Sola Scriptura 2

[Mungo]

Good morning Mungo... Happy Friday to you... Thought I would start my day off by BLESSING you this morning.

And many Blessing to you Addy.

 

[robert derrick]

All your waffling doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given scriptures that prove Sola Scriptura.

So, I've given the Scriptures that prove it to me, such as the Scriptures stating Jesus is known to be the Christ by Scripture, and the gospel is preached according to Scripture.

Therefore, let's cut to chase and cease with theory, and tell us the traditions you believe that are to accompany Scripture.

What are these traditions you are talking about, that are so important.

 

[LTJMP14]

They stopped the first thread as 'unedifying'. I asked them for their definition of 'unedifying', so that we could avoid being 'unedifying' in their eyes, so that a good thread does not get shut down.

But I have not gotten a response yet. Therefore, to avoid being shut down, I plead with people to do three things:
1. Keep to topic.
2. No personal attacks
3. No cursing.

I normally keep 1 & 3, but I admit I have my own problem with 3, but will nevertheless try to lead the way in not doing so. And I will report others doing so, only so that the thread will not be shut down again. Why? Because it is a very profitable and necessary subject to the gospel of the cross being preached according to the scriptures.

There are two main arguments against Sola Scriptura:

1. Humans are flawed, and so the writers of the Bible were flawed, and so the Bible is flawed.

This is only saying that we all have flawed thinking of God, and so we are only able to flawingly grope around in darkness to find Him, and anyone's flawed perceptions of Him are equally flawed as any others.

I.e. Meaninglessly flawed reasonings and imaginations about God. To each his own. All are flawed and none are true, unless we want to believe it is true. Though flawed.

The Bible is flawingly true. Sometimes.

2. The original manuscripts are not with us anymore, and therefore there is no Sola Scriptura to trust in anymore.

This is the only serious response against Sola Scriptura.

Such people are saying that if the original manuscripts written by the prophets and apostles of God were still with us, then they would believe in Sola Scriptura, as them that did when the original manuscripts existed.

I.e. They believe the writings of the prophets and apostles of God were indeed all Scripture of truth, but those writings are not with us today, as they were truly and originally written.

A. This is walking by sight and not by faith. Except I have the original manuscripts in my hands, so that I can feel them and read them with my own eyes, I will not believe any book as being all Scripture of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

B. This is a lack of trust in the God of the Bible to have His Word written in paper originally, and then does not ensure that written Word remains on paper today. It is a demand that God have His Word written on paper made into incorruptible tables of stone, so that cannot return to the dust from which they were made.

This is akin to relic worship and seeking after a physical sign to believe in. Desiring to see fire fall from heaven in their sight. (Rev 13)

C. The writings of the Bible, that we have today, prove themselves to be all Scripture of God. They have no self-contradiction, nor error of fact, nor righteousness commanded that is not righteous and true altogether.

Therefore, reducing Scripture of God to debates about manuscripts is an untrustworthy accusation against the God of the Bible, and that His Bible writings, as we have them today, are not truly all Scripture from Him: the writings we have in the Bible today cannot possibly be the written words of His prophets and apostles, because they are not written on the pen and paper they wrote with.

I.e. The God of the Scriptures of old is not the God of the Bible today.

The challenge therefore is to show a true contradiction of the writings in the Bible against themselves, in order to prove that they are not all Scripture of God.

Who would not love to have available the original autographs. For one, it would put to rest all the minor discrepancies that exist in the various manuscripts and fragments. But praise God and HIS Holy name, we have thousands of copies and pieces of copies that show us just how trustworthy and accurate the books of the Bible are. Moreover, we have the Holy Spirit in us who convicts of truth. Amen.

 

[robert derrick]

Alistair Begg, pastor of Parkside church in Cleveland, told the story of a visiting preacher who drew a horizontal line on the whiteboard. Then he drew an arrow above it point up, and another arrow below it pointing down. He explained that the horizontal line was the Word of God in the Scriptures. The arrow pointing up was moving in the direction of extra-Biblical speculation. The arrow pointing down was the descent into liberalism. The point was that we need to keep to the horizontal line if we are to successfully make it to heaven.

We know who the Liberals are. They are the ones who don't believe in a living God, and that there is no Jesus of history who actually rose from the dead, but a "Christ of faith" which can be any type of Christ one chooses. They reduce Christianity to a set of nice and good moral and religious principles (which, in fact, is no Christianity at all). Bishop Spong is the proponent of liberalism, and he and all who follow him are on the road to hell.

Then we have the cults (JWs, Mormons, Christian Science, and others like them. They are moving up and away from the horizontal line to speculation. They are pretty obvious. But the real deceptive ones are the Prosperity Faith preachers who will say they believe the Bible, but are adding stuff to it that is not found in the New Testament, They say that God is giving the new "revelation", updating the Bible. But they are just revisiting history. There are churches that claim to be ones succeeding from the Apostles, and yet are adding tradition to the Scriptures. But their tradition is just speculation which causes them to head away from the horizontal line, and therefore away from the Jesus of the Gospels.

I spent a large part of my Christian life as a Pentecostal, and I still believe in the continuance of the spiritual gifts. But, looking back, I realise that there has been a lot of extra-Biblical speculation concerning how the gifts have been exercised in many Pentecostal and Charismatic churches - to the point where for me, the water is muddied, and I am no longer sure that I can exercise a spiritual gift unless I know beyond doubt that it is the Holy Spirit who is motivating me, and not my own desire to give spiritual advice. Even with the gift of tongues I have had to hold on tight to 1 Corinthians 14:2 as my only evidence that the language I speak to God is what He wants to hear.

But I no longer have the confidence to give prophetic words, or words of knowledge just from an impression, because I don't know if the impression is one of the nine out of ten that comes from the world, flesh or the devil. So I told the Lord that He would have to really push me into it and show me conclusively that what I am prompted to say lines up totally with written Scripture and not something that I am dreaming out of my own head.

They reduce Christianity to a set of nice and good moral and religious principles

I call it Christian philosophy. Not the Gospel by which we are saved and stand...according to the Scriptures. Plenty of nice, but no good to God.

Then we have the cults

Cults come in different varieties, and the obvious ones are those that openly preach a false christ that is created, not the true God.

The truly deceptive ones are those that preach in Jesus' name as God the Son, but then go on to rules and tradtions not found in Scripture, yet preached as Scripture.

I spent a large part of my Christian life as a Pentecostal,

The problem with Pentecosts is their addition of so-called 'holiness' rules that must accompany the baptism of the Holy Ghost. They fill in the details for everyone on how to live holily, such as matters of dress and living. They make up the carnal ordinances that Paul condemned as commandments of men: Taste not, touch not, drink not, watch not, play not.

They are the zero-tolerance children, that never grow up to richly enjoy all things, because practically everything is sinful and not to be enjoyed. John Wesley got it started, and then it went viral after the Azusa Street revival.

But I no longer have the confidence to give prophetic words

There was only one foretelling prophet in the New Testament, who prophesied the weather.

The word 'prophecy' has been changed by men from its' original meaning, from that of preaching the things of God, to foretelling future events. True prophecy is the preaching of Scripture, and false prophecy is preaching other things of men as Scripture, or equal to Scripture and must accompany Scripture to have the 'whole' truth of God: Not Sola Scriptura.

But foretelling the future in prophetic word is simple: We can always ask our Lord in petition what we ought to do in our own lives: decision-making by faith in what He tells us to do. We can ask Him a yes or no questions as David did: shall I go up against the Syrians. Jesus will answer with a yes or no answer, or if neither comes, then we wait and do nothing until we have one.

The key is to do all things by faith, so that no matter the outcome, we know we did so by faith, which is all that matters in the end: The just shall live by faith.

We can also ask Him about things that what will occur in matters that pertain to us: our personal affairs and business. We can ask Him about things that will or won't occur in the lives of others, who ask us. But we NEVER ask Him about the business of others, and then go and tell them so. Why not? None of our business: busybody 'prophets'.

Even with the gift of tongues I have had to hold on tight to 1 Corinthians 14:2 as my only evidence that the language I speak to God is what He wants to hear.

There are obviously unknown tongues as that of angels, and as you show in Corinthians, they are for our own personal edification. The key to that therefore, if you speak them in personal prayer, and you are blessed in your spirit, then why not?

In matters of prophecy, whether preaching or praying or foretelling: when we keep it to ourselves for our own edification, there is no danger. It is only when we make it public with others, that the danger of making ourselves a false prophet becomes very real.

 

[robert derrick]

Who would not love to have available the original autographs. For one, it would put to rest all the minor discrepancies that exist in the various manuscripts and fragments. But praise God and HIS Holy name, we have thousands of copies and pieces of copies that show us just how trustworthy and accurate the books of the Bible are. Moreover, we have the Holy Spirit in us who convicts of truth. Amen.

I liken the demand for original manuscripts, before believing the Bible we have is all Scripture, to relic worship and believing by sight.

The fact is that the Bible as we have it, proves itself true in every detail, and that is enough for faith toward God and salvation by Jesus Christ.

Those who refuse to believe the writings of the Bible to be all Scripture, still wouldn't believe, even if the original manuscripts were returned from the dust to be seen, read, and touched.

If they won't believe the writings in the Bible to be that of Moses, David, Isaiah, Luke, John themselves, then they still wouldn't believe, if they rose from the dead to confirm them as such.

Unbelievers of the Bible being all Scripture are unbelievers. Period.

And if anyone believes that all the words written in the Bible are indeed Scripture from God, then they must become Sola Scriptura, because they are confirming that one bood is trustworthy and authoritative to prove what is true of God and what is not.

Sola Scriptura: anything oral or written that is not supported by the Bible cannot be declared as truth of God indeed. And anything that contradicts the Bible is false indeed.

 

[robert derrick]

I think so too.



Not all have the same faith.

But I've found that when we can have good discussions, I've really appreciated being able to hash over things with people who resoundingly disagree with me.

Much love!

If we find everyone agreeing automatically with everything we say, then we are in deep trouble.

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Disagreement presented from Scripture forces us to search the scriptures and further compels us to be more clear about what we are saying: Iron sharpens iron.

The anger can come when we believe we are being exactly and obviously correct about Scripture, and another disagrees.

That is when we must live and let live and move on, without trying to dig into a hole that never ends.

 

[robert derrick]

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

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

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

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

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

No it doesn't say that.

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

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

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.

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

Once quoted in Scripture, it becomes Scripture. Duh.

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

Believing the Bible is all Scripture is believing the God of the Bible to be the true God. Duh again.

They were not in scripture when Paul quoted them.

When Paul quoted them, they became Scripture to be quoted as Scripture. See first duh.

They were not in scripture when they were quoted.

They were not in Scripture, until they were quoted in Scripture. So obviously duh, it needs no duh.

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

And if there is any oral word of God, then it is confirmed by God's written Word: Sola Scriptura.

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

Sola Scriptura: if teaching contradicts Scripture, then it is to be rejected.

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

Sola Scriptura: if traditions contradict Scripture, then they are to be rejected.

I await your scriptural proofs of Sola Scriptura.

There is no proof nor reasoning available to someone who believes Sola Scriptura, yet rejects Sola Scriptura, and awaits Scriptural proofs of Sola Scriptura, that is believed but rejected.

That is a deep ditch no one should try to dig.

 

[LTJMP14]

I liken the demand for original manuscripts, before believing the Bible we have is all Scripture, to relic worship and believing by sight.

The fact is that the Bible as we have it, proves itself true in every detail, and that is enough for faith toward God and salvation by Jesus Christ.

Those who refuse to believe the writings of the Bible to be all Scripture, still wouldn't believe, even if the original manuscripts were returned from the dust to be seen, read, and touched.

If they won't believe the writings in the Bible to be that of Moses, David, Isaiah, Luke, John themselves, then they still wouldn't believe, if they rose from the dead to confirm them as such.

Unbelievers of the Bible being all Scripture are unbelievers. Period.

And if anyone believes that all the words written in the Bible are indeed Scripture from God, then they must become Sola Scriptura, because they are confirming that one bood is trustworthy and authoritative to prove what is true of God and what is not.

Sola Scriptura: anything oral or written that is not supported by the Bible cannot be declared as truth of God indeed. And anything that contradicts the Bible is false indeed.

Yes, scripture alone, without the use of outside sources that so many "religious organizations" use to bring so-called "light" to God's Holy words. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.

 

[Mungo]

So, I've given the Scriptures that prove it to me, such as the Scriptures stating Jesus is known to be the Christ by Scripture, and the gospel is preached according to Scripture.

If you have them then it shouldn't be difficult to list them.
Why do you keep prevaricating and not giving them.

Therefore, let's cut to chase and cease with theory, and tell us the traditions you believe that are to accompany Scripture.

What are these traditions you are talking about, that are so important.

I'm not going into diversions.
You claim Sola Scriptura can be proved from Scripture but keep avoiding doing so.

 

[Wrangler]

You claim Sola Scriptura can be proved from Scripture but keep avoiding doing so.

Strawman. You are the one who is demanding proof.

You did not address this in the other threadnd I doubt you will here ...
Sola Scriptura, like all principles of how to live life, do not have to be proven because it is not evidence based. The principle of Sola Scriptura is a pure rejection of that heretical denomination known as the RCC. In short, Sola Scriptura is the principle that followers of Christ do not need "the church" that claims dominion over men under various pretexts.

 

[Wrangler]

To demand "Scripture alone" is to deny the 5 Sola's exist as a set. "Sola Scriptura" is shorthand for this and rejecting the false claims of Roman authority over the body of Christ.

1. Sola scriptura: “Scripture alone”
2. Sola fide: “faith alone”
3. Sola gratia: “grace alone”
4. Solo Christo: “Christ alone”
5. Soli Deo gloria: “to the glory of God alone”

 

[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.

Scripture Itself Disproves Sola Scriptura

Scripture itself disproves Scripture as the true authority of the truth of the God of Scripture.

The God of Scripture therefore says: these things written are true of Me, but if anything else said and written does not agree with these things written in my Scripture, then you can take that as my Scripture to.

I.e. Scripture itself disproves Scripture as being all true of the God of Scripture.

That is weird.

Jesus tells the apostles that they are to teach ALL he has commanded them.

Good quote from Scripture. Yes, We know Jesus told the apostles that: Because it is written in Scripture.

That teaching was by preaching (Mk 16:20) not by writing.

That teaching by preaching is known by the writing of it later in Scripture.

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.

The apostles both preached those commandments and wrote them down in writing: It's called Scripture of the apostles.

That teaching Jesus is known by the writings they were written in: It's called Scriptures of the Gospels.

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).

Good quote from Scripture.

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 know what Peter said: it is written in Scripture.

We know there are letters written by Paul, not included in Scripture, because Scripture tell us so.

Everything ever spoken and written by men, that were called to be a prophet and apostle of God, was not Scripture given by God. They did speak and write things other than Scripture. And if they taught anything that God did not have written in Scripture, it is because God did not need it written in Scripture.

Sola Scriptura: Scripture written in the world is not everything God ever thought and said and did, but is everything necessary to prove anything ever spoken and written and done is of God or not.

Acts 15:1-14 shows that Peter decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised without any reference to scripture.

False. Acts 15 shows that Peter's argument was decisive, after quoting from Scripture to make it decisive.

We know this because it is written in Scripture: Acts 15.

Paul used many sources outside of scripture

Paul made many sources, never written before in Scripture, to become Scripture. We know this, because Paul wrote them in Scripture. This is not rocket science.

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.

We know Paul preached at the Areopagus, because Scripture says so. We also know what Paul preached there, because it is written in Scripture, and so any sources he used for preaching was made Scripture by 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.

False. In Scripture we know a previous letter of Paul's to the Corinthians was rejected by God as Scripture, because Paul gave a commandment that was of his own making, not God's. God corrected him, so that the later letter was written as Scripture of God.

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

The men that wrote Scripture were not infallible. It is the Scripture they did write from God that is infallible. And the Bible God has preserved for us is infallibly all Scripture. And the scribblings of librarians that preserved the manuscripts of copied Scripture are all fallibly false, if they agree not with the Scriptures they helped to preserve.

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.

Which plainly was not needed by God to be included in the book of Scripture. (See above definition of Sola Scriptura)

 

[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.

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.


1. 2 Tim 3: 8 is Scripture.


2. It was no longer an outside source, when it became Scripture in 2 Tim 3:8


2. And it is confirmed as true by Scripture in 2 Tim3:8


Using Scripture, to prove no need for Scripture, to prove things said and written as being true of the God of Scripture, is.


That is very weird.


Paul commends teaching he gave orally


Sola Scriptura: we commend all things written and said that agree with Scripture, because Scripture is all things God had written, to prove all things as true of Him or not. And the Bible we have today is all Scripture of God.


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.


We know. Because Scripture says so. And we know anything reported as from Timothy heard from Paul to being guarded truths of God, by the Scriptures of truth in the Bible. And the guardians of the manuscripts of those truths of Scripture were librarians, not writers of Scriptural truths. And if they did squibble things down that agreed not with those Scriptures, then they were liars against the truths of God.


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..


See above. Such passed on truths of God are known by passing on things in agreement with the Scriptures of God written in the Bible.


It says nothing about written teaching.


Everything quoted above was taught from what was written in Scripture.


Conclusion: trying to prove the teaching that Scripture is not necessary to prove what is taught of God, as being so or not, by quoting and teaching from Scripture to prove it.


That is most weird.

 

[Mungo]

Strawman. You are the one who is demanding proof.

You did not address this in the other threadnd I doubt you will here ...
Sola Scriptura, like all principles of how to live life, do not have to be proven because it is not evidence based. The principle of Sola Scriptura is a pure rejection of that heretical denomination known as the RCC. In short, Sola Scriptura is the principle that followers of Christ do not need "the church" that claims dominion over men under various pretexts.

In other words you think you can just make it up and it's true.
Sola Scriptura says something (theological) is not true unless it is plainly shown from scripture. So logically Sola Scriptura is not true unless it plainly shown from scripture.

 

[Mungo]

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

Once quoted in Scripture, it becomes Scripture. Duh.

But it wasn't scripture when it was quoted. Duh

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

Believing the Bible is all Scripture is believing the God of the Bible to be the true God. Duh again.

You can believe in God without knowing any scripture. Duh.


They were not in scripture when Paul quoted them.

When Paul quoted them, they became Scripture to be quoted as Scripture. See first duh.

But They were not in scripture when Paul quoted them. Duh.


They were not in scripture when they were quoted.

They were not in Scripture, until they were quoted in Scripture. So obviously duh, it needs no duh.

But They were not in scripture when they were quoted. Duh.


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

And if there is any oral word of God, then it is confirmed by God's written Word: Sola Scriptura.

Scripture doesn't say that.


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

Sola Scriptura: if teaching contradicts Scripture, then it is to be rejected.

If doctrine contradicts Scripture, then yes, it is to be rejected.


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

Sola Scriptura: if traditions contradict Scripture, then they are to be rejected.

If traditions (of men) contradict Scripture, then they are to be rejected.


I await your scriptural proofs of Sola Scriptura.

There is no proof nor reasoning available to someone who believes Sola Scriptura, yet rejects Sola Scriptura, and awaits Scriptural proofs of Sola Scriptura, that is believed but rejected.

That is a deep ditch no one should try to dig.

In other words you have no proof of Sola Scriptura but are going to believe your man made doctrine anyway.

 

[Mungo]

Scripture Itself Disproves Sola Scriptura

Scripture itself disproves Scripture as the true authority of the truth of the God of Scripture.

The God of Scripture therefore says: these things written are true of Me, but if anything else said and written does not agree with these things written in my Scripture, then you can take that as my Scripture to.

I.e. Scripture itself disproves Scripture as being all true of the God of Scripture.

That is weird.

That is unintelligible

Jesus tells the apostles that they are to teach ALL he has commanded them.

Good quote from Scripture. Yes, We know Jesus told the apostles that: Because it is written in Scripture.

But all that Jesus taught is not written in Scripture

That teaching was by preaching (Mk 16:20) not by writing.

That teaching by preaching is known by the writing of it later in Scripture.

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.

The apostles both preached those commandments and wrote them down in writing: It's called Scripture of the apostles.

That teaching Jesus is known by the writings they were written in: It's called Scriptures of the Gospels.

Some of what Jesus and some of the apostles preached is written down but not all. We know little from scripture of what Peter, James, John and Matthew taught. We know nothing from scripture of what the other apostles taught.

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).

Good quote from Scripture.

Thank you.

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 know what Peter said: it is written in Scripture.

We know there are letters written by Paul, not included in Scripture, because Scripture tell us so.

Everything ever spoken and written by men, that were called to be a prophet and apostle of God, was not Scripture given by God. They did speak and write things other than Scripture. And if they taught anything that God did not have written in Scripture, it is because God did not need it written in Scripture.

Where does it say that in Scripture?

Sola Scriptura: Scripture written in the world is not everything God ever thought and said and did, but is everything necessary to prove anything ever spoken and written and done is of God or not.

Where does it say that in Scripture?


Acts 15:1-14 shows that Peter decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised without any reference to scripture.

False. Acts 15 shows that Peter's argument was decisive, after quoting from Scripture to make it decisive.

We know this because it is written in Scripture: Acts 15.

No, Peter's decision used no scripture.
The letter to Anticoh contained no scripture.


Paul used many sources outside of scripture

Paul made many sources, never written before in Scripture, to become Scripture. We know this, because Paul wrote them in Scripture. This is not rocket science.

But they used sources outside 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.

We know Paul preached at the Areopagus, because Scripture says so. We also know what Paul preached there, because it is written in Scripture, and so any sources he used for preaching was made Scripture by God.

You don't know that what scripture records was ALL Paul said. Scripture4 doesn say that was ALL Paul said.
Earlier in the chapter it records Paul speaking to the Bereans but records NOTHING of what he said. And it verse 17 it says "So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there. " But scripture records NOTHING of what he said.


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.

False. In Scripture we know a previous letter of Paul's to the Corinthians was rejected by God as Scripture, because Paul gave a commandment that was of his own making, not God's. God corrected him, so that the later letter was written as Scripture of God.

You just made that up.

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

The men that wrote Scripture were not infallible. It is the Scripture they did write from God that is infallible. And the Bible God has preserved for us is infallibly all Scripture. And the scribblings of librarians that preserved the manuscripts of copied Scripture are all fallibly false, if they agree not with the Scriptures they helped to preserve.

Paul wrote additional instruction not counteracting what he wrote in the original letter.


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.

Which plainly was not needed by God to be included in the book of Scripture. (See above definition of Sola Scriptura)

Scripture doesn't say that. That's just you opinon.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mungo]

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.


1. 2 Tim 3: 8 is Scripture.


2. It was no longer an outside source, when it became Scripture in 2 Tim 3:8
It was still an outside source


2. And it is confirmed as true by Scripture in 2 Tim3:8
But is was still an outside sources



Using Scripture, to prove no need for Scripture, to prove things said and written as being true of the God of Scripture, is.


That is very weird.
Yes, that statement is weird.



Paul commends teaching he gave orally


Sola Scriptura: we commend all things written and said that agree with Scripture, because Scripture is all things God had written, to prove all things as true of Him or not. And the Bible we have today is all Scripture of God.

But Paul still commends teaching he gave orally.


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.


We know. Because Scripture says so. And we know anything reported as from Timothy heard from Paul to being guarded truths of God, by the Scriptures of truth in the Bible. And the guardians of the manuscripts of those truths of Scripture were librarians, not writers of Scriptural truths. And if they did squibble things down that agreed not with those Scriptures, then they were liars against the truths of God.

But from that scripture we know that truth were passed on orally. That is the point you are trying to evade.


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..


See above. Such passed on truths of God are known by passing on things in agreement with the Scriptures of God written in the Bible.

You have no scripture to show that what they passed on agreed with scripture.


It says nothing about written teaching.


Everything quoted above was taught from what was written in Scripture.
Scripture doesn't say that. That's just your opinion.


Conclusion: trying to prove the teaching that Scripture is not necessary to prove what is taught of God, as being so or not, by quoting and teaching from Scripture to prove it.

That is a very weird and unintelligible statement.


B.T.W. Still waiting for Scriptural proof of Sola Sciptura.

 

[robert derrick]

Doing the best I can with what I got

HUGS

Please start a thread on the catholic church.

There is also one about Mystery Babylon.

We must stick to topic, or it will be shut down.

 

[robert derrick]

Ziggy its got real bad now . The harlot and her daughters are in bed with the beast system .
We need to simply stick to our bible and cling to Christ and be well fed in the truth .
I would say to most all churches these days , COME YE OUT from amongst them . Its all tanking ziggy .
The lambs must stand and contend for the true faith and be unafraid to correct any in error .
Folks dont seem to get it my friend . This lets get along and find common ground and have unity stuff ,
It first led to the ceasing of sound doctrine and correction . Now it has morphed and has began to show her true colors .
The bed the churches made with the harlot and those lovers she clings too , ARE GONNA TURN ON HER .
ITS already beginning . And the churches in insanity just keep doing the same thing over and over again .
IT didnt work . Seeker friendly didnt work . IT FAILED the churches . Now all those whom they did not correct
FOR SAKE OF UNITY and fake love , GOT THE POWER and guess what , I DONT SEE TOLERANCE LOVE at all from them .
THIS WORLD REAPS WHAT IT SOWS . We must get back in our bible and learn that pattern . And stand and contend for the faith
the truth . AND DO SO NOW . THEY silenced the voice of truth and guess what , EVIL EXPLODED .
WHEN truth and those who would speak it are called haters and cast out , ONLY EVIL MASSIVELY FILLS THE PLACE VERY FAST AT THAT POINT .
AND HERE WE ARE .

There is a thread about Mystery Babylon.

We must stick to topic, or this thread will be shut down.

 

[amigo de christo]

There is a thread about Mystery Babylon.

We must stick to topic, or this thread will be shut down.

OH yeah . Mystery babylon . IS JERUSALEM . I know that will agitate a lot of folks . But if we read
carefully revelation , we see who the great city is . OH ROME IS OF THAT SPIRIT TOO .
Mama ROME along with the jews and others are building their one world religion . WHICH , i might add,
WILL be centered in Jerusalem .