ESV

The context of the passage indicates that it is the workmanship of building up the church not a temporal state in order to undergo purification of the guilt of sin. Its the various mens' work in building up the church that will be tested by fire. Not their souls.

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

Hi Athanasius. Thanks for the reply. Let's take the Canon issue first: the 4th-century Councils of Carthage, of Hippo, and the decrees of Pope St. Damasus’s Council of Rome all contain Maccabees and the Deuterocanonicals as Canonical Scriptures. Let me cite "the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church from the Wiki link on the Biblical Canon: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, states:[1] A council probably held at Rome in 382 under [Pope] St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome Btw, this was reiterated in the Council of Florence also, in the 15th century, with both Eastern and Western Bishops in attendance.

Anyway, after the canon, let's look at the two Biblical texts under discussion. First, 2 Maccabees: it says, using your own translation, that they died in godliness, so it is clear that they did not die in mortal sin: "he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (vs 45). The Haydock commentary on this passage says: "Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance; or might have repented of their sin, at least at their death." They committed a sin and were punished by the Lord for it, but otherwise they were faithful Israelites fighting for the Lord when Jerusalem was attacked under Antiochus and those who succeeded him.

Can you cite the passage in Lev 4 you are thinking of? I read it and see it said: "22When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is prohibited by any of the commandments of the LORD his God, he incurs guilt. 23When he becomes aware of the sin he has committed, he must bring an unblemished male goat as his offering." The same applies to the departed, except they no longer can do so for themselves; so the Body and Blood of Christ is offered for them by the Church, that the Blood of Jesus may cleanse them from remaining sins.

Next, regarding 1 Cor 3:3-11-15 etc. Well, the foundation is faith in Christ, without which one will be saved even through fire. The Apostle is speaking of good works done with faith, not without; he says those who labored in love for the Lord, by Evangelism etc, will be rewarded for it, when the Day of the Lord tries every man's works in fire. Those whose works survive and are found good will be rewarded; those whose works have shortcomings or sins will also be saved, but passing through fire. This was how St. Augustine, St. Cyprian etc understood these passages. Both of them also say Martyrs for the Lord go straight to Heaven without Purgatory; and we don't pray for them but rather ask them to pray for us. But most other Christians, unless they often received Holy Communion, abounded in good works, avoided sin as far as possible, even small sins, etc may be saved through fire.

Jackson, will get back to your post shortly. As to who wrote Maccabees, it is a Jewish book that predates the NT. It is based on 2nd century BC events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Maccabees If you read in the NT, you will see something called "Feast of the Dedication", celebrated even today as Hannukah. In the NT it is mentioned by St. John the Apostle as "Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter" (Jn 10:22). This Dedication happened in the time of the Maccabees, and this was well known among the Jews at that time, so St. John gives no further explanation.

When the Biblical Canon was discerned in the 4th century, including the 27 book NT Canon, these OT books were included.

See also: "Hanukkah, (Hebrew: “Dedication”) also spelled Ḥanukka, Chanukah, or Chanukkah, also called Feast of Dedication, Festival of Lights, or Feast of the Maccabees" https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hanukkah

God Bless.

 

[Athanasius377]

Hi Athanasius. Thanks for the reply. Let's take the Canon issue first: the 4th-century Councils of Carthage, of Hippo, and the decrees of Pope St. Damasus’s Council of Rome all contain Maccabees and the Deuterocanonicals as Canonical Scriptures. Let me cite "the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church from the Wiki link on the Biblical Canon: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, states:[1] A council probably held at Rome in 382 under [Pope] St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome Btw, this was reiterated in the Council of Florence also, in the 15th century, with both Eastern and Western Bishops in attendance.

Good point about the council of Florence. I had forgotten that the canon was at least mentioned. I don’t have exact text but if I recall it doesn’t mention all the apocrypha and this could be that Baruch was often attached to Jeremiah. Yet recall the East does not recognize Florence as authoritative. Add to that the Eastern churches don’t all agree on what constitutes the canon especially the deuterocanincals. Some accept 3rd Macc but not 4th, some accept all four as an example. And of course there is a weird allergy to Revelation (Apocalypse). The point I am making is that canon is an artifact of inspiration and the early church clearly had a grasp for the most part of what was canon before there was a church council to sort it out. The church merely acknowledges the inspiration of a book but has no authority to make a book scripture. From a scholarly pov all the canon was being referred to long before any council dealt with the idea of a canon.

I think Luther was correct by dividing the NT into “Spoken for/spoken against distinction. Not to move these books into an appendix like he wanted at first but acknowledge their historical place in the recognition of the canon. And for the record he did not rip out the deuterocanincals out of the Bible. He included them as an appendix at the end of the OT. At the end of the day he was unwilling to remove them because he saw their value. As did the KJV Bible. My copy has the Apocrypha printed at the end of the OT.

As a traditional Anglican we read these books in our daily lectionary. In fact the first reading for today (Trinity XV) is a reading from Ecclesiasticus.

Maybe we should start a thread to discuss but I fear it will get crazy

I’ll respond to 2 macc in a few.

God bless,
A.

 

[Inquisitor]

The point I am making is that canon is an artifact of inspiration and the early church clearly had a grasp for the most part of what was canon before there was a church council to sort it out. The church merely acknowledges the inspiration of a book but has no authority to make a book scripture. From a scholarly pov all the canon was being referred to long before any council dealt with the idea of a canon.

That is not correct. There existed disputes over certain letters in the New Testament. These disputes lasted for a considerable time.

1) The author of Hebrews was unknown. Was the author of Hebrews an apostle? Is the text an inspired text?

2) 2 Peter was not accepted till very late and has been debated ever since.

3) The author of 2 John and 3 John was unknown, as above, was the author an apostle. Are these really inspired letters?

4) Was the author of James an apostle? Was the author of James the brother of Jesus?

Different churches in the first few centuries, had different collections of the letters in their New Testament.

Was there actually a defined canon in the second century?

Well that depends on which church and the location of that church, that you are referring to.

This is the whole point of a general council, to establish in a uniform way, a standard text across the known churches. What texts are accepted as the New Testament letters is the question, that any council of bishops had to address?

It is much the same down to this very day. Different church movements have somewhat different Bibles, that they refer to as the canon of the NT.

 

[Inquisitor]

I think this is a solid point that Biblical canon itself is a tradition.

From the Mercionite Bible to the Nicene, there were different directions taken, and we take by faith that the tradition of the canon we hold is the correct one.

I agree, faith first and last, in all these matters.

 

[TMS]

There will always be things to cause doubt, but that is just an opportunity to exercise faith.
Faith in Jesus, and Faith in the scripture.
Tradition needs to be tested with the word of God to see if it is for God, or against God.
The devil is a deceptive so take the time to test the spirits.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I appreciate your response but my comment doesn't actually apply to you if you don't believe in the trinity. I was merely trying to point out the inconsistency of employing a line of reasoning to different arguments and coming to opposite conclusions.
I personally find many traditions helpful with the understanding that they are subject to a singular authority " scripture.

who said what i believe?
God is indeed triune.
but nowhere does God claim that.
nowhere does God claim He is multiple persons.
even when giving the great Commission He said to baptize in the Name [singular], not names.
so what is that Name that is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit?

these are questions no one can answer even though we know God is Father-Son-Holy Spirit.

but man has decided they are persons when nowhere is there such a claim.

 

[Cameron143]

who said what i believe?
God is indeed triune.
but nowhere does God claim that.
nowhere does God claim He is multiple persons.
even when giving the great Commission He said to baptize in the Name [singular], not names.
so what is that Name that is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit?

these are questions no one can answer even though we know God is Father-Son-Holy Spirit.

but man has decided they are persons when nowhere is there such a claim.

who said what i believe?
God is indeed triune.
but nowhere does God claim that.
nowhere does God claim He is multiple persons.
even when giving the great Commission He said to baptize in the Name [singular], not names.
so what is that Name that is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit?

these are questions no one can answer even though we know God is Father-Son-Holy Spirit.

but man has decided they are persons when nowhere is there such a claim.

Ok. I understand your position. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Athanasius377]

First, 2 Maccabees: it says, using your own translation, that they died in godliness, so it is clear that they did not die in mortal sin: "he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (vs 45). The Haydock commentary on this passage says: "Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance; or might have repented of their sin, at least at their death." They committed a sin and were punished by the Lord for it, but otherwise they were faithful Israelites fighting for the Lord when Jerusalem was attacked under Antiochus and those who succeeded him.

So God struck down Idolaters for committing Idolatry and while committing Idolatry and they did not die in mortal sin? Lets read that passage again:
But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
The text doesn't say that those who were fallen were in Godliness but rather the referent is the splendid reward for those people who fell assleep in Godliness not having committed Idolatry. The RSV CE has the identical reading here as well.

Can you cite the passage in Lev 4 you are thinking of? I read it and see it said: "22When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is prohibited by any of the commandments of the LORD his God, he incurs guilt. 23When he becomes aware of the sin he has committed, he must bring an unblemished male goat as his offering." The same applies to the departed, except they no longer can do so for themselves; so the Body and Blood of Christ is offered for them by the Church, that the Blood of Jesus may cleanse them from remaining sins.

Leviticus chapters 4-6 deal with sin offering. At no point does the OT code say anything about about making offerings for the dead. Nor does the OT law allow for a sin offering for a per-meditated occasion of sin. Cf Num 15:27-31. Adding such doctrines is a violation of the command in Deut 4:2 not to add or subtract from the word that was given to the Jews. And for this reason we should reject the book as not being inspired for that reason alone not even to worry about history problems that are in the text

A.

 

[Thewatchman]

I found this definition and meaning of traditions used in 2nd Thessalonians on “The Bible Tools .com site” and it makes sense.

Let me know what you thank

And hold the traditions which ye have been taught:
meaning the truths of the Gospel, which may be called traditions, because they are delivered from one to another; the Gospel was first delivered by God the Father to Jesus Christ, as Mediator, and by him to his apostles, and by them to the churches of Christ; whence it is called the form of doctrine delivered to them, and the faith once delivered to the saints: and also the ordinances of the Gospel which the apostles received from Christ, and as they received them faithfully delivered them, such as baptism and the Lord's supper; as well as rules of conduct and behaviour, both in the church, and in the world, even all the commandments of Christ, which he ordered his apostles to teach, and which they gave by him; see ( 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ) ( 1 Thessalonians 4:2 ) . And so the Syriac version here renders it, "the commandments": and these were such as these saints had been taught by the apostles, under the direction of Christ, and through the guidance of his Spirit; and were not the traditions of men or the rudiments of the world, but what they had received from Christ, through the hands of the apostles:

 

[EliB]

Again, that is no reference to Scripture Alone. In fact Jesus nor Paul believed in Scripture alone for the only source of God's truth. In fact, Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to His early disciples/church and that the Spirit would lead them to truth.

brother, this isn't entirely accurate.
just to start, that verse you re-quoted of Jesus in Matthew 4 is a direct quote from Deuteronomy 8:3 where Moses, giving a history lesson to the people (the very same Moses that is the only prophet that God ever spoke to face to face in life, so it's fairly reliable to claim his doctrine is pretty sound.) CLEARLY STATES
"that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live".
the point of the bold is to note the last part that clearly notes that the ONLY thing man shall live by is the Word of God.
To properly understand this point please follow along.
From here lets hippity-hop on over a couple thousand years to Paul and see what he has to say on the subject.
"so then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Romans 10:17
hippity-hop some more,
"But without Faith it is impossible to please Him(God)", Hebrews 11:6
a little more,
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" James (literal brother of Jesus) 2:26 (the whole chapter, really).
now on to the J-man Himself,
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." John 17:20
And, finally, the part of the scripture that you deliberately did not quote in John chapter 14 verse 26,
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

So, lets wrap everything together,
1. Jesus says that he will send the Spirit to teach and REMIND us of everything he said. (what does this matter if we don't "hear" His word?) John 14:26
2. Jesus says this is important BECAUSE many will believe through their WORD (how is this gonna work without a scripture?) John 17:20
3. Faith is dead without works so we have to work out our faith by.... James 2:26
4. Doing what we are told in the WORD. (man, this is just all over the place.) Hebrews 11:6 + Romans 10:17
5. Moses outright said that we live only by the WORD of God (the name for that is called "scripture")

sure bro, the specific phrase "Sola Scriptura" is not in the Bible, however, arguing that the principle isn't there is like arguing that it is okay for molesters and homosexuals to lead a Sunday school class. It is the height of nonsense and is the only way that we go from fundamental truth and steadfast search for it to abject rejection of The Truth.
Thus we can understand and accept "Sola Scriptura" as a fundamental biblical precedent for the preservation and acknowledgment of fundamental truth. the principle is clearly there even if the specific wording isn't.

also, just for note. God chose Abraham because, "I (God) know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do Justice and Judgment" Genisis 18:19 God knew that Abraham would keep to the principle of "Sola Scriptura" in raising his family after the Lord.

it really is all over the place, you just need to look a little closer.

God bless.