Sola Scriptura

[Wrangler]

No, I'm not having a meltdown.

Hmmm. Seems to me that all you have are meltdowns.

 

[robert derrick]

The things of the God of the Bible are known for certainly only by the things written in the Bible.

There are plenty of things written and spoken about a god, that is not the God of the Bible.

God does not acknowledge other gods, nor their teachers and disciples, and neither does He even call them false prophets. Just false.

A false prophet of the true God and Lord Jesus Christ is one who teaches things about Him that are not according to His Word written as Scripture by His prophets and apostles: they did not proceed from His mouth, nor did He give it them by His Spirit.

So, people can read and hear and think and believe whatever they want, and not all of it will be false: what is true is that which the God of the Bible has spoken and had written in His Book.

Confucius, Plato, the Buddha, etc...all hit upon true things of God and life, which Scripture does verify. But only Scripture is all true and righteous altogether.

Even Mohamed got some things right: when he quoted Scripture and taught some things accurately about Scripture. The rest of it is from his own mind, which he says is from an angel, which if true, was from the fallen sort.

He is not a false prophet, because he does not put himself forth as a prophet of the Lord God of Israel and of Christ Jesus. He's just not a prophet.

 

[David in NJ]

Wrong and wrong.

Sadly, your posts do not edify but create strife.

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

Wrangler with today's false reporting = Sola Scriptura, like all principles of how to live life, do not have to be proven because it is not evidence based

 

[Mungo]

Let's fix this. God reveals His Word to His Children. It has not been revealed to His Children UNTIL He Reveals it to Them - YES
Once He has revealed it it becomes Scripture = His Word
Since He has revealed it in Scripture, what are you going to do with it, is the Question..........

Wrong. Nothing become scripture until it is written down.
What about that which God reveals that is not written down?
If God reveals something that is not written down it is still God's words.
And who decides what of that which is written are the revealed words of God.?

 

[David in NJ]

The things of the God of the Bible are known for certainly only by the things written in the Bible.

There are plenty of things written and spoken about a god, that is not the God of the Bible.

God does not acknowledge other gods, nor their teachers and disciples, and neither does He even call them false prophets. Just false.

A false prophet of the true God and Lord Jesus Christ is one who teaches things about Him that are not according to His Word written as Scripture by His prophets and apostles: they did not proceed from His mouth, nor did He give it them by His Spirit.

So, people can read and hear and think and believe whatever they want, and not all of it will be false: what is true is that which the God of the Bible has spoken and had written in His Book.

Confucius, Plato, the Buddha, etc...all hit upon true things of God and life, which Scripture does verify. But only Scripture is all true and righteous altogether.

Even Mohamed got some things right: when he quoted Scripture and taught some things accurately about Scripture. The rest of it is from his own mind, which he says is from an angel, which if true, was from the fallen sort.

He is not a false prophet, because he does not put himself forth as a prophet of the Lord God of Israel and of Christ Jesus. He's just not a prophet.

He is a false prophet, no matter what his belief, if he/she declares things that are contrary to the Word.

 

[Mungo]

The things of the God of the Bible are known for certainly only by the things written in the Bible.

Can you prove that from the Bible?

 

[Mungo]

He is a false prophet, no matter what his belief, if he/she declares things that are contrary to the Word.

That's a different topic.

 

[Wrangler]

(WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA)

I don't really care why other people reject what I believe is the right way to live. Please meditate on Roman 14:1, 13 and James 4:11-12.

This is the Study Forum, not the Debate Forum's. One thing that is not up for debate is the past. Just because you do not like or agree with how others choose to practice their religion in no way empowers you to treat them as anything less than children of God who bear his image.

 

[Mungo]

Wrangler with today's false reporting = Sola Scriptura, like all principles of how to live life, do not have to be proven because it is not evidence based

Not evidence based.
Exactly a man made tradition.
Unbiblical.

 

[Wrangler]

Can you prove that from the Bible?

For a man of faith, you are intent on establishing proof. Odd that?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Wrong. Nothing become scripture until it is written down.
What about that which God reveals that is not written down?
If God reveals something that is not written down it is still God's words.
And who decides what of that which is written are the revealed words of God.?

God decides what gets written as His word, not man. That's been covered before too.

What God revealed that was not recorded is still the Word of God to whom it was spoken but whatever "it" is, it cannot contradict any of the rest that is written ( no matter what the RCC says)

 

[David in NJ]

Can you prove that from the Bible?

Hey, i liked this statement....

 

[robert derrick]

So prove the man made tradition of Sola Scriptura from the Bible

I have yet to meet a true rejector of Sola Scriptura, that also claims the faith of Jesus Christ.

To honestly reject Sola Scriptura, one would not go to Scripture at all to prove anything at all.

They would simply think, believe, and do what they like. If Scripture supported if, fine. If not, fine.

They don't care where it comes from, but only what they like and adopt for themselves.

Those who claim to reject Sola Scriptura, who then go on to demand Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura, are hypocrites, contradicting their own stated rejection of Sola Scriptura, by calling upon Scripture to authorize it as legitimate with the God of Scripture.

Demanding proof from Scripture is Sola Scriptura.

 

[Wrangler]

Unbiblical.

You are so lost. In your estimation, going strictly by the bible is not biblical.

 

[David in NJ]

Wrong. Nothing become scripture until it is written down.
What about that which God reveals that is not written down?
If God reveals something that is not written down it is still God's words.
And who decides what of that which is written are the revealed words of God.?

When i said He reveals to His Children, I meant this = Those to whom He instructs, record it and it becomes His written Word, Scripture.
YES, you were correct on that - no dispute there.

 

[Mungo]

I don't really care why other people reject what I believe is the right way to live. Please meditate on Roman 14:1, 13 and James 4:11-12.

This is the Study Forum, not the Debate Forum's. One thing that is not up for debate is the past. Just because you do not like or agree with how others choose to practice their religion in no way empowers you to treat them as anything less than children of God who bear his image.

Tell that to Robert Derrick. He raised the issue of the Bereans.
Besides how is a study of the scriptures about the Bereans not part of Bible Study?

 

[David in NJ]

You are so lost. In your estimation, going strictly by the bible is not biblical.

Dear Brother Wrangle, nice to see you back - please elaborate = "going strictly by the bible is not biblical."

 

[Mungo]

You are so lost. In your estimation, going strictly by the bible is not biblical.

Depends what you mean by "going strictly by the bible". Sola Scriptura is not biblical.

 

[Wrangler]

Wrangler with today's false reporting = Sola Scriptura, like all principles of how to live life, do not have to be proven because it is not evidence based

What in God's green Earth are you talking about? In this thread, I believe we are allies. Just because my angle of attack/defense is different from yours does not mean there is false reporting, friend.

Consider the opposing principles:

• The early bird gets the worm.
• The 2nd mouse gets the cheese.

Neither principle needs to be proven for they are not evidence based. The same principle is not always correct for the occasion though as these 2 show. While I embrace Sola Scriptura, I like some of America's 21st century traditions, like summer cookouts, spending time with family to give thanks, praising God that I am free.

 

[Raccoon1010]

Wrong and wrong.

Sadly, your posts do not edify but create strife.

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.

That's what I told another RCC member. And you're right in saying that. I live in the USA where we have freedom of religion which I love. I'm still learning doctrine here on CB and need some more time to investigate churches to choose one that is right for me.