Jump to content


How Can Sola Scriptura Be True?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
37 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_fljea_*

Guest_fljea_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2009 - 05:28 AM

The answer to the question, is a more important question... What does any of that have to do with your salvation and continual spiritual growth? Answer: Nothing.


You are flat wrong.

The answers to these questions determine whether or not you worship a God of death or a God of life. I refuse to recognize, let alone worship, any god that created living things just to let them die. I refuse to recognize, let alone worship, any god that would put mankind in a sinful environment, i.e., create mankind after Lucifer/Satan/Devil had rebelled against God, and then tell mankind “I will kill you if you disobey me”.

Furthermore, if you insist that baptism or holy communion are necessary for salvation, then you have turned the Christian faith into a religion of works.

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 November 2009 - 05:44 AM

You are flat wrong.

The answers to these questions determine whether or not you worship a God of death or a God of life.  I refuse to recognize, let alone worship, any god that created living things just to let them die.  I refuse to recognize, let alone worship, any god that would put mankind in a sinful environment, i.e., create mankind after Lucifer/Satan/Devil had rebelled against God, and then tell mankind “I will kill you if you disobey me”.

Furthermore, if you insist that baptism or holy communion are necessary for salvation, then you have turned the Christian faith into a religion of works.

View Post


I find it odd that you claim to be a Christian (and I’m not saying you aren’t) and you do not realize that God doesn’t condemn you to death and hell. You condemn yourself to death and hell by your own actions.

So, when you say “I refuse to recognize, let alone worship, any god that would put mankind in a sinful environment”, you fail to recognize that man put himself in that situation. And, He (God) sent His son (Jesus), to correct that.

God doesn’t say “I will kill you if you disobey me” so I personally would be interested to see the scripture you ripped that quote from. You condemn yourself by what you do and what you say.

Also, I would desire you to provide the quote of me insisting that “baptism or holy communion are necessary for salvation”. This should be interesting.

#23 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 November 2009 - 06:39 AM

Circumcision of the heart by the power of the holy spirit is necessary for salvation not by works so no man can boast.

#24 Guest_fljea_*

Guest_fljea_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2009 - 11:05 AM

I find it odd that you claim to be a Christian (and I’m not saying you aren’t) and you do not realize that God doesn’t condemn you to death and hell. You condemn yourself to death and hell by your own actions.


Death and Hell are the consequences of sin and it is God that established these consequences.

So, when you say “I refuse to recognize, let alone worship, any god that would put mankind in a sinful environment”, you fail to recognize that man put himself in that situation. And, He (God) sent His son (Jesus), to correct that.


If God waited until after Lucifer/Satan/Devil had rebelled before He created mankind, then God did put mankind in a sinful environment.

God doesn’t say “I will kill you if you disobey me” so I personally would be interested to see the scripture you ripped that quote from.


Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Also, I would desire you to provide the quote of me insisting that “baptism or holy communion are necessary for salvation”.


You obviously are not paying attention to what I am saying because I did not say that baptism or holy communion are necessary for salvations, but there are some denominations that do make these claims- and they rely on Scripture to back them up.

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 November 2009 - 12:09 PM

You obviously are not paying attention to what I am saying because I did not say that baptism or holy communion are necessary for salvations, but there are some denominations that do make these claims- and they rely on Scripture to back them up.

View Post


No, you said "Furthermore, if you insist that baptism or holy communion are necessary for salvation, then you have turned the Christian faith into a religion of works."

I was paying attention, and you insinuated that I said this somewhere. I'm just requiring you provide the quote so I can respond to it. I personally don't care what denominations claim, because denominations that make claims other than Biblical/scriptural claims, aren't worth giving credence to. And, they'll have to answer for it one day.

For instance, you will have to answer for your blaming everything on God. Next thing you know, you say God made you make such a claim.

#26 Guest_fljea_*

Guest_fljea_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2009 - 12:30 PM

No, you said "Furthermore, if you insist that baptism or holy communion are necessary for salvation, then you have turned the Christian faith into a religion of works."


Now you are just being (intentionally?) obtuse. I was referring to the denominations that use passages in Scripture to say that baptism and/or holy communion are necessary for salvation. I was illustrating the folly of your claim that Scripture is always simple.

I was paying attention, and you insinuated that I said this somewhere.


You must not understand the generic English personal pronoun “you” because I did not insinuate anything of the sort. I was giving an example of where Scripture is not always as simple as you claim it is.

For instance, you will have to answer for your blaming everything on God. Next thing you know, you say God made you make such a claim.

View Post


You still don't get it. I am not blaming God. I am giving an example of what some so-called Christians believe and teach (as in the Gap Theory to explain the alleged scientific age of the earth) to show that the meaning of Scripture is not always simple and straight forward. There is quite a bit in Scripture that is very much open to interpretation- whether you admit it or not.

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 November 2009 - 01:41 PM

You must not understand the generic English personal pronoun “you” because I did not insinuate anything of the sort.  I was giving an example of where Scripture is not always as simple as you claim it is.

View Post


I understand English quite well, and your statement was directed to me, at me. But, if you want to pretend somehow that you were referring to someone else, in your reply to me, with out pointing out that you were referring to someone else. That's all well and good.

#28 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 10 November 2009 - 03:57 PM

God has not called the mighty of this world or the wise and prudent, He has purposed to call the weak and the poor yes and the foolish to believe on Him.

We are not saved because we understand all doctrines and all mysteries, did you never read that Jeremiah, the great prophet of God, over and over he warned the Jews at the time of the exile "do not go down to Egypt" but they did, they disobeyed God. Jeremiah went with them. They were still his people and though he prophesied against them he never held himself aloof from them.

#29 Guest_fljea_*

Guest_fljea_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2009 - 04:19 PM

I understand English quite well, and your statement was directed to me, at me. But, if you want to pretend somehow that you were referring to someone else, in your reply to me, with out pointing out that you were referring to someone else. That's all well and good.

View Post


Go to Hell.

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 November 2009 - 05:31 PM

It seems (I know you wont believe it) the Bible does teach that the apostles affirmed that their oral teaching was authoritative, being on the same level as the written Word of God. However, this was because they were living apostles who spoke with the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13). Several things are important to note here.

Their oral teachings are the content that would become Scripture. Since they had not yet committed all their teaching to writing and since they had not yet died, it was necessary to depend on their oral teaching. However, once the apostles committed their teachings to writing and died, so that they could no longer exercise their living authority, then the Bible alone became our authority for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

The revelatory traditions (teachings) of the apostles were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. Since, it is obvious God deemed it essential for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the writing of twenty-seven books of apostolic teaching, it is not reasonable to suppose that he left out some important revelation in this book. So, however authoritative the apostles were by virtue of their office, only their words in Scripture are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16–17; cf. John 10:35).

Many are the irrefutable reasons to believe that the Bible ALONE is the full and final authority for faith and practice for all believers. All revelations will agree with the scriptures, or they are heretical!

Firstly - the Bible makes it quite clear that God desired that his normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). And as we all know, Moses said in Deuteronomy, “these are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the sons of Israel” (Deut. 29:1). And the book’s of Moses were preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). “So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25–26) along with Moses’s (cf. Josh. 1:7).

Also, “Samuel told the people the ordinances of the kingdom, and wrote them in the book, and placed it before the LORD” (1 Sam. 10:25). God commanded Isaiah “Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it on a scroll, That it may serve in the time to come as a witness forever” (Isa. 30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets’ right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2).

Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “Scripture has it” or “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) more than 90 (NINETY) times, stressing the importance of the written Word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). The apostles were told by Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth (John 16:13). But Jesus said in the very next chapter, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17) and the apostles claimed that their writings to the churches were Scripture inspired of God (2 Peter 3:15–16; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16–17). Clearly, God intended from the very beginning that his revelation be preserved in Scripture. No similar intent is demonstrated to preserve religious traditions.

Secondly - the Bible unquestionably states that inspired Scripture is competent to equip a believer for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16–17). If the Bible is sufficient to do this, then what else is needed. The fact that Scripture, without mention of tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17), supports the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Thirdly - Jesus and the apostles consistently and constantly appealed to the Old Testament (Their Bible) as the FINAL WORD. Jesus appealed to Scripture as the final authority in his dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Of course, since God was still giving new revelation, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority

Fourthly - Jesus made it clear that the existing Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6b ). Jesus applied his statement specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their traditions to misinterpret the Scriptures (sounds familiar doesn’t it).

Fifthly - Solomon affirmed that “every word of God is tested. . . . Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you will be proved a liar” (Prov. 30:5–6 NASB). And John closed the last chapter of the Apocalypse with the same exhortation: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18–19 NASB). While John referred specifically to his revelation, the principle and its warning logically fit the situation of the other books of the Bible. It is clear that God does not wish anything that claims divine authority to be added to his inspired words, whether oral or written.

Lastly - the Bible teaches sola Scriptura by stressing its own status as revelation from God (Gal. 1:12; cf. 1 Cor. 2:11–13), as superior and authoritative over that of the mere words of man. A revelation from God is a divine unveiling or disclosure, but it MUST agree with the written WORD of God. The apostle Paul put the contrast vividly when he wrote, “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11–12). Note that “man” includes the other apostles, of whom Paul adds, “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was” (Gal. 1:17). So even the preaching of an apostle was not on the same level as direct revelation from God. Neither the words of an apostle nor of an angel (Gal. 1:8). This vividly expresses sola Scriptura.

#31 Guest_fljea_*

Guest_fljea_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2009 - 06:18 PM

It seems (I know you wont believe it) the Bible does teach that the apostles affirmed that their oral teaching was authoritative, being on the same level as the written Word of God. However, this was because they were living apostles who spoke with the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13).


Ever hear of apostolic succession? The Bible was not canonized until several centuries after the last Apostle died- the Bible itself doesn’t even bother to tell us exactly what books it is supposed and not supposed to have. So where did the Apostles' authority go after they died?

What you won't believe is the Bible- which clearly rejects sola scriptura. Instead you are using sola scriptura to justify your self-righteous holier-than-thou attitude that will send you straight to Hell. You have been intentionally belligerent towards me by twisting my words to make them say what you need them to say to have an excuse to berate me. If being a Christian means I have to accept people like you as my equal, then I pray to God that I am an atheist.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 November 2009 - 06:38 PM

Ever hear of apostolic succession?  The Bible was not canonized until several centuries after the last Apostle died- the Bible itself doesn’t even bother to tell us exactly what books it is supposed and not supposed to have.  So where did the Apostles' authority go after they died?

View Post


Man’s canonization means nothing. ALL the books we recognize as the New Testament were recognized as infallible scripture when the books and letters were first written well within the in the first century. We still, I believe (and I’m sure there will be those who disagree with me) exert much of the Apostolic authority (see the Great commission) today. Where the problem comes in, is if you attempt to forward doctrine that doesn’t 100% agree with scripture (as all scripture agrees and beards testimony with itself… And the scripture cannot be broken). Good examples are the Book of Mormon and the writings of the Jehovah Witnesses. But, just as heretical are many doctrines in mainstream Christianity today.


What you won't believe is the Bible- which clearly rejects sola scriptura. 

View Post

This is totally incorrect and unscriptural. As I already pointed out in my lengthy post above.


Instead you are using sola scriptura to justify your self-righteous holier-than-thou attitude that will send you straight to Hell.  You have been intentionally belligerent towards me by twisting my words to make them say what you need them to say to have an excuse to berate me.  If being a Christian means I have to accept people like you as my equal, then I pray to God that I am an atheist.

View Post


Wow, you really need some help fljea. I haven’t been “intentionally belligerent” towards you, I pointed out your inconsistent Biblical views.

With emphasis on:

"The answers to these questions determine whether or not you worship a God of death or a God of life. I refuse to recognize, let alone worship, any god that created living things just to let them die. I refuse to recognize, let alone worship, any god that would put mankind in a sinful environment, i.e., create mankind after Lucifer/Satan/Devil had rebelled against God, and then tell mankind “I will kill you if you disobey me”.

Totally UN-Biblical

#33 Guest_fljea_*

Guest_fljea_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2009 - 06:42 PM

Man’s canonization means nothing.


Then when, where and how has God ever told us exactly what books are and are not in the Bible?

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 November 2009 - 06:48 PM

Then when, where and how has God ever told us exactly what books are and are not in the Bible?

View Post


When it is consistent with the writings of the Apostles. Did you not read my previous postings?

#35 Guest_fljea_*

Guest_fljea_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2009 - 07:34 PM

When it is consistent with the writings of the Apostles. Did you not read my previous postings?

View Post


That doesn’t answer my question. There are numerous writings that date to roughly the same time as the NT and which have been attributed to the Apostles. Without post-apostolic church authority and a canonization process that had a lot of human input we wouldn’t be able tot tell the difference between the NT and these apocryphal writings.

The Bible never says that any writing that is consistent with what the Apostles wrote is Biblical. The Church with the backing of the Holy Ghost acting long after the last Apostle was dead determined what is and is not in the Bible.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 November 2009 - 07:38 PM

That doesn’t answer my question.  There are numerous writings that date to roughly the same time as the NT and which have been attributed to the Apostles. Without post-apostolic church authority and a canonization process that had a lot of human input we wouldn’t be able tot tell the difference between the NT and these apocryphal writings.

View Post


Name them... Show me! And don't use the words "date to roughly" loosely, because I'm not sure you know the dates of these documents.

#37 Guest_fljea_*

Guest_fljea_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2009 - 08:19 PM

Name them... Show me! And don't use the words "date to roughly" loosely, because I'm not sure you know the dates of these documents.

View Post


http://en.wikipedia...._to_the_Hebrews

While no known copy of this writing is known to exist, the Church Fathers date it to the early Church saying it was used by Jewish Christians- implying that it was in use before the Church lost its Jewish associations around the year 70 AD. Irenaeus, who was born sometime before the year 125 AD attributes this gospel to Matthew.

http://en.wikipedia....pherd_of_Hermas

This document dates to the 2nd century AD and was accepted by many Christians at the time as being authentic. And at the same time many Christians rejected the Book of Revelation.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Acts_of_Paul

This document has been dated to 160 AD.

http://en.wikipedia....tles_of_Clement

The Epistles of Clement (alleged 4th Bishop of Rome) dates to 96 AD- roughly the same date attributed to the Book of Revelation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

You also have to consider the Didache, a collection of Christian writings that was used as a teaching tool. Wikipedia gives a date from the late 1st to early 2nd century. But I have seen other references that say the Didache pre-dates the Gospels.

#38 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 November 2009 - 11:34 PM

Go to Hell.

View Post


For that you just earned yourself a 7 day suspension from the forum.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users