Sola Scriptura 2

[robert derrick]

Sacred Tradition does not conflict with Sacred Scripture. It cannot since it comes from the same source - God

Oh, then there is no problem here after all.

You simply call God's tradition according to the Scriptures, Sacred tradition, even as you call them the Sacred Scriptures.

So, Sacred tradition is Sacred Scriptural tradition: The Sacred traditions of Sacred Scripture, written in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Sacred traditions are those traditions orally taught from the Scriptures, even as Jesus and His apostles orally preached and reasoned out the Scriptures. (Acts 17:2)

And here we've been misunderstand all along.

Amazing.

 

[robert derrick]

Now you are getting even more ridiculous. The Bible you have was put together by men. It was translated into English by men.

Of the New Testament there was much discussion in the early Church about which writing were scripture. The final decision was not made until the end of the 4th century - by men.

Where does Scripture list what writings are Scripture?

Now you are getting even more ridiculous. The Bible you have was put together by men. It was translated into English by men.

And of course the great gulf fixed between us, is that I have faith in the God of the Bible to not only had His word perfectly written in the world, but also perfectly assembled all Scripture into one Book for us all to read in our own language.

It was never the work of men as you read it, but the work of God through men and with men to fulfill His own purposes.

Your error is in reading the Bible as any other historical, philosophical, religious book written by men and preserved by men.

You are carnal minded in unbelief in the power of God.

Scripture was on earth from the first moment the first Scripture of Gen 1:1 was written. God had men to write them, to preserve them, to assemble them, and to translate them. They did not 'become' Scripture', when those men weeded out other outside contenders for Scriptural status.

The list of writings in Scripture, that are Scripture, are usually written in order at the beginning of the Bible for easy reference: Genesis - Revelation.

 

[robert derrick]

The great lie about the Council of Nicea:

The men gathered at Nicea for two main reasons. To refute the Arian heresy, and to reject false writings as Scripture.

1. They did refute Aarian by Scripture: they relied on John 1:1 & 17:22, while Aarian distorted John 14:28.

They did not use 'outside sources of traditions', as though they did not believe the Bible was sufficient to stand alone for itself to refute any and all heresies.

That 'tradition' of Scriptural insufficiency is a lie. It was later made up by the future fathers and leaders of the Catholic Religion, which they then used to legitimize the use of outside source of traditions, as equal to Scripture and Scriptural doctrine.

The fathers and leaders of the Catholic religion were not the Sola Scriptura leaders at the council of Nicea.

2. The leaders at Nicea did not determine that the writings of the prophets and apostles were indeed Scripture. The 'Bible' or totality of Scripture was already well known by the end of the 1st century, and was first listed at the end of the 3rd century.

All the leaders did was weed out any other writings, that had purported to be also Scripture, as by a prophet or apostle of Christ.

They rejected all such outside writings by comparing them to the known Scriptures they had from the prophets and apostles: Sola Scriptura.

Paul spoke of such men that would try to transform themselves into apostles, and the leaders at Nicea rejected them as such, being faithful to what they already knew to be Scripture: Genesis to Revelation, which was written by John as the last book of prophecy of God toward the end of the 1st Century.

The leaders of Nicea were all Sola Scriptura: they rejected heresy by Scripture, and they rejected false writings by Scripture.

They did not use outside sources to defend Scripture, and they did not determine that the writings they had from the prophets and apostles were to be, for the first time, declared Scripture.

It's all a lie by them that tried to take over the church and body of Christ to form their own religion, while using His name for effect, and continuing to give lip service to the Scripture of the Bible.

 

[Mjh29]

I vote do away with theological doctrines and just share Bible Truths....
When you see a thread title targeting a specific doctrine by whatever denominations you can expect it to become a battle between the different beliefs.

How can you share Bible truths without theology?

The Bible is all about Jesus from start to finish. But... who was Jesus? The moment you begin explaining who He was, you have crossed over into theology (the study of God).

You cannot have one without the other. You cannot claim to believe something is true and not defend it. While falsehood still stands, truth will always stand opposed. There can be no unity by simply "getting rid of" theology, because the moment you pick up the Bible or talk about the Savior, you are stepping over into Theology. There is no such thing as 'just Bible truths.'

 

[farouk]

How can you share Bible truths without theology?

The Bible is all about Jesus from start to finish. But... who was Jesus? The moment you begin explaining who He was, you have crossed over into theology (the study of God).

You cannot have one without the other. You cannot claim to believe something is true and not defend it. While falsehood still stands, truth will always stand opposed. There can be no unity by simply "getting rid of" theology, because the moment you pick up the Bible or talk about the Savior, you are stepping over into Theology. There is no such thing as 'just Bible truths.'

@Mjh29 "Thy word is truth" (John 17.17); "Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine" (1 Timothy 4.13).

 

[Mungo]

Oh, then there is no problem here after all.

You simply call God's tradition according to the Scriptures, Sacred tradition, even as you call them the Sacred Scriptures.

So, Sacred tradition is Sacred Scriptural tradition: The Sacred traditions of Sacred Scripture, written in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Sacred traditions are those traditions orally taught from the Scriptures, even as Jesus and His apostles orally preached and reasoned out the Scriptures. (Acts 17:2)

And here we've been misunderstand all along.

Amazing.

Are you stupid or just being deliberately obtuse?

See if you can understand this.
Sacred Tradition is God's words not written in Scripture (transmitted orally).
Sacred Scripture is God's words written in Scripture (transmitted in writing).
Both come from God but the method of transmission is different

 

[Mungo]

Now you are getting even more ridiculous. The Bible you have was put together by men. It was translated into English by men.

And of course the great gulf fixed between us, is that I have faith in the God of the Bible to not only had His word perfectly written in the world, but also perfectly assembled all Scripture into one Book for us all to read in our own language.

It was never the work of men as you read it, but the work of God through men and with men to fulfill His own purposes.

Your error is in reading the Bible as any other historical, philosophical, religious book written by men and preserved by men.

You are carnal minded in unbelief in the power of God.

Scripture was on earth from the first moment the first Scripture of Gen 1:1 was written. God had men to write them, to preserve them, to assemble them, and to translate them. They did not 'become' Scripture', when those men weeded out other outside contenders for Scriptural status.

Yes, the bible was written by men.
Yes, it was compiled by men.
It was translated by men.
Well done. I'm glad you agree with something.

The KJV didn't just float down from the sky.

 

[Mungo]

The great lie about the Council of Nicea:

The men gathered at Nicea for two main reasons. To refute the Arian heresy, and to reject false writings as Scripture.

1. They did refute Aarian by Scripture: they relied on John 1:1 & 17:22, while Aarian distorted John 14:28.

They did not use 'outside sources of traditions', as though they did not believe the Bible was sufficient to stand alone for itself to refute any and all heresies.

That 'tradition' of Scriptural insufficiency is a lie. It was later made up by the future fathers and leaders of the Catholic Religion, which they then used to legitimize the use of outside source of traditions, as equal to Scripture and Scriptural doctrine.

The fathers and leaders of the Catholic religion were not the Sola Scriptura leaders at the council of Nicea.

2. The leaders at Nicea did not determine that the writings of the prophets and apostles were indeed Scripture. The 'Bible' or totality of Scripture was already well known by the end of the 1st century, and was first listed at the end of the 3rd century.

All the leaders did was weed out any other writings, that had purported to be also Scripture, as by a prophet or apostle of Christ.

They rejected all such outside writings by comparing them to the known Scriptures they had from the prophets and apostles: Sola Scriptura.

Paul spoke of such men that would try to transform themselves into apostles, and the leaders at Nicea rejected them as such, being faithful to what they already knew to be Scripture: Genesis to Revelation, which was written by John as the last book of prophecy of God toward the end of the 1st Century.

The leaders of Nicea were all Sola Scriptura: they rejected heresy by Scripture, and they rejected false writings by Scripture.

They did not use outside sources to defend Scripture, and they did not determine that the writings they had from the prophets and apostles were to be, for the first time, declared Scripture.

It's all a lie by them that tried to take over the church and body of Christ to form their own religion, while using His name for effect, and continuing to give lip service to the Scripture of the Bible.

What are you on about?
I never mentioned Nicea.
You do like diversions.

 

[Mungo]

The list of writings in Scripture, that are Scripture, are usually written in order at the beginning of the Bible for easy reference: Genesis - Revelation.

You really are a laugh.

 

[Wrangler]

Are you stupid or just being deliberately obtuse?

See if you can understand this.
Sacred Scripture is God's words not written in Scripture (transmitted orally).
Sacred Scripture is God's words written in Scripture (transmitted in writing).
Both come from God but the method of transmission is different

Sacred Tradition does not conflict with Sacred Scripture. It cannot since it comes from the same source - God

Did you mean to refer to Scripture or tradition in these posts? Otherwise, Tradition is oral Scripture; is that what you are saying?

 

[Mungo]

Did you mean to refer to Scripture or tradition in these posts? Otherwise, Tradition is oral Scripture; is that what you are saying?

OK, my typo.
I've corrected it.

 

[Heart2Soul]

How can you share Bible truths without theology?

The Bible is all about Jesus from start to finish. But... who was Jesus? The moment you begin explaining who He was, you have crossed over into theology (the study of God).

You cannot have one without the other. You cannot claim to believe something is true and not defend it. While falsehood still stands, truth will always stand opposed. There can be no unity by simply "getting rid of" theology, because the moment you pick up the Bible or talk about the Savior, you are stepping over into Theology. There is no such thing as 'just Bible truths.'

Do you think the Sermon on the Mount is theology being taught by Jesus?
Or the letters Paul wrote to the different churches is him teaching theology?
IMHO it isn't a study of the nature of God and religious beliefs as defined by the Oxford Dictionary...
It is a teaching of how to become saved and how to live as Jesus lived...how to walk in His Ways.
How to be spiritual and not carnal....how to prepare for His return.
I would almost say it is an instruction manual to eternal life in Him.

 

[Mjh29]

Do you think the Sermon on the Mount is theology being taught by Jesus?
Or the letters Paul wrote to the different churches is him teaching theology?
IMHO it isn't a study of the nature of God and religious beliefs as defined by the Oxford Dictionary...
It is a teaching of how to become saved and how to live as Jesus lived...how to walk in His Ways.
How to be spiritual and not carnal....how to prepare for His return.
I would almost say it is an instruction manual to eternal life in Him.

But who was Jesus? Was he a 'good teacher?' Was he a non-deity human prophet? Was He God in the flesh?

You cannot read the Scriptures without a theological, presuppositional backdrop from which you make inferences.

 

[robert derrick]

Are you stupid or just being deliberately obtuse?

See if you can understand this.
Sacred Tradition is God's words not written in Scripture (transmitted orally).
Sacred Scripture is God's words written in Scripture (transmitted in writing).
Both come from God but the method of transmission is different

There that's better. No more trying to sound like your traditions are Sacred, because they are Scriptural.

And so back to the old saw: Anything spoken or written for doctrine of the God of the Bible, that is not of Scripture, is false doctrine and tradition of men, that are not of the God of the Bible.

WHat is Sacred to men is trash to God, and what is Holy to God is trash to such Sacred men.

A quote from one of their own Sacred worshippers:

You can believe in God without knowing any scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

Did you mean to refer to Scripture or tradition in these posts? Otherwise, Tradition is oral Scripture; is that what you are saying?

He meant to sound like it, so as to say his traditions outside of Scripture are equally of God, as the Scriptures they are outside of.

Tradition of God is oral Scripture. I like that. Good phrase.

It's called preaching according to the Scriptures, and reasoning out of the Scriptures.

 

[robert derrick]

What are you on about?
I never mentioned Nicea.
You do like diversions.

This is about Sola Scriptura and them that reject it, along with their given reasons for it, which included their false history about the council of Nicea.

It's not just about you.

The leaders of Nicea were Sola Scriptura. False leaders came along later and lied about them, in order to make a religion of their own traditions outside of Scripture, and then claimed they were equal with the traditions of Scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

Do you think the Sermon on the Mount is theology being taught by Jesus?
Or the letters Paul wrote to the different churches is him teaching theology?
IMHO it isn't a study of the nature of God and religious beliefs as defined by the Oxford Dictionary...
It is a teaching of how to become saved and how to live as Jesus lived...how to walk in His Ways.
How to be spiritual and not carnal....how to prepare for His return.
I would almost say it is an instruction manual to eternal life in Him.

True. The Bible is not just another theological book.

But, if the word theology must be applied, then Bible theology is this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God the Word come in the flesh, and His name was Jesus.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The only way to heaven is by Jesus. The only truth of the God of heaven is from Jesus. And the only eternal life is in Jesus.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Jesus is the true God and Son of God.

There's much more 'theological' stuff like that in the Bible.

And those who reject Sola Scriptura believe a bunch of atheological stuff of men.

 

[Mungo]

There that's better. No more trying to sound like your traditions are Sacred, because they are Scriptural.

And so back to the old saw: Anything spoken or written for doctrine of the God of the Bible, that is not of Scripture, is false doctrine and tradition of men, that are not of the God of the Bible.

You failed to understand what I was saying before and you are still failing to understand (whether deliberately or not I don't know).
Sacred Tradition is not in Scripture by definition, but it still of God by definition.

What is Sacred to men is trash to God, and what is Holy to God is trash to such Sacred men.

Who is that aimed at. Are you just trying to insult me?

A quote from one of their own Sacred worshippers:

You can believe in God without knowing any scripture.

As I have pointed out before when the apostles (or other) preached to Gentiles they did not hand out Scripture.
They preached orally (that's what preaching is).
The Gentiles would not know any Scripture (unless they were God-fearers) but could still believe without knowing any Scripture.

 

[Mungo]

This is about Sola Scriptura and them that reject it, along with their given reasons for it, which included their false history about the council of Nicea.

It's not just about you.

The leaders of Nicea were Sola Scriptura. False leaders came along later and lied about them, in order to make a religion of their own traditions outside of Scripture, and then claimed they were equal with the traditions of Scripture.

Absolute Rubbish. But then, as usual, you give no evidence for your wild claims.

 

[robert derrick]

But who was Jesus? Was he a 'good teacher?' Was he a non-deity human prophet? Was He God in the flesh?

That's why we read the Bible. To find out.

You cannot read the Scriptures without a theological, presuppositional backdrop from which you make inferences.

I most certainly can read Scripture without all that theological presuppositional backdrop for inference.

A child can read the Bible and know what the Bible says. Only such theological presuppostionally backdropped pseudo-scholars cannot read the Bible and simply know what it says and believe it.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

I'll trust the Scriptures anyday over any such scientifically theologicized and presupposed backdroppings.

Sola Scriptura: Just read the Scriptures and leave the outer droppings to others.