Sola Scriptura 2

robert derrick said:

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.

Click to expand...

robert derrick said:

A clue for you. The conversation has already passed you by.

You are no longer useful in it, except to pop up time to time demanding to see proof of Scripture about believing Scripture only.

Which was silly in the first place, but has born some good fruit: the fruit of the tree of life from Scripture, not your fruit from the outside tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Click to expand...

robert derrick said:

Preaching against Sola Scripture is ...twisted thinking indeed.

Click to expand...

Mungo said:

I haven't time to go though all the rubbish you have written.
So I will wind up with this post.

As I understand it Sola Scriptura says every doctrine must be proved from scripture alone.

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine. But it cannot be proved from scripture alone. Therefore according to Sola Sciptura it is false.

I can only recall you giving 2 scriptures to try and prove Sola Scriptura:
1. Is 8:20 - which I showed does not support Sola Scriptura in any way.
2. 2 Tim 3:16 -which I showed does not support Sola Scripture either.

You never responded to my refutations. And as far as I know you have not provided any others.

Until you do the rest of your posts are just hot air.

Click to expand...

robert derrick said:

To forbid going to Scripture to prove all things, is to forbid going to Scripture as authority of God.

Click to expand...

n2thelight said:

One does not have to prove sola scripture .

Click to expand...

n2thelight said:

Without scripture ,how do you prove or disprove the traditions of men ?

Click to expand...

robert derrick said:

Preaching against Sola Scripture is preaching against Scripture. It is necessary to do so, in order to have outside traditions believed as equal to Scripture, especially when Scripture does not agree with them.

Scripture becomes the enemy of all outside traditions of men.

They do honor Scripture with their lips, while forbidding the Scriptures be read with authority of God.

The more of Scripture that is read, then the more obvious such outside traditions are not found in Scripture.

Therefore, Scripture must be banned altogether or severely limited in reading, or taught as above the believers' ability to understand,and so must be left for the great leaders to explain all things, and be believed in all things explained, whether Scripture agrees or not.

The only thing such blind followers know of Scripture is what they are told. And then when they become advanced, the only things that matter to them from Scripture is how to twist it, so that Scripture is actually teaching how not to believe in Scripture, as the sole authority of the God of the Scripture.

Yes. That is twisted thinking indeed.

Click to expand...

Mungo said:

Of course you do.
Sola Scriptura is a false man made doctrine - a tradition of men.
According to you it should be p[roved from Scripture. But it can't be.

Not suggesting we are without Scripture. That is a ridiculous suggestion.
It's Scripture alone that is a false doctrine and cannot be proved from Scripture.

Click to expand...

n2thelight said:

What does scripture say about scripture ?
You keep saying scripture alone is a false doctrine ,why , and what else do we need ?

Show me anything outside of scripture that I need ,ANYTHING !

Click to expand...

Mungo said:

Nor does the Catholic Church claim superiority to God written word, rather the opposite.
Yet this Magisterium [of the Catholic Church] is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant."

Click to expand...

robert derrick said:

If you have to go to Scripture to prove all things then why can't you go to Scripture to prove your doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

Nothing of Scripture can be proven to anyone that rejects the authority of Scripture.

To reject the 'sole' authority of Scripture is to reject any authority of Scripture.

God has His authority. He does not have authorities.

There cannot be one source of authority that contradicts another source of authority, and them both have authority of truth.

We cannot believe two authorities that do not agree, even as we cannot serve two masters.

God is not a two-headed Master. Nor monster.

Those who reject the sole authority of God in the Scripture; therefore, must reject any authority of God in Scripture, which is why those who do so claim people can believe in God without knowing any Scripture.

And there is such a god: the 7 headed monster raised up by the red-faced dragon, that is cast down from his perch in the air, by believing the authority of Scripture only.

Click to expand...

robert derrick said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mungo said:

@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.

Click to expand...