Sola Scriptura 2

[robert derrick]

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.

It was still an outside source

I think I now see what you mean. An 'outside' source is something not first written in Scripture, and may be later written as Scripture.

And so Genesis was all written from an outside source.

And this then the heart of the matter: No Scripture is from an 'outside source' of scripture, because all Scripture is from God.

Scripture is not the cumulation of the thoughts and intents of men and history, gathered by other men to write them down as true.

The Bible is not written by a religious Herodotus.

Sola Scripture therefore rejects any outside source that does not agree with Scripture. And there is no 'outside source' after the end of revelation, that would ever be written as Scripture.

But Paul still commends teaching he gave orally.

And Scripture commends any orally teaching that agrees with Scripture.

But from that scripture we know that truth were passed on orally.

And it still is every time the the gospel and doctrine of God are preached according to the scriptures.

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

We have Scripture to show what agrees with Scripture, that is passed on things of God.

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

I was speaking of you. Everything you attempt to teach against Sola Scriptura is from what is written in Scripture. You try to teach against teaching from Scripture only, by teaching from Scripture. You don't try to refute Sola Scriptura from your traditions and religious teachings of them.

You are using scripture to try and prove a doctrine of God. You are being Sola Scriptura in order to prove Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine of man.

I have not seen any quote from your leaders nor your 'outside sources' to refute Sola Scriptura.

"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.

I agree, because it describes arcuately what you are attempting to do. It shows how very weirdly you go about trying to disprove Scripture only by only using Scripture to do so. You give nothing from your leaders and your 'outside sources'.

You are being Sola Scriptura in your argument, until you begin using your leaders' words and your 'outside sources', that are not found in Scripture, in order to refute SOla Scriptura.

Where are they?

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

B.T.W. I have already done so to my satisfaction, and you refuse to believe them as I do. And so, no more efforts from me. Once plain Scripture is disagreed on, then it is vain to go on trying to convince anything by those Scriptures.

 

[Wrangler]

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.

Strawman after Strawman. This is what I said Sola Scriptura is.

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.

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”

You cannot address the actual valid position of Protestants, which is why you invoke one Strawman argument after another.

 

[robert derrick]

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


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

My claim has always been Sola Scriptura, and have defined it as I see it. You are the one that demanded proof of Sola Scriptura.

I consented, though there is no need for Scripture to prove it.

I gave the Scriptures I believe do prove it, and you refuse to believe them as such.

And by your continued demand for Scriptural proof, you show you are ignoring them. So long as you keep refusing to acknowledge I even gave you some, you are acting in an ignorant manner.

I don't continue down the vain road of trying to deal with people who display a refusal to acknowledge reality.

And so, one last time out of great patience:

The reality is that I gave you sufficient Scriptural reason and proof for me to believe Sola Scriptura, and you don't believe nor accept them as such.

Fine. End of story.

And so, if you keep demanding Scriptures to prove it, I will know you are simply playing a childish game, and my former esteem for your sincerity will drop. Fast.

 

[robert derrick]

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.

I can take that as a fair argument.

And we have shown plenty of scriptures, we believe each one of proves Sola Scriptura, and them that reject Sola Scriptura, also reject the Scriptures we gave to prove it.

Duh. Big surprise that nona-Sola Scriptura types are also nona-Scriptura period.

 

[robert derrick]

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 .

I don't agree with that, and would gladly debate it all with you, either in the thread I mentioned, or if you want to start your own, but I am trying to keep this thread on topic and not be shut down. I am learning some good things here.

I have promised the moderator that I would report people doing what you are doing, so that the thread won't be shut down, which I will gladly do for you, if you insist. Which means once more.

 

[Wrangler]

Still waiting for Scriptural proof of Sola Sciptura

What proof would you accept?

The corrupt Catholic Church did not exist when the Scriptures were written. So, it's not going to say a corrupt man-made institution 11 centuries hence is not your authority but my word is the authority on Scriptural matters, right?

 

[robert derrick]

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]
What is needed here is your definition of Sola Scriptura, that you denounce.

I have requested it before, and so so again, because your effort to disprove something as doctrine of God so far has only been by Scripture, which is my definition of Sola Scriptura.

So, how do you define it?

 

[robert derrick]

@amigo de christo
@Ziggy

It doesn't matter what the topic is you have to pile in with your nasty anti-Catholic bile.

Does it make you feel better to abuse the largest groups of Christian in the world?#

Don't bother replying I'm putting you both on ignore.

I agree. You might want to report them to. I will if they continue in it.

I don't want this thread to be shut down. Yet.

How do you define Sola Scriptura?

 

[robert derrick]

Sola Scriptura...Yep, I believe that.
You disagree...So?
You have Evidence to the Contrary, to support your disagreement....?
Reveal your Evidence and I will Show your Evidence to be untrustworthy.

If anyone agrees the Bible is all Scripture, then they must also agree that anything contradicting the Bible must be false, which is the heart of Sola Scriptura.

Therefore, they must reject the Bible as being all Scripture.

To do that, they must prove a contradiction and error in the Bible.

 

[robert derrick]

Prophets.

Prophets don't have a manuscript to read from.
The future events prove the prophecy.
Future proves Past.

Today, if there is a prophet it must align with the written word.
But in the past there was no written word to prove it.
For we walk by faith not by sight.

just things rolling around in my head
hugs

Actually there was written Scripture to prove a current prophet as true or false, ever since Moses wrote down the first Scriptures on earth, beginning with Genesis.

That is whay the bereans were able to prove what Paul was saying, was true by Scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

Sounds like lawyers trying to figure out the Constitution.
so they write laws to get around other laws, make themselves righteous in their own eyes

They fancied themselves such great readers of the Scriptures they had hold of, that they figured they could write some Scripture too.

And there are many that foolishly believe in them as such.

Librarians on parade.

 

[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.

The Bible itself first proved to me there is a true God in heaven, by having so many people over so many generations write exactly the same things in so many different ways, without any error nor contradiction between them.

Mankind by study and applied intelligence cannot do that alone.

One guided them all completely and surely: God.

The God of the Bible is the true God in heaven, and anything or anyone that contradicts the Bible is not believing the God of the Bible.

 

[LTJMP14]

The Bible itself first proved to me there is a true God in heaven, by having so many people over so many generations write exactly the same things in so many different ways, without any error nor contradiction between them.

Mankind by study and applied intelligence cannot do that alone.

One guided them all completely and surely: God.

The God of the Bible is the true God in heaven, and anything or anyone that contradicts the Bible is not believing the God of the Bible.

Amen.

 

[Ziggy]

They fancied themselves such great readers of the Scriptures they had hold of, that they figured they could write some Scripture too.

And there are many that foolishly believe in them as such.

Librarians on parade.

So the other day I mentioned I once saw the Bible as a tree and the pages were it's leaves...

Then I saw the tree as the world, and the leaves became it's floor.
From the floor became the ground, and things began to grow up out of it, adding itself to the floor, like a web.

This web is like those that interwove their leaves among the other leaves,
that is , men interwove their own "words" scripture, into the ones that came from the tree.
The tree is the Bible. It's pages the leaves.
man are like spiders, spinning their webs

I see the angels that come to reap...
there are tares and wheat interwoven throughout the field.
The field is the world.
the world is the Bible.

hmm..

Discerning, comparing, get in there with your shovels and root out the tares.
That's what we are supposed to be doing.
We should what is study to approve...

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Thank You

Problem is, we are told not to question. Don't question authority.
And yet we are told to do the exact opposite in the Bible.

To tell you the Truth, I have a problem with a lot of John's Gospel.
A lot of things written in there, I can't back up with scripture.
I can't find a simile. Maybe these were new things... I show you a new thing..
what is that?

Num 16:30 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.

Then we may even be able to determine who slipped them in there in the first place.
Everything has an origen.
And in order to find the ones that sowed the tares, you have to go through the cornfield and pluck them out.

We should be doing this as a joint effort and not an argument.
There should be questions and there should be answers.

If there are no answers, perhaps it doesn't belong in there, and was woven in.
In which case it is absolutely our responsibilty to be the checks and balances as to what was added or subtracted..
Because if it is so, then they will be cursed.
Even the criminal has his day in court to prove his innocence.
That's why we argue. We like to debate.
Sometimes it's not even about the crime, it's just for the sake of debating...

anywho,
we should be working.
God Bless
Hugs

 

[robert derrick]

What proof would you accept?

The corrupt Catholic Church did not exist when the Scriptures were written. So, it's not going to say a corrupt man-made institution 11 centuries hence is not your authority but my word is the authority on Scriptural matters, right?

He doesn't accept proof of anything, he doesn't want to already believe. His whole thing is to reject anything as authoritative proof.

The only thing remaining is for him to tell us the definition of what Sola Scriptura is, that he denounces.

 

[robert derrick]

So the other day I mentioned I once saw the Bible as a tree and the pages were it's leaves...

Then I saw the tree as the world, and the leaves became it's floor.
From the floor became the ground, and things began to grow up out of it, adding itself to the floor, like a web.

This web is like those that interwove their leaves among the other leaves,
that is , men interwove their own "words" scripture, into the ones that came from the tree.
The tree is the Bible. It's pages the leaves.
man are like spiders, spinning their webs

I see the angels that come to reap...
there are tares and wheat interwoven throughout the field.
The field is the world.
the world is the Bible.

hmm..

Discerning, comparing, get in there with your shovels and root out the tares.
That's what we are supposed to be doing.
We should what is study to approve...

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Thank You

Problem is, we are told not to question. Don't question authority.
And yet we are told to do the exact opposite in the Bible.

To tell you the Truth, I have a problem with a lot of John's Gospel.
A lot of things written in there, I can't back up with scripture.
I can't find a simile. Maybe these were new things... I show you a new thing..
what is that?

Num 16:30 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.

Then we may even be able to determine who slipped them in there in the first place.
Everything has an origen.
And in order to find the ones that sowed the tares, you have to go through the cornfield and pluck them out.

We should be doing this as a joint effort and not an argument.
There should be questions and there should be answers.

If there are no answers, perhaps it doesn't belong in there, and was woven in.
In which case it is absolutely our responsibilty to be the checks and balances as to what was added or subtracted..
Because if it is so, then they will be cursed.
Even the criminal has his day in court to prove his innocence.
That's why we argue. We like to debate.
Sometimes it's not even about the crime, it's just for the sake of debating...

anywho,
we should be working.
God Bless
Hugs

The Lord told the caretakers not to try and root out the tares that had grown, lest they also root out some wheat.

The lesson is that ministers who allow tares to grow in the first place, don't know enough about Scripture to root them out, without also destroying some wheat.

There are no tares in Scripture, and the Bible is all scripture.

Working together to work out 'mysteries' or apparent contradictions would be good.

Since Sola Scriptura begins with believing everything in the bible is true and righteous altogether, then if anyone has an issue with something in it, bring it up.

The Bible is able to stand on its' own.

And the excuse the librarians used for trying to introduce their own other traditions as equal to Scripture, was the false accusation that the Bible could not stand alone against all heresies, such as that of Aarian.

 

[robert derrick]

'Outside sources'

Those who reject Sola Scriptura believe that some of the Bible was written from outside sources: things that were said and taught, before they were written as Scripture.

Therefore, there remain 'outside' traditions equal to Scripture, as sources for truth of God. And they are authoritative as Scriptures of the prophets and apostles.

1. There are no outside sources of Scripture: God is the only source of Scripture.

God did not have His prophets and apostles write things as Scripture, based upon other things spoken and written in the world, that God agreed with.

The Bible is not a book of religious compilations of beliefs and traditions from the history of mankind. It is the written book of God Himself, that those other beliefs and traditions were groping for in the dark.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.

2. Though there are no outside 'sources' for Scripture, there are plenty of outside traditions, that are not found in Scripture.

And they are outside the Word of God.

God does not produce nor commend anything outside His Word, else He breaks His own Scripture.

Therefore, those who teach traditions outside the Bible, as doctrine and truth of God, are teaching false traditions of men, even as they did that had Jesus crucified, for proving their traditions were outside Scripture.

He did He do so? By quoting Scripture and showing their traditions were not from Scripture of God, but only from darkened minds of men.

 

[robert derrick]

When Jesus was tempted of the devil, He resisted and rebuked the devil by quoting scripture, not by referring to outside traditions.

Therefore, Scriptures are the only written things of God with power to resist the devil.

Outside traditions are his favorite tool to defeat the power of the Word of God in a person's heart and mind.

The holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation. (2 Tom 3:15)

Therefore, only Scripture has power to save the soul. The only power of outside traditions is to make men fools unto destruction of their souls.

There are only holy Scriptures. There are no holy outside traditions.

What men call sacred outside of Scripture, God in Scripture calls foolish imaginations.

 

[Ziggy]

There are no tares in Scripture, and the Bible is all scripture.

So then the tares are in us...
And the word is a magnify glass that makes us look inside ourselves.
We add tares to the word by leaning on our own understanding?
we are our own worst enemy..
Let God be true and every man a liar.

thinking..
Hugs

 

[farouk]

Once plain Scripture is disagreed on, then it is vain to go on trying to convince anything by those Scriptures.

Reminds me of what Luther said, to the effect: I would not waste a word arguing with someone who does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God.