Sola Scriptura

[robert derrick]

I commented on the specific quote from your post.
You say "You reject Sola Scriptura because you reject all Scripture as true of God."

That is a LIE. I have never rejected any scripture as "true of God".
When you have to resort to lying about what I say then have failed.

I addressed someone who claimed some Scripture is flawed and needed correction from time to time by God, because the writers were flawed human beings, and you came in apparently to agree with them. So I challenged you the same, and refused to answer.

If I am lying about you, show me, and I will certainly apologize to you as a false accuser of the brethren, which I certainly don't want to be found doing:

Do you believe all Scripture of the Bible from Moses to John is correct and true of God?

Yes or no?

I do wholeheartedly.

 

[robert derrick]

i was raised a Catholic for many years, then Jesus rescued me and revealed His Word which resulted in my Second Birth and was adopted into His Body = the Church.

Now Christ is my Shepherd and my family are those 'who do the will of My(Jesus) Father in Heaven.'

SOLA SCRIPTURA the place where idols are crushed to dust, where religion dies, where men are made ALIVE,
and God is Glorified.

Amen brother. I went through the exact same thing in another kind of 'Christian' cult. They preached plenty of Jesus and plenty of good Scripture, but they also inserted their own rules and programs all Christians ought to believe and obey as Scripture.

Like you, I had a '2nd' deliverance from false ministry. The first time I repented of my past sins, and now I repent of my past sinful ministry.

I no more put my trust in any man, spirit, nor angel that does not bring with them this doctrine of Christ and that gospel that Paul preached: that which is according to Scripture.

 

[Mungo]

I addressed someone who claimed some Scripture is flawed and needed correction from time to time by God, because the writers were flawed human beings, and you came in apparently to agree with them. So I challenged you the same, and refused to answer.

If I am lying about you, show me, and I will certainly apologize to you as a false accuser of the brethren, which I certainly don't want to be found doing:

Do you believe all Scripture of the Bible from Moses to John is correct and true of God?

Yes or no?

I do wholeheartedly.

Certainly all Scripture in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is God's word and is authoritative (true and reliable) in it's original manuscripts. But we do not have any original manuscripts.
I don't say it has needed correction by God but there are disputes about the accuracy of the manuscripts we have now. There may be copyists mistakes and certainly there are some differences between the manuscripts we have.

Does that answer your question?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

You already know which verses you accused me of using out of context because you said, "You have a penchant for using scripture out of context to support non truths as you did in 249...". (#250)

OK, fair enough. Your application of Isaiah 8: in regard to the "doctrine" of SS is fundamentally and fatally flawed on numerous levels.

First, SS as a "doctrine" is a red herring as its also a created expression of man but as the "essence" of what it means, it is correct because it aligns with scripture (not because it just happened to be penned elsewhere)

Your application of Isaiah is primarily non sequitur because the "law" spoken of there is clearly the written laws and edicts at that period and nowhere near the cumulative body of scripture as is described in the overall comprehensiveness of the concept of SS. One part of scripture is not evelated or cancels another.

What else do you need for me to correct in your doctrine? Just let me know.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

THREE strikes- your OUT.
I'll just go ahead and accept your concession that you can't prove Sola Scriptura.

Nice job . . .

You may make up anything you chose and pretend its the truth all you want- its the RCC way and you are a good little drone so follow your programming.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Sooooo - I take that as your admission that you can't refute ANY of the Scriptural evidence I gave you for prayerful intercession.
Pretty much what I expected from you . . .

No matter how dizzy you get from spinning and making false claims- you are still wrong.

You dodged the question.

You reject Luther as authoritative - yet you adhere to HIS edited Canon of the OT.
WHY is that if you don't view him with Authority?

I dodged nothing, you just didn't like the answer because it left you with nothing else to work with.

 

[Taken]

And yet NEITHER of these verses states that Scripture is our "SOLE" Authority.

Wisdom is understanding what:
IS said,
IS written,
IS called Scripture,
IS Gods Authority.

As I have shown repeatedly - Scripture itself puts Sacred Tradition right ON PAR with Scriptural Authority (2 Thess. 2:15).

2 Thes 2:
[15] Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

* ACCEPTABLE Traditions Taught BY Scriptural "WORD" or the Apostles "LETTERS".

WHERE IS the SCRIPTURAL WORD or Apostles LETTERS....
TO Erect Statues in the Likeness of Jesus?
TO Erect Statues in the Likeness of Mary?
TO Teach Mary was Sinless?
TO Teach Mary is the mother of God?
TO Teach bowing to Statues?
TO Teach Baby Baptism?
TO Teach Praying to Saints IN Heaven?
TO Teach Jesus' was an Earthly Human man?

EPIC fail . . .

The Epic FAIL is what you Teach IS "NOT" Acceptible Traditions revealed "IN" Gods Written Word or the Apostles Epitsles.

What you Teach is: man-made TRADITIONS...
And PAY ATTENTION...man-made TRADITIONS "ARE" (by the Inspired Word of God,) " NOT acceptable " ... But RATHER ARE WARNED AGAINST DOING...!!

Col 2:
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

all these funny things you say - thanks, i love a good laugh

Of course you do - because that's ALL you can do.
You certainly can't defend Sola Scriptura - so you may as well laugh about it . . .

 

[robert derrick]

Certainly all Scripture in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is God's word and is authoritative (true and reliable) in it's original manuscripts. But we do not have any original manuscripts.
I don't say it has needed correction by God but there are disputes about the accuracy of the manuscripts we have now. There may be copyists mistakes and certainly there are some differences between the manuscripts we have.

Does that answer your question?

Yes. Thank you.

You do believe that God gave His unerring Word of truth to His prophets and apostles, to write down as His Scripture. But you don't believe that God also ensured His Scriptures were preserved unerringly for future generations.

Therefore, you don't believe the writings we have are as unerring as the original manuscripts, that are gone (for now), and so while the original writings were all Scripture indeed, the writings today are not.

Therefore, you do not believe them as all Scripture and sole authority for Word of God: I.e. Sola Scriptura that was true in the days of the original manuscripts is no longer true for today.

And, since we don't know for sure which modern writings are accurately copied from original manuscripts or not, then man today must make decisions for himself which writings are true Scripture or not.

I am a believer in them as all Scripture as I have them. You are not. I take them all as truth of God and am dutybound as a confessed believer in the God of the Bible, to allow any and all such Scripture to have sole authority over me in salvation, justification, reproof, correction, and perfecting in Christ Jesus.

You do not. You also go to traditions and writings that have no place in the writings of the Bible, as we have them, because you reject all such Bible writings as Scripture of truth.

You reject Sola Scriptura, because you reject the writings called 'Moses to John' cannot all be the true writings of Moses to John, because you do not believe that God who gave them to Moses an John, also kept them unerringly as from Moses and John for us today.

My God did, and I am convinced by the Bible itself, as I read it, that it is perfectly unerring without any self-contradiction and all true of God.

When I read any writing in the Bible, I am reading Scripture that Moses and John wrote themselves from God, because my God of the Bible has ensured it for my soul's sake.

My faith in my God says He preserved His Word perfectly in the Bible writings and are all Scripture. Your unbelief does not.

You are an unbeliever of the Bible today as the unerring Scripture of God given to us by God, since the days of His prophets and apostles.

You are obviously a very learned. I do respect your plain scholarship. I do not respect your unbelief in the Bible today as all Scripture, and your stated lack of trust in my God to ensure it is indeed all Scripture.

My faith in God and in Jesus Christ today began, when I knew there was a God in heaven, that had to be guiding all those men over those thousands of years to be writing things so perfectly intertwined, so as to have no contradiction between themselves whatsoever. And I have found that all such apparent contradictions are not contradiction at all. And I firmly believe God had His Word written in such a way as to allow anyone without faith in Him, His Word, and His Scriptures as written, to think there is, so that He takes the crafty in their own craftiness.

My proposal to you therefore is to disprove Sola Scriptura by proving contradiction of anything written in the Bible. No manuscript talk, nor even 'going to the Greek'. I read Scripture in English. Show me in such writings of the Bible, plainly written in English, where they cannot be Scripture, because they contradict each other, so that they cannot both be true.

I hope you take me up on this, because I believe you would be a worthy opponent.

Thanks again for you honest answer.

 

[BreadOfLife]

i was raised a Catholic for many years, then Jesus rescued me and revealed His Word which resulted in my Second Birth and was adopted into His Body = the Church.
Now Christ is my Shepherd and my family are those 'who do the will of My(Jesus) Father in Heaven.'
SOLA SCRIPTURA the place where idols are crushed to dust, where religion dies, where men are made ALIVE,
and God is Glorified.

And in the depths of your ignorance, you fail to see that Sola Scriptura IS an idol created by MEN in the 16th century.
Your failure is complete.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No matter how dizzy you get from spinning and making false claims- you are still wrong.

And STILL no Scriptural support for Sola Scriptura.
Your failure is complete.

I dodged nothing, you just didn't like the answer because it left you with nothing else to work with.

No - you never explained why you adhere to Luther's edited Canon of the OT after saying that you DON'T recognize his Authority in post #312.
S
TILL waiting for an answer . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wisdom is understanding what:
IS said,
IS written,
IS called Scripture,
IS Gods Authority.

2 Thes 2:
[15] Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

* ACCEPTABLE Traditions Taught BY Scriptural "WORD" or the Apostles "LETTERS".

WHERE IS the SCRIPTURAL WORD or Apostles LETTERS....
TO Erect Statues in the Likeness of Jesus?
TO Erect Statues in the Likeness of Mary?
TO Teach Mary was Sinless?
TO Teach Mary is the mother of God?
TO Teach bowing to Statues?
TO Teach Baby Baptism?
TO Teach Praying to Saints IN Heaven?
TO Teach Jesus' was an Earthly Human man?

The Epic FAIL is what you Teach IS "NOT" Acceptible Traditions revealed "IN" Gods Written Word or the Apostles Epitsles.

What you Teach is: man-made TRADITIONS...
And PAY ATTENTION...man-made TRADITIONS "ARE" (by the Inspired Word of God,) " NOT acceptable " ... But RATHER ARE WARNED AGAINST DOING...!!

Col 2:
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

We don't bow "TO" statues.

Bowing - as is kneeling, folding hands, etc. - is a posture of prayer. If I bow in prayer and there is a Crucifix, Bible or statue present - I'm not bowing TO either one of those - but to God, Einstein. We don't 'worship" images any more than the Israelites worshipped a golden box when they PROSTRATED themselves before it.
The Crucifix, Bible or statue simply aid in my prayer as reminders.

As for Mary's sinlessness (Luke 1:29), Mother of God (Luke 1:31-33, 1:43), Baby Baptism (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14, Acts 16:23-33, 1 Cor. 1:16) - those are ALL referenced or alluded to in Scripture.

STUDY your Bible and stop your whining . . .

 

[MatthewG]

They must live spiritually then and you can not tell other than by their fruits of what comes from their hearts; even if they are messed up on some type of drug or alcohol; the spirit of Christ prevails through their flesh by the believer as allowing to walk in faith, and by the spirit.

Those people are part of the body of Christ - the Church.

I believe the first group church of the 1st century has been already taken away and that would most certain contradict your own belief system itself and that is okay because not many people believe like myself, and consider all of the Church - Bride - of that age has already been taken away because they were the First Fruits - and First believers ~ Who were all going to be taken away before the destruction of Jerusalem.

At least in my own belief and subjective opinion about the context of the bible itself and trying to present it in todays time now. There are things in the bible that are useful to the believer; and for a non believer to look at and also to consider the context of everything that is presented and not listen to just simple one line scripted readings unless there is something truly being brought to the table like spiritual guidance and help by the spirit to help you consider all context and what is truly being said by asking, who, what, why, when, where, and how.

People may disagree, some may agree and the only way to really gain knowledge is to really read what is context from Chapter 1 to when it ends and consider everything in a lumpsum summary and thinking about other things being said in other books; which were all written to the believers back then and now we have it to have some guidance in this life by living with faith and by the spirit while trusting God, and the Lord Jesus Christ is with them and loves them, no matter where they are at in life.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

And STILL no Scriptural support for Sola Scriptura.
Your failure is complete.

Dizzy, we have been through this even to one of your fellow drones in 344 above. You have a non argument.

No - you never explained why you adhere to Luther's edited Canon of the OT after saying that you DON'T recognize his Authority in post #312.
S
TILL waiting for an answer . . .

Get this through your thick skull then- read s-l-o-w-l-y

I adhere to the body of the OT as identified by other means which have been around long before Luther. The fact his is largely coincidental is just that and in no way any kind of testament to Luther.

Another RCC revisionist failure

We don't bow "TO" statues.

Bowing - as is kneeling, folding hands, etc. - is a posture of prayer. If I bow in prayer and there is a Crucifix, Bible or statue present - I'm not bowing TO either one of those - but to God, Einstein. We don't 'worship" images any more than the Israelites worshipped a golden box when they PROSTRATED themselves before it.
The Crucifix, Bible or statue simply aid in my prayer as reminders.

A rose by any other name and the rosary, chips, holy water- your entire religion is filled with graven images.

As for Mary's sinlessness (Luke 1:29), Mother of God (Luke 1:31-33, 1:43), Baby Baptism (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14, Acts 16:23-33, 1 Cor. 1:16) - those are ALL referenced or alluded to in Scripture.

You mean TWISTED by the RCC

 

[Taken]

We don't bow "TO" statues.

Bowing - as is kneeling, folding hands, etc. - is a posture of prayer. If I bow in prayer and there is a Crucifix, Bible or statue present - I'm not bowing TO either one of those - but to God, Einstein. We don't 'worship" images any more than the Israelites worshipped a golden box when they PROSTRATED themselves before it.
The Crucifix, Bible or statue simply aid in my prayer as reminders.

Load of man-made gobbledygook and denial. Yes men do seek the place where a statue stands and bow down to the statue and even Kiss them!

The BOX was actually an Ark constructed according to Gods inspired word, to Expressly Hold the Written Holy Word of God...that WHERE the Ark was, So also was God.
A far cry of bowing down before the Lords Holy Seat .... and statues warned not to erect.

Statues (standing images) are not holy, and were expressly forbidden.

Lev 26:
[1] Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

Not one Following Scripture, in the NT or by Letter of the Apostles, taught a tradition to erect standing images and bow down to them.

Busted!

As for Mary's sinlessness (Luke 1:29), Mother of God (Luke 1:31-33, 1:43), Baby Baptism (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14, Acts 16:23-33, 1 Cor. 1:16) - those are ALL referenced or alluded to in Scripture.

More gobblegook....and Delusion.

[QUTE] STUDY your Bible and stop your whining . . .[/QUOTE]

Not whining, admonishing, warning your claims GO AGAINST Scripture. My Warning IS forwarded from Scriptural teaching as WARNINGS...to those WHO CAN Hear...and Desire Gods Truth....rather than traditions of men, Delusions and False claims.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

What Sola Sciri

The church today is anyone who is a believer.

The church today is not actually a material building but it is a spiritual body of believers.

You have some that are eyes, feet, legs, arms, hands.

There are many believers out there scattered they are in all types of denominations out there who have well meaning and true lovers of God and the Lord Jesus Christ out there, who live by the spirit.

Love those people who are Calvinist if that is what they believe but man they can be very hard on other people. It is unfortunate but it is part of the world of ' Christianity ' - Some people will believe that they are more special than other people when in retrospective reality all people are on the same page.


Believer or not believer. God is the savior of all people - especially those who believe.

Believer have the benefit of having God in their life but that doesn't make them more special than anyone else.

God is calling to and towards all people.

Most of this is not supported with any scripture, let alone a correct use of scripture. Any group or individual that teaches contrary to God's laws is by definition opposing Christ, and therefore not a member of His Church. Look in the NT from Gospel accounts all the way to Revelation, and true followers of God are shown keeping His laws. As it stands, literally most groups and individuals in the professing Christian world opposes God's standards of morality by treating them as if they're optional. In most cases, they're even characterizing His standard as legalistic laws that that should be outright disregarded.

Furthermore, God is not calling all people in this age. Christ never taught anything like that, and that theology certainly isn't reflected by the apostles in the epistles. After giving the parable of the sower, Christ said He intentionally withheld the meaning because the Father only wanted the disciples to know it. If God was calling everyone, then surely Christ should've made the meaning clear for everybody else to understand as well.

 

[Mungo]

Yes. Thank you.

You do believe that God gave His unerring Word of truth to His prophets and apostles, to write down as His Scripture. But you don't believe that God also ensured His Scriptures were preserved unerringly for future generations.

Therefore, you don't believe the writings we have are as unerring as the original manuscripts, that are gone (for now), and so while the original writings were all Scripture indeed, the writings today are not.

Therefore, you do not believe them as all Scripture and sole authority for Word of God: I.e. Sola Scriptura that was true in the days of the original manuscripts is no longer true for today.

And, since we don't know for sure which modern writings are accurately copied from original manuscripts or not, then man today must make decisions for himself which writings are true Scripture or not.

I am a believer in them as all Scripture as I have them. You are not. I take them all as truth of God and am dutybound as a confessed believer in the God of the Bible, to allow any and all such Scripture to have sole authority over me in salvation, justification, reproof, correction, and perfecting in Christ Jesus.

You do not. You also go to traditions and writings that have no place in the writings of the Bible, as we have them, because you reject all such Bible writings as Scripture of truth.

You reject Sola Scriptura, because you reject the writings called 'Moses to John' cannot all be the true writings of Moses to John, because you do not believe that God who gave them to Moses an John, also kept them unerringly as from Moses and John for us today.

My God did, and I am convinced by the Bible itself, as I read it, that it is perfectly unerring without any self-contradiction and all true of God.

When I read any writing in the Bible, I am reading Scripture that Moses and John wrote themselves from God, because my God of the Bible has ensured it for my soul's sake.

My faith in my God says He preserved His Word perfectly in the Bible writings and are all Scripture. Your unbelief does not.

You are an unbeliever of the Bible today as the unerring Scripture of God given to us by God, since the days of His prophets and apostles.

You are obviously a very learned. I do respect your plain scholarship. I do not respect your unbelief in the Bible today as all Scripture, and your stated lack of trust in my God to ensure it is indeed all Scripture.

My faith in God and in Jesus Christ today began, when I knew there was a God in heaven, that had to be guiding all those men over those thousands of years to be writing things so perfectly intertwined, so as to have no contradiction between themselves whatsoever. And I have found that all such apparent contradictions are not contradiction at all. And I firmly believe God had His Word written in such a way as to allow anyone without faith in Him, His Word, and His Scriptures as written, to think there is, so that He takes the crafty in their own craftiness.

My proposal to you therefore is to disprove Sola Scriptura by proving contradiction of anything written in the Bible. No manuscript talk, nor even 'going to the Greek'. I read Scripture in English. Show me in such writings of the Bible, plainly written in English, where they cannot be Scripture, because they contradict each other, so that they cannot both be true.

I hope you take me up on this, because I believe you would be a worthy opponent.

Thanks again for you honest answer.

If you believe Sola Scriptura means nothing in the original manuscripts has changed through all the copying then what bible verses prove your belief that the manuscripts we have are unaltered from the originals?

There is a web site Bible differences which discusses the differences between the KJV and the NIV and particularly discusses the different manuscripts which we have. It's worth a read.

I pick out four examples and the notes about differences in manuscripts but there are many more given in the website

154 Fruit of Light, Ephesians 5:9.
Up to the year 500 A.D. “…fruit of Light…” is represented by Papyrus 49 (±250 A.D.) as well as 4 Uncial Codices, as well as eight Antique Translations and eight Church Fathers. Another two uncial codices and nine minuscules and also nine Ancient Translations dated after 800 A.D. have the same version.
For the first 500 years “…fruit of the Spirit…” is found only in Papyrus 46 (±200 A.D.) and three Church Fathers. Even after 600 A.D. only two Uncial codices and one Ancient Translation and one Church Father have this version. It is more common after 900 A.D. with some Byzantine manuscripts, Lectionaries and 13 Minuscule manuscripts.


153 The spirit of the Antichrist. 1 John 4:2-3
This version is supported by Codex Sinaiticus (±350 A.D) and 5 codices after 750 A.D. as well as 17 minuscule manuscripts after 850 A.D. and 2 Syrias and an Aramaic Translation.

Modern translations have a shorter version, like the NIV:
1 John 4:2 – 3: “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”

Supported by Vaticanus (±350 A.D) and Alexandrinus (±350 A.D) and 5 minuscules after 850 A.D. as well as 11 Ancient translations dating from 250 A.D. and spread out from Egypt, Ethiopia, and Europe up to Rome.

According to the Greek manuscripts available the two versions have very equal support.

152 Without a cause, Matthew 5:22.
What immediately draws our attention is that the oldest Greek manuscript, the Papyrus 67 (±200 A.D.) together with three representatives of the Church Fathers before the year 200 A.D. all quote this verse without the indication “…without cause…). On the other hand the Diatessaron from the same period does have this indication. But the Diatessaron that Tatian the Syrian compiled in 170 A.D. is seen by Bible Experts as a document of low esteem. Tatian compiled the four gospels into one continuous narrative, adding some of his personal notes and leaving out portions as he pleased. Yet due to the convenience of having one instead of four gospels, his document was widely used and copied. Only much later the leaders in the Church realised that his document caused many alterations in the Greek texts. Then in was abolished and replaced with the original gospels.
It is noteworthy that Irenaeus (†202 A.D.) quoted this verse in his Latin writings without these words, but in his Greek writings with the phraze. Could it be that his Greek copy had already been influenced by the Diatessaron? Origen (†254 A.D.), Eusebius (†339 A.D.) and Augustine (†430 A.D.) also use both versions.
The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus (±350 A.D.), both reckoned by Text experts as of the most reliable Greek manuscripts are without this phrase. The first Greek manuscripts with the phrase are the codices Bezae and Washingtoniensis of a hundred years later, both of much lower esteem. The later Greek manuscripts, all dating after 700 A.D. as well as most Antique Translation contain this phrase.

136 Son or Donkey or Sheep in the well, Luke 14:5
In the manuscripts we find three versions.

1. Internal Criteria.

To try to come to a decision, we first examine the manuscripts that has this verse.

“A son or an ox” is found in Papyrus 45 and 75, both from ±250 A.D. Also in four other Uncials (350 – 850) and eleven Minuscules later than 850 A.D. Also in the majority of Byzantine manuscripts and Greek lectionaries. Lectionaries are copies of the passages of Scripture that were read in the Greek Orthodox Church on specific Sundays and holidays according to the Christian year, starting with Easter. This version is also found in seven antique translations dating between 250 – 650 A.D. Even the Diatessaron, a compilation of the four gospels made by Tatian the Syrian (±150 A.D.) has this version.

“A donkey or an ox” is found in six Uncials dated 350 – 850 A.D. and ten Minuscules and one Greek lectionary. It is also found in thirteen antique translations dated between 350 – 1300 A.D.

“A sheep or an ox” is found in codex Bezae (500) and one Old Latin translation from the same time.

Several other manuscripts have different sequences of these variations and even all three together, “a son or donkey or sheep or ox”. One manuscript ha an obvious misspelling where an “n” was substituted by an “r”, causing the version “a mountain or an ox”! Humans do make mistakes!

According to the manuscript evidence the version “son or ox” clearly has the older and better evidence and should be seen as the greatest possibility to represent the original autograph.

 

[David in NJ]

Amen brother. I went through the exact same thing in another kind of 'Christian' cult. They preached plenty of Jesus and plenty of good Scripture, but they also inserted their own rules and programs all Christians ought to believe and obey as Scripture.

Like you, I had a '2nd' deliverance from false ministry. The first time I repented of my past sins, and now I repent of my past sinful ministry.

I no more put my trust in any man, spirit, nor angel that does not bring with them this doctrine of Christ and that gospel that Paul preached: that which is according to Scripture.

Well then, this must mean we are Blood Brothers forever - Amen

 

[David in NJ]

And in the depths of your ignorance, you fail to see that Sola Scriptura IS an idol created by MEN in the 16th century.
Your failure is complete.

Thank You - i am laughing again - this was a good one.

Hey breadman, you know what, you're right !!!
My failure is complete - Jesus took care of it on the cross - completely!

 

[Taken]

Of course you do - because that's ALL you can do.
You certainly can't defend Sola Scriptura - so you may as well laugh about it . . .

Defend Sola Scriptura? LOL
Scripture itself Gives Scripture expressly Inspired of God and Authority of God.

I trust to Believe Scripture, you argue Against Gods Inspired Word to be Stand alone sufficient....what is YOUR DEFENCE to reject Scripture as Sufficient? LOL