Sola Scriptura 2

[marks]

Sorry for the UNPLEASANT and NEGATIVE response towards the forums... but it is what it is.

I've concluded that having Christian Internet Forums is almost as bad as not.

There is so much bad behavior displayed, but then we are a collection of all sorts of people with all sorts of temperments and maturities.

I think @Heart2Soul has the right idea in sharing Biblical truths, those things that come straight from the pages of the Bible. The more complex someone's argument gets, generally with less Scripture proportionately, the more I think it's not really in the Bible.

I find Biblical truth to be fairly easily expressed, and primarily by just quoting the Scriptures, if correctly understood.

Much love!

 

[Heart2Soul]

I've concluded that having Christian Internet Forums is almost as bad as not.

There is so much bad behavior displayed, but then we are a collection of all sorts of people with all sorts of temperments and maturities.

I think @Heart2Soul has the right idea in sharing Biblical truths, those things that come straight from the pages of the Bible. The more complex someone's argument gets, generally with less Scritpure proportionately, the more I think it's not really in the Bible.

I find Biblical truth to be fairly easily expressed, and primarily by just quoting the Scriptures, if correctly understood.

Much love!

I like to bring topics to the forum that I don't fully understand....example...(not a catholic topic)...I was studying Matthew and I saw something I hadn't noticed before....in the 1st chapter it goes through all the begats and all of it was of Joseph's lineage....so then I had to ask what lineage is Mary from?
It turned out to be a great topic of discussion and I learned something from it.

 

[marks]

I like to bring topics to the forum that I don't fully understand....example...(not a catholic topic)...I was studying Matthew and I saw something I hadn't noticed before....in the 1st chapter it goes through all the begats and all of it was of Joseph's lineage....so then I had to ask what lineage is Mary from?
It turned out to be a great topic of discussion and I learned something from it.

That's the part that makes it worthwhile!



And sometimes I can find a true debate partner, and I can test my ideas on them, as they test their ideas on me. And if it's conducted rightly, then we can all gain from it, even if we leave with the same disagreement we came in with.

Much love!

 

[Heart2Soul]

That's the part that makes it worthwhile!



And sometimes I can find a true debate partner, and I can test my ideas on them, as they test their ideas on me. And if it's conducted rightly, then we can all gain from it, even if we leave with the same disagreement we came in with.

Much love!

Amen....I love engaging with APAK and Grailhunter because they both present information that I had never seen or considered....and it makes my wheels start turning....and then it makes me do a lot of scripture searching (which I always need more of)...and THEN...I come across a scripture that suddenly my understanding is opened to....
And that's how it should work.

 

[robert derrick]

@robert derrick
The main arguments against Sola Scriptura are:

1. It is a man made doctrine invented by Protestants in the 16th century and is not found in The Bible.

2. The Bible shows examples of God's word being passed on orally, i.e. not in scripture. Examples were given in the other thread by BreadOfLife.

You and others consistently failed to address these two issues.

Until you address them you are wasting everyone's time.

I was in the process of doing so, when the thread was shut down.

1. Scriptures were repeatedly offered showing Sola Scriptura, and you rejected them. So be it. I will continue to post them as I read them.

Sola Scriptura is the Scriptural example of preaching and teaching the things of the God of the Bible according to the Scriptures.

Jesus did so concerning Himself as the promised Christ. His apostles did so concerning Jesus is the Christ.

They all warned against false teaching, traditions, and commandments that were of men taught for doctrine of God, and were not, because they made the commandments of God of none effect: Scripture of God contradicted. That does not happen, when all teaching and preaching and ministry is according to the Scriptures.

2. When you give proof of oral traditions, that were not in Scripture, and so there is true oral tradition not in Scripture, you defeat your argument, because you know those traditions by the Scriptures, that confirmed them to be true, when they were written in Scripture.

You stated that Jannes and Jambres were oral traditions not in Scripture.

They are:

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

You quote an oral tradition from Scripture, in order to prove oral traditions not in Scripture can be true.

You are therefore agreeing with Sola Scriptura, by going to Scripture in order to support your argument.

The oral traditions of Jannes and Jambres, prophecy of Enoch, contending over the body of Moses, etc...are all in Scripture, and so are true of the things of God.

There are plenty of oral traditions not written in Scripture, and we know there are false ones, because Scripture says so.

Therefore, Sola Scriptura says any and all teachings and traditions taught for doctrine of the God of the Bible, must be according to the Scriptures, in order to be believed as true of Jesus Christ and His gospel and Word of faith.

If it is not supported by Scripture, it does not make it false, but only a tradition of men, that may or may not be true.

It is only the traditions of men that contradict Scripture, and make the commandment of God in Scripture of none effect, that are proven false and to be rejected out of hand as heretical and are dangerous to the faith and commandment of Jesus Christ in them that believe.

You have already agreed with this. We are not apart on this.

If we have oral traditions we believe and are blessings to us, that do not contradict Scripture, then that is our right of personal faith, and so long as we do keep His faith and fulfill the royal law to love our neighbors as ourselves, then we do well. But if we then go on to teach those traditions as doctrine of Christ, and they are not proven so by Scripture, then we do not well.

 

[robert derrick]

Hmmm. I don't think that is an argument against Sola Scriptura. Any argument about Sola Scriptura must juxtapose the corruptions of the Catholic Church.

For instance, there is not this passion that the authors of the Iliad are flawless. This is because no group is claiming superiority to the written version of the story.

Protestants have teachers, those who explain doctrine to the young and newly acquainted. And even most Protestants get information about the Bible from what they hear in sermons. The difference is that one or 2 denominations claim inerrancy - over God's Word.

IMO, one cannot understand the dispute of Sola Scriptura without understanding that.

Your definition apparently is that Sola Scriptura rejects anything plainly contradicting Scripture, as well as anything taught for doctrine of God and Christ must be according to the Scriptures: supported by the Bible.

I would agree. Anything not supported by and does not contradict Scripture is free for any to believe by personal faith, so long as it is not put forth as the truth of God: I.e. taught as Scripture alongside Scripture.

Only Scripture is the truth of God written by His prophets and apostles proceeding from His own mouth.

The argument against Sola Scriptura I give is the only one given me, that I believe is arguable: That there can be no Sola Scriptura so long as the original manuscripts are not in existence anymore.

 

[marks]

The argument against Sola Scriptura I give is the only one given me, that I believe is arguable: That there can be no Sola Scriptura so long as the original manuscripts are not in existence anymore.

Psalms 119:89-90 KJV
89) LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
90) Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

I'm of the view that God is able to preserve His Word, so that we who come in later generations may still know what He said.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

I've concluded that having Christian Internet Forums is almost as bad as not.

There is so much bad behavior displayed, but then we are a collection of all sorts of people with all sorts of temperments and maturities.

I think @Heart2Soul has the right idea in sharing Biblical truths, those things that come straight from the pages of the Bible. The more complex someone's argument gets, generally with less Scripture proportionately, the more I think it's not really in the Bible.

I find Biblical truth to be fairly easily expressed, and primarily by just quoting the Scriptures, if correctly understood.

Much love!

Sola Scriptura teaching: things easy to be read and easy to be understood according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 14:9)

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech. And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.

We should try not to be Moses from the mount with lengthy vails of argument, dispersed thinly with some Scripture for good looks.

 

[robert derrick]

The real case for Sola Scriptura is that of faith in the Bible as being all Scripture, which requires trust in the God of the Bible to have all His Scripture with us today: the original manuscripts of Scripture are accurately recorded as Scripture today.

And the best case for this is the Bible, because the only true God in heaven must be the God of the Bible, and the Bible must be all Scripture, because there is no contradiction nor error of fact in the Bible.

The fact that Revelation written by John has no contradiction with Genesis written by Moses, and nowhere in between, which men cannot do by their own ability of reason, study, and intellect, proves there is a God in heaven who guided them all: The Holy One of Israel named Jesus Christ.

Sola Scriptura is faith that the Bible as all Scripture.

Once that is believed, then we must compare all other books and oral traditions to Scripture, in order to accept them as true of the God of the Bible.

If we do not believe it, then we do not believe all the Bible, and we do not trust the God of the Bible to be all powerful enough to have it done on earth.

Therefore, to denounce Sola Scriptura, the burden is to prove the Bible is not all Scripture: Show a contradiction or error of fact in it.

Otherwise, as with God Himself, it is all a matter of faith: them that believe the Bible is all Scripture, and trust in the God of the Bible to have ensured it, and them that do not.

 

[robert derrick]

I don't trust in leafs of parchments nor in pages of books, but in the true God to have His Word written once for all on earth, and remains on earth as He had it written from the beginning.

The proof that all Scripture God ever had written are still on the earth:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus is speaking of Scriptures: the written Word of God. All the jots and tittles are still on earth for us to read today, and the Bible is that book they are all written in.

There is no mystery scripture in the air, that we don't know all about, just because the original manuscripts of paper and pen are dust again.

And so there is no one to pluck some of that mystery scripture out of the air, that we don't already know about. The only such words from that air are given by the prince and power of the air, and taught by ministers of Mystery Babylon.

Scripture of truth is in the Bible. Mystery Scripture is in Mystery Babylon.

 

[Mungo]

I was in the process of doing so, when the thread was shut down.

1. Scriptures were repeatedly offered showing Sola Scriptura, and you rejected them. So be it. I will continue to post them as I read them.

Sola Scriptura is the Scriptural example of preaching and teaching the things of the God of the Bible according to the Scriptures.

Jesus did so concerning Himself as the promised Christ. His apostles did so concerning Jesus is the Christ.

Jesus and the apostles quoted from scripture. But I also gave you examples where both Jesus and apostles quoted from what was not Scripture.

They all warned against false teaching, traditions, and commandments that were of men taught for doctrine of God, and were not, because they made the commandments of God of none effect: Scripture of God contradicted. That does not happen, when all teaching and preaching and ministry is according to the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine of men and therefore should not be taught.

2. When you give proof of oral traditions, that were not in Scripture, and so there is true oral tradition not in Scripture, you defeat your argument, because you know those traditions by the Scriptures, that confirmed them to be true, when they were written in Scripture.

You stated that Jannes and Jambres were oral traditions not in Scripture.

They are:

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

You quote an oral tradition from Scripture, in order to prove oral traditions not in Scripture can be true.

You are evading the point. They were not in scripture when Paul quoted them. It is proof that the apostles were not Sola Scriptura.

You are therefore agreeing with Sola Scriptura, by going to Scripture in order to support your argument.

No, I'm not agreeing with Sola Scriptura. I was showing that the apostles were not Sola Scriptura.

The oral traditions of Jannes and Jambres, prophecy of Enoch, contending over the body of Moses, etc...are all in Scripture, and so are true of the things of God.

They were not in scripture when they were quoted. Therefore they disprove Sola Scriptura

There are plenty of oral traditions not written in Scripture, and we know there are false ones, because Scripture says so.

Therefore, Sola Scriptura says any and all teachings and traditions taught for doctrine of the God of the Bible, must be according to the Scriptures, in order to be believed as true of Jesus Christ and His gospel and Word of faith.

No it doesn't say that.

If it is not supported by Scripture, it does not make it false, but only a tradition of men, that may or may not be true.

God's word was passed on both orally and in writing. That is scriptural so it must be true

It is only the traditions of men that contradict Scripture, and make the commandment of God in Scripture of none effect, that are proven false and to be rejected out of hand as heretical and are dangerous to the faith and commandment of Jesus Christ in them that believe.

If teaching contradicts scripture then yes it is to be rejected. That is why I reject Sola Scriptura

You have already agreed with this. We are not apart on this.

If we have oral traditions we believe and are blessings to us, that do not contradict Scripture, then that is our right of personal faith, and so long as we do keep His faith and fulfill the royal law to love our neighbors as ourselves, then we do well. But if we then go on to teach those traditions as doctrine of Christ, and they are not proven so by Scripture, then we do not well.

If traditions contradict Scripture then they are to be rejected. That is why I reject Sola Scriptura

I await your scriptural proofs of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Mungo]

By your words I do not believe you don't care about Scripture, nor do you purposely believe that which plainly contradicts Scripture.

Untrue.

 

[Addy]

@Mungo I have some questions for you?

What do you personally gain/achieve by debating Catholicism?

Have you ever changed anyone's mind about your denomination's ADDITION of rituals PLUS the bible?

Would you waste your time trying to convert someone of a different faith into Catholicism?

What exactly is it that you THINK you are defending here??

EVERY claim made by any Catholic on these forums
has absolutely and completely been REJECTED as UNTRUTH... over and over again... without exception.

Is this just a past time because you are bored... or perhaps you want to increase your knowledge of the tenants of Catholicism?

My questions are sincere.

Edit... If you desire to have this conversation ( or even if you don't... that's cool ).. and you would prefer to private message me... you have my permission to do so. Either/or works for me... and I also understand completely if you would prefer NOT to engage with me.

 

[Mungo]

@Mungo I have some questions for you?

What do you personally gain/achieve by debating Catholicism?

I debate to teach the truth and expose false claims about the Catholic Church

What exactly is it that you THINK you are defending here??

The lies and distortions of what is said here about the Catholic Church

EVERY claim made by any Catholic on these forums
has absolutely and completely been REJECTED as UNTRUTH... over and over again... without exception.

I completely disagree with that statement.,

 

[Addy]

@Mungo... those are interesting answers... Thank you for your time.

 

[MatthewG]

No fights here. My belief scripture has been completed. Every single individual is responsible for their faith in God. Your faith is between you and God from what comes from your heart when you think about that relationship. There are many people out there that would suggest you need to obey “their suggested ways and conform to their own theology”.

That simply is not true.

In my position whatever denomination you are from is all fine and cool with me if you feel the need to go to church and do all of those things and you do it that is all fine with me.

As Christians we should be able to discuss and also questions to others and find out why they believe like they do which can come from years of being taught that way.

On forum sites people are only willingly to let you know only so much about themselves as to a fear possibly of being judged; so they tend to just use scripture to refrain from sharing anything more about their past or where they studied or who they learned from.

An willingly to share any of that information if asked; one thing I detest is when scriptures are used as knives and exclude over half the context and people try to use the scripture as a dagger to strike their “suggested opponents” as an haha got them tactic.

As Christians we are meant to fellowship and that only happens so rarely on things like these forum sites.

Take care - Matthew G.

 

[Mungo]

Scripture Itself Disproves Sola Scriptura

1. Mt 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Jesus tells the apostles that they are to teach ALL he has commanded them. That teaching was by preaching (Mk 16:20) not by writing. Some did eventually write down some of Jesus' teaching but the normal method of teaching was oral preaching.

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” (Rom 10:14-15).
Paul wrote to the Romans but he said: "I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome." (Rom 1:15).

In 2Pet 3:16 Peter describes Paul's letters a scripture. But we do not now have all of Paul's letters (see point 3 below) therefore there is part of God's teaching that is outside of scripture.

We also know from John 20:30; 21:25 that many things that Jesus did that are not written down.

2. Acts 15:1-14 shows that Peter decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised without any reference to scripture. The letter that was subsequently sent to Antioch did not quote from scripture.

3. Paul used many sources outside of scripture

Acts 17:28 shows Paul writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus thus, he used sources outside scripture when preaching about God.

In 1 Cor 5:9-11 Paul refers to a previous letter which is equally authoritative to his current letter. again he is appealing to a source outside scripture to teach the Corinthians.

In Col 4:16 Paul refers to a letter he sent to the Laodocians which is as authoritative as the letter he is sending to the Colossians.

2Tim 3:8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; Again Paul,m uses sources outside of scripture.

4. Paul commends teaching he gave orally

1Cor 11:12 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. He tells them to obey apostolic traditions not just Scripture alone.

Phil 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.
Obey what he taught orally .Nothing about Scripture alone.

2Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Paul commends both oral and written teaching.


5. In 2Tim 1:14 Paul instructs Timothy Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. Paul has instructed Timothy orally, and tells him to guards there truths.

He then instructs Timothy to pass on these truth in his turn "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2Tim 2:2). This will enable those faithful men to pass on those truths in their turn..

It says nothing about written teaching.

 

[robert derrick]

Untrue.

By your words I do not believe you don't care about Scripture, nor do you purposely believe that which plainly contradicts Scripture.

Untrue.

You don't care about Scripture, and you do believe things that contradict them?

Or you don't believe the Bible is all Scripture, and so contradicting the Bible is no problem?

Or there is no proven Scripture in the world, because there are no original manuscripts, and so you hear and believe what you agree with, whatever the source?

Do you believe the writings of the prophets and apostles were Scripture? And if their original manuscripts were with us, you would believe them all to be Scripture?

 

[amadeus]

I've concluded that having Christian Internet Forums is almost as bad as not.

There is so much bad behavior displayed, but then we are a collection of all sorts of people with all sorts of temperments and maturities.

I think @Heart2Soul has the right idea in sharing Biblical truths, those things that come straight from the pages of the Bible. The more complex someone's argument gets, generally with less Scripture proportionately, the more I think it's not really in the Bible.

I find Biblical truth to be fairly easily expressed, and primarily by just quoting the Scriptures, if correctly understood.

Much love!

Think about the positive side of Christian forums, at least when they really allow some discussion of differences as this one does. Most physical church settings do not allow real discussion for anyone who seriously disagrees with what they consider their essential beliefs.

Some would change this forum to a similarly restrictive climate which for me would stifle growth and further quench the leading of the Holy Spirit. While I agree that because of the beastly nature of men, yes, even some labeled Christians, limits need to be in placed and enforcements applied.

Most of the time I believe this is the best 'mixed multitude' forum around. Let us pray that it remains so...

These differences outside of forums are certainly in a large part the reason why there are apparently thousands of groups or denominations claiming to be Christian but often opposing one another... at times very strongly or even harshly. Is that what happens here on a smaller scale on this forum at times? This at least allows people a place to discuss even radical differences. The problem most often is that charity is missing and personal abuse is very obviously present.

Help us dear Lord!

 

[robert derrick]

Scripture Itself Disproves Sola Scriptura

1. Mt 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Jesus tells the apostles that they are to teach ALL he has commanded them. That teaching was by preaching (Mk 16:20) not by writing. Some did eventually write down some of Jesus' teaching but the normal method of teaching was oral preaching.

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” (Rom 10:14-15).
Paul wrote to the Romans but he said: "I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome." (Rom 1:15).

In 2Pet 3:16 Peter describes Paul's letters a scripture. But we do not now have all of Paul's letters (see point 3 below) therefore there is part of God's teaching that is outside of scripture.

We also know from John 20:30; 21:25 that many things that Jesus did that are not written down.

2. Acts 15:1-14 shows that Peter decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised without any reference to scripture. The letter that was subsequently sent to Antioch did not quote from scripture.

3. Paul used many sources outside of scripture

Acts 17:28 shows Paul writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus thus, he used sources outside scripture when preaching about God.

In 1 Cor 5:9-11 Paul refers to a previous letter which is equally authoritative to his current letter. again he is appealing to a source outside scripture to teach the Corinthians.

In Col 4:16 Paul refers to a letter he sent to the Laodocians which is as authoritative as the letter he is sending to the Colossians.

2Tim 3:8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; Again Paul,m uses sources outside of scripture.

4. Paul commends teaching he gave orally

1Cor 11:12 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. He tells them to obey apostolic traditions not just Scripture alone.

Phil 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.
Obey what he taught orally .Nothing about Scripture alone.

2Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Paul commends both oral and written teaching.


5. In 2Tim 1:14 Paul instructs Timothy Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. Paul has instructed Timothy orally, and tells him to guards there truths.

He then instructs Timothy to pass on these truth in his turn "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2Tim 2:2). This will enable those faithful men to pass on those truths in their turn..

It says nothing about written teaching.

Sola Scriptura is not only reading the Bible to one another.