Name a really bad doctrine that needs retiring

[StanJ]

It's simple, even you should be able to figure it out...are you Muslim or Buddhist? Maybe take you a while longer!

Guess you won't say...your problem.

 

[heretoeternity]

Word of advice, start thinking outside the box of denominational religions, and start thinking in Biblical terms, and the true words of Jesus/God in the Bible...I know it is difficult for you secular thinking christians who are trained to place everything into nice little compartments, and blindly follow them..time to get out of your little comfort zone, and learn the true meaning of Christianity...start by prayer, lots of prayer to God to open your eyes, heart and mind to the true meaning of the Gospels, and to get you away from all the false teachings you have obviously endured....and yes it is possible to break free from any denominations of worldly religion, and "go it alone" , following God's teachings in the Bible, without all the garbage doctrines fed you by the worldly churches/religions and their mind bending abundance of false doctrines...
Breaking free from all of this with God's help is not a problem, but a blessing..as Jesus said "know the truth and it will make you free"......


Remember always, salvation is through the Son of God, God's grace and commandments, and NOT the sungod/satan and his doctrines and days of sunday,dec 25th and easter, all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origin!

 

[StanJ]

Word of advice, start thinking outside the box of denominational religions,

Again, you're not saying ANYTHING...this is ALL rhetoric and NO substance.

 

[epostle1]

The tradition that scripture conveys, IS God's Word alone.
I beg to differ. "God's Word" is never confined to the written word alone. Please provide a verse and I will concede. "Word of God" appears 169 times in the KJV and none of them refer to the written word alone.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=word+of+god&qs_version=KJV

As Jesus said in Matt 4:4 (NIV), and by the NUMBER of times He said, "IT IS WRITTEN".

In this same passage Jesus reminds the devil of the passage, "man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Not all of God's words are contained in Scripture. Besides Christ who is the Word of God (John 1:1,14), some of God's words come down to us in oral fashion (c.f., Acts 20:27; Gal. 1:11-12, 15-16; 1Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:2). Christ does not say nor does he imply a"scripture alone" approach to truth in this passage. Rather, he reminds us that we are to cling to and live by every word that he speaks, not just the written words contained in Scripture. Notice too the implicit warning here. The mere quoting of Scripture is not enough to establish one's truth claims, since here we see the devil himself (mis)quoting Scripture! That's why Peter warned that, "In Paul's epistles there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own
destruction, just as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

Paul talked about tradition in what he preached, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as being the tradition we should follow. EVERYTHING in God written word is sufficient for our daily needs. He wrote in Col 2:8; See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.
I do not dispute the material sufficiency of scripture, it is the formal sufficiency of scripture that is not in the bible. Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For you to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, you must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Paul talked about tradition in what he preached, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as being the tradition we should follow. EVERYTHING in God written word is sufficient for our daily needs. He wrote in Col 2:8;

Sacred Tradition has NOTHING to do with human tradition.

 

[StanJ]

I beg to differ. "God's Word" is never confined to the written word alone. Please provide a verse and I will concede. "Word of God" appears 169 times in the KJV and none of them refer to the written word alone.

In this same passage Jesus reminds the devil of the passage, "man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Not all of God's words are contained in Scripture. Besides Christ who is the Word of God (John 1:1,14), some of God's words come down to us in oral fashion (c.f., Acts 20:27; Gal. 1:11-12, 15-16; 1Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:2). Christ does not say nor does he imply a "scripture alone" approach to truth in this passage. Rather, he reminds us that we are to cling to and live by every word that he speaks, not just the written words contained in Scripture. Notice too the implicit warning here. The mere quoting of Scripture is not enough to establish one's truth claims, since here we see the devil himself (mis)quoting Scripture! That's why Peter warned that, "In Paul's epistles there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own
destruction, just as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

I do not dispute the material sufficiency of scripture, it is the formal sufficiency of scripture that is not in the bible. Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For you to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, you must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Sacred Tradition has NOTHING to do with human tradition.

I never said it was, it also refers to the WORD as found in John 1:1. God may have spoken direct to his prophets in the OT, but as our High Priest is now Jesus,
He speaks to us through His Holy Spirit to our spirit, which is why we are required to be born again in spirit so we can hear Him. We start with faith and move on from there. Rom 10:17 (NIV) The Bible contains ALL that God ever spoke to men, and it is our SOLE arbitrator when it comes to what is and isn't of God.

Yes, and as a hyperbolic statement, the Bible IS every word that came from God for His people. How the Holy Spirit works in our lives today is not the same, but He will never contradict what the written word of God say. What Jesus was doing in Matt 4:4 was QUOTING Deut 8:3, which is, IN CONTEXT, about God's written commands given through Moses. We do NOT have prophets today like the ones in the OT. Peter and Paul made it clear that the written word, ALL scripture, is inspired/God breathed. We no longer have OT prophets nor Apostles, we have only the Holy Spirit and the WRITTEN Word. The written word is our SOLE arbitrator.

Yes, Faith comes by hearing, and hearing BY the Word of God (written). The Apostles taught Jesus and Him crucified...that's it. They had personal teaching of Jesus, and Paul was also taught personally by Jesus. Gal 1:12 (NIV) That was it. That dispensation is over, because the Holy Spirit is not our teacher, and He uses the Written Words of God, the Bible, to teach us and bring to memory Jesus' words, as He Himself taught the Apostles in John 14.

I have no idea what this means? I was talking about tradition of the gospel of Jesus, and those that taught it. You'll have to delineate what you see as sacred tradition and human tradition. I'm in no way talking about human tradition.

 

[epostle1]

I never said it was, it also refers to the WORD as found in John 1:1.
John 1:1 does not say "written word".
God may have spoken direct to his prophets in the OT, but as our High Priest is now Jesus,
Agreed.
He speaks to us through His Holy Spirit to our spirit, which is why we are required to be born again in spirit so we can hear Him. We start with faith and move on from there. Rom 10:17 (NIV) The Bible contains ALL that God ever spoke to men, and it is our SOLE arbitrator when it comes to what is and isn't of God.

In other words, the Bible is the pillar and ground of truth while the Church is in the background. Hey...wait a minute...1 Tim 3:15

Yes, and as a hyperbolic statement, the Bible IS every word that came from God for His people.

Agreed, but not exclusively. There are lots of things Jesus said/did that are not in the bible. Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; John 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture.

How the Holy Spirit works in our lives today is not the same, but He will never contradict what the written word of God say. What Jesus was doing in Matt 4:4 was QUOTING Deut 8:3, which is, IN CONTEXT, about God's written commands given through Moses.

Thank you for providing the verse. It says "...on every word that comes from the mouth of God". Written commands don't fall out of his mouth, words do. Moses had to write them down but that does not mean God's written commands alone, it means God's spoken commands. I see a complementarity here, not scripture alone.

We do NOT have prophets today like the ones in the OT. Peter and Paul made it clear that the written word, ALL scripture, is inspired/God breathed. We no longer have OT prophets nor Apostles, we have only the Holy Spirit and the WRITTEN Word. The written word is our SOLE arbitrator.

No, Jesus founded a living authoritive hierarchical Church, not a book club, but lets discuss that later. ALL does not mean exclusive.
The Apostles were "God breathed" as well but we can discuss that later as well.

Yes, Faith comes by hearing, and hearing BY the Word of God (written). The Apostles taught Jesus and Him crucified...that's it. They had personal teaching of Jesus, and Paul was also taught personally by Jesus. Gal 1:12 (NIV) That was it. That dispensation is over, because the Holy Spirit is not our teacher, and He uses the Written Words of God, the Bible, to teach us and bring to memory Jesus' words, as He Himself taught the Apostles in John 14.

Absolutely. John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

 

[StanJ]

In other words, the Bible is the pillar and ground of truth while the Church is in the background. Hey...wait a minute...1 Tim 3:15

Agreed, but not exclusively. There are lots of things Jesus said/did that are not in the bible. Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; John 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture.

Thank you for providing the verse. It says "...on every word that comes from the mouth of God". Written commands don't fall out of his mouth, words do. Moses had to write them down but that does not mean God's written commands alone, it means God's spoken commands. I see a complementarity here, not scripture alone.

No, Jesus founded a living authoritive hierarchical Church, not a book club, but lets discuss that later. ALL does not mean exclusive.
The Apostles were "God breathed" as well but we can discuss that later as well.

Absolutely. John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

That IS what 1 Tim 3:15 says, so no, your conclusion is wrong. It's best not to try and restate or paraphrase what I write...I'm fairly clear in my wording and don't lack the ability to express myself clearly.

Well if you CAREFULLY read the verses you quoted in John, you'll they say He DID many other things. Said is NOT used. What He commanded/taught is ALL in the NT. Of course what He may have reiterated elsewhere, is not required to be in the NT, which is obvious, otherwise it would be full of redundancy, more than we currently find in the synoptic gospels.

That's right, and very word was written down. Paul said ALL scripture is God BREATHED. As Jesus said, IT IS WRITTEN. ALL that God required of Moses was written down BY God. Ex 31:18 (NIV)

No, Jesus said to Peter that His confession of who Jesus was, was the foundation of His church, and that Jesus Himself would build His church. Paul states that Jesus is the head of the church, the head of the Body of Christ. Eph 4:15, 5:23 (NIV). The ONLY authority is Christ, and there is no hierarchy, except as man has created. There are offices that hold authority, which Jesus gave, as depicted in Eph 4:11-13. They are servants of the body, to equip the body for the works of service. We are commanded to SUBMIT ourselves one to another. Eph 5:21 (NIV). In fact I recommend you give Ephesians a good read.

No Jesus said directly to the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit and that He would replace Jesus as an advocate, to teach them and remind them. One way He does that is via the written word, but never apart from it. I have been saved for over 45 years and the Holy Spirit has taught me many things, ALL of which can be found in God's written Word. The Bible/Scripture is God's inspiration. There is no other inspiration for the Body of Christ aside from His written word.
Can we be inspired by God in our personal lives? Indeed, which is what the New Covenant is all about. Personal inspiration and God writing His will for our individual lives on our hearts. However ALL teaching finds it origin in the WRITTEN word, otherwise there would be a lot more false teachers running around saying, "God said". As David said; Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalm 119:11

 

[epostle1]

That IS what 1 Tim 3:15 says, so no, your conclusion is wrong. It's best not to try and restate or paraphrase what I write...I'm fairly clear in my wording and don't lack the ability to express myself clearly.

Well if you CAREFULLY read the verses you quoted in John, you'll they say He DID many other things. Said is NOT used. What He commanded/taught is ALL in the NT. Of course what He may have reiterated elsewhere, is not required to be in the NT, which is obvious, otherwise it would be full of redundancy, more than we currently find in the synoptic gospels.

That's right, and very word was written down. Paul said ALL scripture is God BREATHED. As Jesus said, IT IS WRITTEN. ALL that God required of Moses was written down BY God. Ex 31:18 (NIV)

No, Jesus said to Peter that His confession of who Jesus was, was the foundation of His church, and that Jesus Himself would build His church. Paul states that Jesus is the head of the church, the head of the Body of Christ. Eph 4:15, 5:23 (NIV). The ONLY authority is Christ, and there is no hierarchy, except as man has created. There are offices that hold authority, which Jesus gave, as depicted in Eph 4:11-13. They are servants of the body, to equip the body for the works of service. We are commanded to SUBMIT ourselves one to another. Eph 5:21 (NIV). In fact I recommend you give Ephesians a good read.

No Jesus said directly to the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit and that He would replace Jesus as an advocate, to teach them and remind them. One way He does that is via the written word, but never apart from it. I have been saved for over 45 years and the Holy Spirit has taught me many things, ALL of which can be found in God's written Word. The Bible/Scripture is God's inspiration. There is no other inspiration for the Body of Christ aside from His written word.
Can we be inspired by God in our personal lives? Indeed, which is what the New Covenant is all about. Personal inspiration and God writing His will for our individual lives on our hearts. However ALL teaching finds it origin in the WRITTEN word, otherwise there would be a lot more false teachers running around saying, "God said". As David said; Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalm 119:11

That IS what 1 Tim 3:15 says, so no, your conclusion is wrong. It's best not to try and restate or paraphrase what I write...I'm fairly clear in my wording and don't lack the ability to express myself clearly.

1 Tim 3:15 is not a conclusion. Paul prefers his presence (oral preaching) over what he wrote. He tells them the “church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth.” There is nothing in scripture that says the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Tim 3:15 refutes sola scriptura. “ pillar and foundation of truth” means it is permanent, fixed, it doesn't shift and divide and cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Well if you CAREFULLY read the verses you quoted in John, you'll they say He DID many other things. Said is NOT used. What He commanded/taught is ALL in the NT.

I agree that what He commanded/taught is in the NT, but you cannot prove that the NT is exclusive to everything He commanded. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus does not say, ”teaching them only what you will write down later.” Jesus performed signs to certify his teachings and performed many of them “that are not in this book”. They must have been “handed down” from the Apostles and that is why they are not in the Bible, and rejected by reformist theology. What was delivered is not restricted to the NT and didn't just disappear.

The apostolic spoken word has the same divine protection as the written word, because if it didn't, you would have no bible.

Of course what He may have reiterated elsewhere, is not required to be in the NT, which is obvious, otherwise it would be full of redundancy, more than we currently find in the synoptic gospels.

Who discerned, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, what books would be in the NT? Were any of them sola scripturists?

That's right, and very word was written down. Paul said ALL scripture is God BREATHED. As Jesus said, IT IS WRITTEN. ALL that God required of Moses was written down BY God. Ex 31:18 (NIV)

You don't need to repeat yourself. You forget that I previously pointed out that the Apostles were also “God BREATHED”. John 20:22. In addition: Adam Gen. 2:7. so scriptures are not exclusively God BREATHED, people can be as well. I agree that the scripture is God breathed but that does not support sola scriptura.

2 Tim. 3:16 - the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, your erroneous reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even you would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless you want to argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul. Ex 31:18. As usual the spoken word to Moses is first, then God wrote the Ten Commandments, which is not ALL of scripture, so this verse does not support sola scriptura either.

No, Jesus said to Peter that His confession of who Jesus was, was the foundation of His church, and that Jesus Himself would build His church. Paul states that Jesus is the head of the church, the head of the Body of Christ. Eph 4:15, 5:23 (NIV). The ONLY authority is Christ, and there is no hierarchy, except as man has created.

Jesus is the head of the Church from heaven, but Jesus has the authority to appoint earthly rulers guided by the Holy Spirit to teach. Individuals “led by the Spirit” to teach is not in the Bible. They have to be ordained, or called directly by God. Individuals cannot be “the pillar and ground of truth” with private interpretation and there is nothing in the bible that gives individuals a direct line to God with authority to speak for the whole Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates.
No hierarchy? You are getting off the subject, but briefly put:
Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood
(1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1);
(2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and
(3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6).

The New Testament priesthood also has three offices:
(1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1);
(2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and
(3) Universal priests - all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).
The reformers unbiblically abolished the NT sacrificial priesthood but I am sure following their opinions won't interfere with your relationship with the Lord.


There are offices that hold authority, which Jesus gave, as depicted in Eph 4:11-13. They are servants of the body, to equip the body for the works of service. We are commanded to SUBMIT ourselves one to another. Eph 5:21 (NIV). In fact I recommend you give Ephesians a good read.

Eph 4:11-13 affirms a hierarchy as well as apostolic succession. Eph 5:21 regards our relationship with one another, it does not negate or cancel out the BIBLICAL 3-fold episcopate, and neither verse supports sola scriptura.

No Jesus said directly to the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit and that He would replace Jesus as an advocate, to teach them and remind them. One way He does that is via the written word, but never apart from it. I have been saved for over 45 years and the Holy Spirit has taught me many things, ALL of which can be found in God's written Word. The Bible/Scripture is God's inspiration. There is no other inspiration for the Body of Christ aside from His written word.

I don't deny you are inspired by reading the Bible, but I don't think you understand the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. What you think tradition means and what I think it means are not the same thing.

There is nothing formally taught by “the pillar and ground of truth” that conflicts with scripture, and there is no Tradition, properly understood, that conflicts or contradicts scripture. I am still waiting for verses that say human cloning and test tube babies is immoral. The historic Church says it is but you can't because it's not in the bible.

Can we be inspired by God in our personal lives? Indeed, which is what the New Covenant is all about. Personal inspiration and God writing His will for our individual lives on our hearts. However ALL teaching finds it origin in the WRITTEN word, otherwise there would be a lot more false teachers running around saying, "God said". As David said; Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalm 119:11

If the Bible was perfectly clear, and every Christian was literate, and it meant the same thing to every Christian, then what is revealed to you personally would be universal to everyone else. This, obviously is not the case. Thus, sola scriptura fails as an unbiblical tradition of men.

 

[StanJ]

1 Tim 3:15 is not a conclusion. Paul prefers his presence (oral preaching) over what he wrote. He tells them the “church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth.” There is nothing in scripture that says the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Tim 3:15 refutes sola scriptura. “ pillar and foundation of truth” means it is permanent, fixed, it doesn't shift and divide and cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

No, I said YOUR conclusion was wrong. You're also adding this thought of PREFERRED, but it is something that is NOT found in this verse. What Paul says, is;
I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household.
Everything Paul taught was written down, and as he was CHOSEN and CALLED to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, His word, teaching and writings all carried the inspiration He and Peter confirmed. You are eisegeting scripture, NOT exegeting it.

 

[StanJ]

I agree that what He commanded/taught is in the NT, but you cannot prove that the NT is exclusive to everything He commanded. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus does not say, ”teaching them only what you will write down later.” Jesus performed signs to certify his teachings and performed many of them “that are not in this book”. They must have been “handed down” from the Apostles and that is why they are not in the Bible, and rejected by reformist theology. What was delivered is not restricted to the NT and didn't just disappear.
The apostolic spoken word has the same divine protection as the written word, because if it didn't, you would have no bible.

Of course I can, because it IS all there. Again you add thoughts and words that are NOT in scripture, which is called eisegeting.
What Jesus and the Apostles did was what God wanted them to do...it was His plan. Jesus personally called them, ALL, they were no appointed by an institution and there was no succession plan. They were ALL one of a kind.
You have to remember that ALL the NT was written after Jesus died and ascended. It is the ONLY reliable and God inspired record we have, so it takes the place or stands in lieu of those that were inspired to relate it to the scribes. Their authority is in the written word. There is NO other authority besides the written word.

 

[StanJ]

Who discerned, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, what books would be in the NT? Were any of them sola scripturists?

You don't need to repeat yourself. You forget that I previously pointed out that the Apostles were also “God BREATHED”. John 20:22. In addition: Adam Gen. 2:7. so scriptures are not exclusively God BREATHED, people can be as well. I agree that the scripture is God breathed but that does not support sola scriptura.

2 Tim. 3:16 - the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, your erroneous reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even you would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless you want to argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul. Ex 31:18. As usual the spoken word to Moses is first, then God wrote the Ten Commandments, which is not ALL of scripture, so this verse does not support sola scriptura either.

You would have to read up on how the Bible came to be. This is not something to discuss but to learn about, which is weird that you don't know but claim it is not a sola. In any event the reformation only occurred in the 1200s, long AFTER the Bible was put together. I's sure those that put together the Bible believed it was God only word that had to authority to guide believers.

I answered your post, so if you repeated yourself I would have had to. John 20:22 was Jesus giving them authority. The power was to come later in Acts 2, for which He told them to wait. Sadly you seem to like to take words and phrases OUT of context. It doesn't say God breathed on them, it says Jesus breathed on them. He gave them the same authority God had given Him as His Son. This verse is mistreated by the RCC to justify there position on confessions, when Paul taught there is only ONE mediator between God and man. Taking single verses out of context is always bad form.

The Greek used is πᾶς (pas) γραφή (graphē), properly rendered as all; in the sg. the whole, entire, SCRIPTURE. I fail to see what you are trying to convey here, as it is contradictory to itself. When Paul said ALL, He meant ANYTHING that is considered and recognized as scripture. Peter basically said the same thing in his epistle of 2 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV). They all knew, as Apostles, that they were writing scriptures, as it all meshed with the scriptures they already knew and for which Jesus had taught them about. You seem to not understand that scripture is a written record of God's teaching and instructions, which obviously came first. Those who wrote it were called and inspired by God and as such wrote IN CONCERT with His will and plan. Nothing in the Bible is contradictory, which just shows how much God is IN its compilation. That includes the ten commandments, which God wrote Himself, AS He was commanding them to Moses.
You either believe what ALL scripture says, or you don't. It's pretty simple, and there is no room for picking or choosing.

 

[StanJ]

Jesus is the head of the Church from heaven, but Jesus has the authority to appoint earthly rulers guided by the Holy Spirit to teach. Individuals “led by the Spirit” to teach is not in the Bible. They have to be ordained, or called directly by God. Individuals cannot be “the pillar and ground of truth” with private interpretation and there is nothing in the bible that gives individuals a direct line to God with authority to speak for the whole Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates.
No hierarchy? You are getting off the subject, but briefly put:
Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood
(1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1);
(2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and
(3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6).
The New Testament priesthood also has three offices:
(1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1);
(2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and
(3) Universal priests - all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).
The reformers unbiblically abolished the NT sacrificial priesthood but I am sure following their opinions won't interfere with your relationship with the Lord.

Jesus is the head period, regardless of where He is. The church is NOT an institution, it is a spiritual reality. The only authority Jesus gave was to the original Apostles, who were not granted the same power to pass it along. This is a totally RCC concept.
The Levitical priesthood is NOT the priesthood of the God or the NT. That is Melchizedek, who was God in the OT and Jesus in the NT. This is taught very clearly by Luke in Heb 7. Please don't use your vernacular in place of what the Bible conveys...that is also eisegesis.
There was no priesthood left after the OT Law became obsolete upon Jesus dead and resurrection, and completely died out when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. You seem to be pushing RCC doctrine here, along with a certain contempt for the protestant reformers?

 

[StanJ]

Eph 4:11-13 affirms a hierarchy as well as apostolic succession. Eph 5:21 regards our relationship with one another, it does not negate or cancel out the BIBLICAL 3-fold episcopate, and neither verse supports sola scriptura.

I don't deny you are inspired by reading the Bible, but I don't think you understand the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. What you think tradition means and what I think it means are not the same thing.

There is nothing formally taught by “the pillar and ground of truth” that conflicts with scripture, and there is no Tradition, properly understood, that conflicts or contradicts scripture. I am still waiting for verses that say human cloning and test tube babies is immoral. The historic Church says it is but you can't because it's not in the bible.

If the Bible was perfectly clear, and every Christian was literate, and it meant the same thing to every Christian, then what is revealed to you personally would be universal to everyone else. This, obviously is not the case. Thus, sola scriptura fails as an unbiblical tradition of men.

Well as you can't or won't show it, I deny your contention.

This is obvious, and you think as an RC. I know, because I was one. I then got saved over 45 years ago and left the false teachings of the RCC. Apparently you haven't. When were you saved?

We're not talking about cloning or test tube babies, and I prefer to not go down rabbit trails, and deviate from the issue.

Truth is absolute, regardless of who does or does not understand it. Most of the splits in today's Body of Christ, are a result of people following people or men, not God. The Bible was written for the everyday man, and despite the efforts of organizations like the RCC, JWs, LDS Unitarians, etc...it still is, but that doesn't mean it is NOT to be studied and learned, as Paul teaches in 2 Tim 2:15 as my signature shows. Sola Scriptura IS indeed factual and how God has deemed it.

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm

 

[rockytopva]

OSAS... Once Saved Always Saved...

Bad idea John Calvin!

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. - Romans 8:1
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9


If you have not a Christ-like Spirit you are none of his!

 

[epostle1]

No, I said YOUR conclusion was wrong. You're also adding this thought of PREFERRED, but it is something that is NOT found in this verse. What Paul says, is;
I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household.

Everything Paul taught was written down, and as he was CHOSEN and CALLED to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, His word, teaching and writings all carried the inspiration He and Peter confirmed. You are eisegeting scripture, NOT exegeting it.

No, I am not. 1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy. This should be obvious. Of course Paul was called, but not all of Paul's teachings, let alone his writings, are contained in the NT. Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

The so called reformers thought the authority of the Church was discredited, so they invented sola scriptura as a replacement. It should be rejected as a man made tradition of men.

 

[epostle1]

Well as you can't or won't show it, I deny your contention.

You can't provide a verse(s) supporting sola scriptura in the formal sense because there aren't any.

This is obvious, and you think as an RC. I know, because I was one. I then got saved over 45 years ago and left the false teachings of the RCC. Apparently you haven't. When were you saved?

Salvation as a one time event is not biblical. Emotional experiences, as valuable as they may be, is not being born again. I doubt you were well grounded in the faith and a typical target for evangelicalism.

Lashing out at the CC won't help you defend SS because it has no defense. You left because of the errors of what you were told were false teachings. If the teachings are so false, then why are so many Protestant ministers and bible scholars converting to the CC?

We're not talking about cloning or test tube babies, and I prefer to not go down rabbit trails, and deviate from the issue.

rabbit trails like when you got saved, accusing the CC of false teachings, and challenging me on "when" I got saved?

Cloning or test tube babies are serious moral issues not found in the Bible, SS cannot address them, another one of its failures.

Truth is absolute, regardless of who does or does not understand it.

It is impossible to teach absolute truth with SS.

Most of the splits in today's Body of Christ, are a result of people following people or men, not God.

According to which sola scripturist?

So you claim doctrinal infallibility for yourself, and all the thousands of denominations are partly wrong because you follow God and they don't?

The Bible was written for the everyday man,

The every day man could not read. Up to the 19th century, 90% of the world population was illiterate and less in the 4th. The early church had to know which books were divine writings TO BE READ ALOUD IN THE CHURCHES. You can find this same sentence in the African councils of the 4th century (Hippo and Carthage) where the first list of books of the bible were discerned.

. and despite the efforts of organizations like the RCC, JWs, LDS Unitarians, etc...it still is, but that doesn't mean it is NOT to be studied and learned, as Paul teaches in 2 Tim 2:15 as my signature shows. Sola Scriptura IS indeed factual and how God has deemed it.

Lumping the CC with JWs, LDS Unitarians, etc. is simply an insult with no basis in reality. It reveals ignorance and prejudice.
Sola Scriptura is not found in any writing prior to the 14 century.
The concept was never taught and not widely know until after the Protestant revolt.
That alone says it is a tradition of men.

 

[StanJ]

No, I am not. 1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy. This should be obvious. Of course Paul was called, but not all of Paul's teachings, let alone his writings, are contained in the NT. Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

The so called reformers thought the authority of the Church was discredited, so they invented sola scriptura as a replacement. It should be rejected as a man made tradition of men.

That's NOT accurate at all. Everything Paul taught is IN his letters. It's how He taught. IF this letter mentioned in Col 4:16 existed, it would of course be viable, but it only ever existed in Latin, which none of Paul's letters were written in. His were in Greek, the language He was schooled in. The fact is, what does exist from Latin, seems to be ONLY the last part of the letter, and contains no real teaching. In essence a chapter 4 without 1,2 & 3, like Colossians. IMO, a forgery to make up for it never being discovered or maintained. Still doesn't mean Paul didn't write it, it just no longer exists. It also does NOT support your view that Paul spoke what he did not write, because obviously he did.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/laodiceans.html

Again, if what Paul did write is NOT extant, than we cannot use it even if we know of it. As Paul reiterates here what he did write in this writing referred to, then it really is inconsequential to the issue, which is SOLA SCRIPTURA. Not having ALL that may have been written does not mean what we are missing does not contain the teachings we already have in writing.

The authority of the RCC has been and is rejected. We know now that much of what it teaches is FALSE teaching, hence the reason why believers leave it in droves when they find out what the written word of God really says. The only Christian denominations that are growing today, are the one that teach SS. In fact, of the top 20 countries growing in Christianity, none of them are doing so through the RCC.

 

[StanJ]

You can't provide a verse(s) supporting sola scriptura in the formal sense because there aren't any.

Salvation as a one time event is not biblical. Emotional experiences, as valuable as they may be, is not being born again. I doubt you were well grounded in the faith and a typical target for evangelicalism.

Lashing out at the CC won't help you defend SS because it has no defense. You left because of the errors of what you were told were false teachings. If the teachings are so false, then why are so many Protestant ministers and bible scholars converting to the CC?

rabbit trails like when you got saved, accusing the CC of false teachings, and challenging me on "when" I got saved?

Cloning or test tube babies are serious moral issues not found in the Bible, SS cannot address them, another one of its failures.

I have given you some and yesterday gave you a link to a complete refutation of your POV. Here it is again.
http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm

Apparently you have also not read Rom 10:9-11, nor what Jesus taught in Luke 8:11-15...I suggest you do so and see it IS a one time experience.
If you confuse salvation, with daily picking up your cross and following Him, that would not right either.

I'm not LASHING out, I'm confronting the origin of your perspective, which apparently, and ironically, is NOT the Bible but the RCC.
You are sadly now resorting to false statements. The RCC itself shows their numbers are declining. A simple Google search will confirm this.
Here is ONE example; https://www.olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml

As you brought it up, I addressed it. Are you expecting to go uncontested when you make erroneous assertions?

Well that may be YOUR POV, but it isn't in the Bible and it isn't an issue Pope Paul has any problems with. Birth control is also not dealt with in the Bible as succinctly as the RCC would have it's members believe.

 

[StanJ]

It is impossible to teach absolute truth with SS.

According to which sola scripturist?

So you claim doctrinal infallibility for yourself, and all the thousands of denominations are partly wrong because you follow God and they don't?

The every day man could not read. Up to the 19th century, 90% of the world population was illiterate and less in the 4th. The early church had to know which books were divine writings TO BE READ ALOUD IN THE CHURCHES. You can find this same sentence in the African councils of the 4th century (Hippo and Carthage) where the first list of books of the bible were discerned.

Lumping the CC with JWs, LDS Unitarians, etc. is simply an insult with no basis in reality. It reveals ignorance and prejudice.
Sola Scriptura is not found in any writing prior to the 14 century.
The concept was never taught and not widely know until after the Protestant revolt.
That alone says it is a tradition of men.

So according to you, God's word is NOT absolute truth?

According to Google...which you can easily look up.

That would be a typical kind of prevarication/equivocation that you seem to like to practice. I suggest of you don't understand what I am conveying, that you ask.

Again more equivocation. All the Apostles were everyday men. Even the ones that said what Nathaniel did in John 1:46. Stereotyping people, won't get you anywhere in life. What the KJV stated on it's front page was "APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES". No qualifications as to what, and FYI, it was supplied to us by the COE, NOT the RCC.

Why not? They are all institutions, that give no freedom to their members (with maybe an exception to the Unis) and teach FALSE doctrines.
It was not voiced externally because the RCC had such a tight grip on doctrine, and in many occasions, reacted violently to dissension. That vehemence is clearly seen today with the number of those I debate with on the RCC. I suppose you can SHOW me where the Trinity is mentioned in the Bible? Or the OMNI attributes of God? Do you look for words, or principles? It IS taught in the Bible and has been since day one in the OT. It has continued into the NEW covenant up to our time and will outlive us all until Jesus returns.

If you don't get what Jesus is conveying in John 14:24, then you never will. His words are written for ALL to read and comprehend.

 

[epostle1]

So according to you, God's word is NOT absolute truth?

The truths expressed in God's written word are absolute truth, but you refuse to acknowledge that the Bible is written in limited human language, as if King James's translators were dictated to word for word by God. If you insist on approaching the Bible the same way as a Muslim approaches the Qu'ran, that's your problem, not mine.

According to Google...which you can easily look up.

That would be a typical kind of prevarication/equivocation that you seem to like to practice. I suggest of you don't understand what I am conveying, that you ask.

Again more equivocation. All the Apostles were everyday men. Even the ones that said what Nathaniel did in John 1:46. Stereotyping people, won't get you anywhere in life. What the KJV stated on it's front page was "APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES". No qualifications as to what, and FYI, it was supplied to us by the COE, NOT the RCC.

I didn't know the COE existed in the 4th century. Got any proof? The facts of history show us where the Bible came from. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around, and NONE of the early Christians were sola scripturists. You haven't a shred of evidence to prove otherwise.

Why not? They are all institutions, that give no freedom to their members (with maybe an exception to the Unis) and teach FALSE doctrines.
It was not voiced externally because the RCC had such a tight grip on doctrine, and in many occasions, reacted violently to dissension.

Empty assertion, no documentation. BIG rabbit hole.

That vehemence is clearly seen today with the number of those I debate with on the RCC.

Lack of charity on any Catholic forum I've ever been on on gets your post deleted. Have you got a link showing such "vehemenence" or are you just pouting because you are so easily refuted? Forum link, please.

I suppose you can SHOW me where the Trinity is mentioned in the Bible?

I can SHOW you where the Trinity is encapsulated but it is not articulated until 325 AD. Most Protestant confessions of faith accept the Council of Nicae on the Trinity but they ignore the rest.

Or the OMNI attributes of God? Do you look for words, or principles? It IS taught in the Bible and has been since day one in the OT. It has continued into the NEW covenant up to our time and will outlive us all until Jesus returns.

You admit doctrinal development. How refreshing.

If you don't get what Jesus is conveying in John 14:24, then you never will. His words are written for ALL to read and comprehend.

John 14:24 doesn't say anything about scripture alone. If you change "word" or "words" to "written words", or whatever way you want to read into it, you render the verse completely senseless.