Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?

    Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic

    https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?

    Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject

    https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042

Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?

mondar wrote:

This is going to get into the term "apostle." In the NT not all apostles were the same. The 12 had special memories to remember the word's of Jesus Christ (John 14:26). The 12 have special privelages in that they will someday sit on 12 thrones and rule the 12 tribes. Barnabas was an apostle, but was not in this category of apostles, he was not one of the 12. The 12 gave us our special revelation. When Ephesians talks about the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the Church, it is not referring to Barnabas, but to the 12 and Paul.

Not all the twelve were, as I call them, writing apostles whose letters ended up in the NT - those whose writings did were Matthew, John, Peter and James. Of the remainder some have non canonical works attributed to them eg gospel according to Thomas, and Barnabus... Of the other NT writers Paul, Mark and Luke - (only Paul I think?) was called an apostle.

The reference in Ephesians simply mentions apostles and prophets - but does not name them. I would disagree with you on this point and say that any 'apostle and prophet' is qualified to lay the foundation of the church but I do not assume that they all did. I would also say Barnabus was voted in (by lot) by the original 11 remaining apostles into the circle of 12 of which Paul, though an apostle par excellance, was not. Remember that Moses was not allowed to set foot into the promised land - God is not a respecter of persons.

The term apostle means "sent one." A person can be sent by Jesus Christ for the purpose of special revelation. This would violate the concept of sola scriptura. The concept of a missionary being a sent one by a Church does not have the concept of special revelation. That would not be a violation of sola scriptura.

I don't doubt that a person can be sent by Jesus Christ for the purpose of special revelation (scripture), an example being the apostle John. Nor do I assume that all revelation is written down, and not all revelation is intended for the Canon.

I (and the church I attend) would deny further revelation beyond the scripture. So then, in that sense of the word, we do not have apostles and prophets. We have the scriptures, and it is sufficient, and the only inerrant source for our faith and practice.

I appreciate what you are saying and have a similar background. Since you are a Calvinist at least be aware that Calvin himself believed that God could raise up a prophet in special circumstances though he was basically a cessationist. This begs the question as to what such a prophet would say? Then there are the two prophets of Rev 11 - follow this one over the coming years in your church and see how a cessationist theology affects interpretation. Its not a question of changing beliefs but seeing how the arguments are constructed and evaluated and what assumptions are brought to scripture that affect interpretation. Thanks again.

take care
 
My personal view is that Scripture Alone is the FINAL authority in matters of Christian doctrine.
Not overly complicated...
 
mondar

How would sola scripture take into account non-writing prophets
Sola scriptura allows for the development of the scriptures. It does not speak to times of revelation. It assumes two times of revelation, one centered around Moses (the anti-type of Christ) and the other around the Logos. Christ revealed the Father to the 12 and Paul. They revealed the Father to many. This revelation was both oral and written. The oral and written revelation of the 12 and Paul was and is inerrant and infallible.

My concern is not with oral tradition and to simplify things lets assume that nothing survives of what non writing apostles and prophets said and did. For instance after Malachi I was taught that there was about 400years of prophet silence - the prophetic silence is not a problem for God- but to say that there was 400 years of prophetic silence is based upon a few assumptions that are questionable:

1. there were no non-writing prophets in the intertestimental period.
2. that if there were writing prophets their works would have to survive and end up in the Canon.

Now think about the passing down of these traditions. The written form (the early manuscripts) were obviously not protected from error. There are variants. The only people to actually claim infallible variants are the KJV only people. No some claim infallibility to their oral tradition, but claim no infallibility to the scribal transmission of the written record. Does that make sense?

No so it is not something I would choose to defend.

So if error crept into the written record by scribal error, what happened to the more easily changable oral record? The great advantage of the written records is that it changes far far less then anything passed down in oral form.

So then to answer your question more directly, sola scriptura affirms oral revelation by the original apostles, but denies any infallible oral transmission.

I have it ---- there can easily be legitmate works of God by genuine 'apostles and prophets' about which no written or oral tradition survives!

You know I did read something about Luther being a prophet once. If forget where. It does not matter. Neither Luther nor Calvin claimed apostolic authority. What they claimed was that they were returning to the original message of the apostles recorded in the NT. Had they claimed apostolic authority, they could have given a new revelation, that is not what they did. The perceived of themselves as restoring the message of the original apostles, not giving fresh apostolic or prophetic revelation.

Luther and Calvin had their (sometimes differing) interpretation about what the original message was. If they were not apostles (and I have some further comment on this) what authority did they have (for their interpretation) and where did they get it from?

If I can make a suggestion, I feel cautious about violating the rules of this forum. The admin has created rules which forbid any RC protestant dialogue in this section. I would suggest we go to the 1 on 1 section.

By the way, I do remember Francis saying something like what you speak of, but I dont recall the exact teaching.

Yes, I would question the idea of continued revelation.

I don't mind - assumptions about prophets and apostles and their role in revelation reevaluated? If this is of interest I happy to switch to 1 on 1.

blessings
 
stranger said:
...............

I don't mind - assumptions about prophets and apostles and their role in revelation reevaluated? If this is of interest I happy to switch to 1 on 1.

blessings
I sent a thread in to the mods for their approval. When they allow it to be posted, we can continue there. I titled the thread something like "Is an infallible interpreter needed?"
 
Ask a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, any theme or rather, "anything outside" of
scripture is not biblical but a good reason to stay away from anything outside of
is to, look in the book of Revelation, look there for your answer... :study


turnorburn
 
turnorburn said:
Ask a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, any theme or rather, "anything outside" of
scripture is not biblical but a good reason to stay away from anything outside of
is to, look in the book of Revelation, look there for your answer... :study


turnorburn
Or catholics about these ECFs and some of their unscriptural nonsense...such as pennance and confession to priests...
 
follower of Christ said:
turnorburn said:
Ask a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, any theme or rather, "anything outside" of
scripture is not biblical but a good reason to stay away from anything outside of
is to, look in the book of Revelation, look there for your answer... :study


turnorburn
Or catholics about these ECFs and some of their unscriptural nonsense...such as pennance and confession to priests...

I thought the topic was "Is Scripture Alone is Biblical?" What does "pennance and confession to priests" have to do with it? :confused

:topictotopic
 
Sorry about that SteveB.
I do wish youd have left my response to RickW's post because my statement was relevant to the topic, as I explained to him.

I really wish FrancisDales would just ignore my posts, quite frankly, so then we wouldnt have to talk to each other.
 
amg0364730 said:
Is Sola Scriptura is Biblical? I need your views on this. :wave

Sola Scriptura is absolutely Biblical.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 12:32
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 17:11-12
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Revelations 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.



Jesus Himself used nothing but scriptures to overcome the devil.

Matthew 4:1-11
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test." Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only." Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.


:study
 
follower of Christ said:
Sorry about that SteveB.
I do wish youd have left my response to RickW's post because my statement was relevant to the topic, as I explained to him.

I really wish FrancisDales would just ignore my posts, quite frankly, so then we wouldnt have to talk to each other.

If you don't want me to respond to you, don't make such silly statements. I don't interject on most topics, but when I see such as yours, I feel a responsibility to others to point out your mistakes. Don't take it personally and feel the need to call me names. Concentrate on your walk, not on brinksmanship.

Regards
 
Tina said:
Sola Scriptura is absolutely Biblical.

Tina, I respectfully disagree, and will provide comments on your passages.

Tina said:
Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 12:32
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar...

If you really believe this, then you should toss the New Testament away, since it "adds" to the Scriptures the Jews already had.

This does not make sola scriptura "biblical". Quite the opposite. It is only a "non sola scriptura" view that maintains the integrity of the NEW Testament, sister.

"Sola Scriptura" believers do not realize it, but they put aside this axiom when it comes time to determine what IS Scriptures. They overlook that one cannot know what IS the Scriptures by a "sola scriptura" viewpoint, since the individual books of Scriptures are not self-authenticating. Very rarely do they call themselves "Scriptures" and requires an extra-biblical declaration by the Church that says "THIS IS SCRIPTURE, THE WORD OF GOD". Thus, sola scriptura fails immediately. But let us continue.

Tina said:
1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

This refers to quite a specific case, not an overall encompassing view of a sola scriptura attitude. Paul is speaking about people who are judging him and the teachings of Apollos and others. Not about a concept that all teachings from God are found only within a book. Remember, Paul HIMSELF had taught the Corinthians by oral AND written means. Never did Paul say his oral teachings are now abrogated and confined to written media. Paul told the Galatians that he taught the Gospel. Whether he wrote it or preached it verbally was not an issue.

Tina said:
Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

I don't see where this addresses sola scriptura in the slightest. It is merely Luke giving us a summary account, investigating as any good historian would. Nowhere does he say that things NOT included in his writings are inconsequential or to be ignored. In addition, one can rest assured that Luke's sources were NOT "written accounts" only. Clearly, Luke did not include everything that happened during the period his writing covers.

Tina said:
Acts 17:11-12
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

The Thessalonian Jews compared Paul's message to the OT Scriptures and did not find Christ. The Berean Jews compared Paul's message to the OT Scriptures and found the Gospel worthy of belief. This does not say that all doctrines are found in the Sacred Scriptures, or that one cannot draw doctrines IMPLIED in Sacred Scriptures. For example, where would the Bereans find ANYTHING about the Eucharist, the breaking of the bread that all Christian communities did, all the time??? They learned this by oral transmission of the Gospel, not by reading Leviticus or the Psalms...

Again, no Sola Scriptura here. Just "Luke" telling us that the Bereans were worthy because they believed the Gospel. One is worthy if they believe the Gospel, even without the use of Sacred Scriptures. Men in Gaul had no scriptures during the time of Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) and were called the same thing, true Christians, because they heard and believed.

Tina said:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The easiest way to see the fallacy of your point is to look at Ephesians 4:11-13 to show ANOTHER means by which men are "thoroughly equipped". If another means exists, then sola is done.

Tina said:
Revelations 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Then you must toss aside the rest of the NT, since the book of Revelation was not written with the rest of the New Testament. The 27 books were added to make one book much later. Thus, this says that Revelation is to be maintained and the rest are not to be added to it, so the other 26 books are to be eliminated. The problem with this, again, is the very first quotations from Deuteronomy... They contradict, if we take them the way you intend.[/quote]

Tina said:
Jesus Himself used nothing but scriptures to overcome the devil.

Matthew 4:1-11
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test." Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only." Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

Sola scriptura is not scriptural. This does not prove it, either...

Sister, Jesus went into the desert to PRAY. Not to read! He fasted and prayed, moving His heart and mind to God. May I suggest that we both try this more often, so that we may come to realize that a relationship with Christ is more than just reading a book? Jesus overcame the devil with prayer, constant and secure in the knowledge that He could trust the Father. Proof texting, while certainly useful in apologetics in making a point, is NOT how we defeat the devil.

:pray

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
If you don't want me to respond to you, don't make such silly statements.
I think we BOTH know Im going to say whatever I FEEL to say within the confines of the rules of this forum, gent..so you will have to learn to live with seeing it.

I don't interject on most topics, but when I see such as yours, I feel a responsibility to others to point out your mistakes.
When you can actually do so, give me a ring.
you arent required to believe the truth, sadly enough. Truth it remains.

Don't take it personally and feel the need to call me names. Concentrate on your walk, not on brinksmanship.

Regards
Youre right.
Next time instead of using words, I'll do what you do and find a sarcastic little smiley that gets the same thought across. That way I can feel justified as you seem to.
 
To repeat...
follower of Christ said:
My personal view is that Scripture Alone is the FINAL authority in matters of Christian doctrine.
Not overly complicated...
Those who dont agree or like it dont have to....

SCRIPTURE TEACHES DOCTRINE..thats what it IS by its very nature....the TEACHINGS of our God to His children.
Thus it IS sufficient FOR TEACHING doctrine...and it IS the FINAL authority in matters OF doctrine...end of story...


.
 
Again, no Sola Scriptura here. Just "Luke" telling us that the Bereans were worthy because they believed the Gospel. One is worthy if they believe the Gospel, even without the use of Sacred Scriptures. Men in Gaul had no scriptures during the time of Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) and were called the same thing, true Christians, because they heard and believed.
what it teaches us that that the Bereans werent fools who just took the words of mere MEN AS gospel until it was CONFIRMED with the inspired word of GOD.
WE shall do no differently regardless of those who would make mockery of Gods inspired word..



"Sola Scriptura" believers do not realize it, but they put aside this axiom when it comes time to determine what IS Scriptures. They overlook that one cannot know what IS the Scriptures by a "sola scriptura" viewpoint, since the individual books of Scriptures are not self-authenticating. Very rarely do they call themselves "Scriptures" and requires an extra-biblical declaration by the Church that says "THIS IS SCRIPTURE, THE WORD OF GOD". Thus, sola scriptura fails immediately. But let us continue.
Except that WE trust GOD in the matter.
Paul shows conclusively that the Jews were entrusted with the words of God (the OT) and we see that they were preserved.
And by the SAME token God has ALSO preserved His NT thru sinful, disobedient men.

I dont need to the 'church' to tell me what Gods word is. I have a bible in my hand, old testament and New, and know God has preserved it for me.
 
Sister, Jesus went into the desert to PRAY. Not to read!
And uh...the NEW testament had not been GIVEN for doctrine at that point, now had it, FD ????

And Jesus was GOD, what HE did isnt always what WE end up doing....HE didnt NEED to have the written word to confirm anything because HE was the very God who gave the scriptures.
Your example is quite irrelevant.

WE, on the other hand, ARENT God...so WE need to use Gods WRITTEN word to confirm legitimate doctrine...as the Bereans had to do.
The Bereans went directly to Gods WRITTEN word for CONFIRMATION of truth...and we WILL do the same.
 
The Authority of Gods word, the Bible
Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that the scriptures as a whole ARE Gods words...His law, His precepts, His instruction to His people and that the final authority in matter of instructions is His word.

Also see this article for more proof about the bible being Gods word:
>> The Law of Moses IS the Law of God.

Supporting Evidence
Firstly we will establish that God HAS given His instruction and HIs precepts to man and it has been recorded for us in the writings we see in the bible.
Here is one such evidence where we can see very clearly that the law of Moses as we see it in writing in our bibles IS the 'word' of God;
And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:
(1Ki 2:3 KJV)
HIS ways, HIS commandments, HIS testimonies AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Law of Moses.
Gods law very much witnesses for itself that it IS His law.
We see VERY clear evidence in the above passage that cannot be denied except by the blind, the illiterate and those with agendas, that what is in the law of Moses IS the very words of the Lord our GOD. There is no escaping this fact for those who are honest.

Paul also says to Timothy:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2Ti 3:15-17 KJV)
This most definitely applies DIRECTLY to the OLD testament as the New Testament had not yet been finished or canonized.
Notice Pauls use of 'ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God"....thus the conclusion is, assuming that Paul knew what the Hebrew scriptures were comprised of, that the entire old testament collection of 'scripture' WAS INSPIRED by God, thus WAS GODS WORD as a collective whole.

And this is where we have to actually TRUST that GOD DID actively guide me to preserve what HE wanted preserved, otherwise individual books may not be inspired and thus Pauls words to Timothy are fairly useless/meaningless as we couldnt even begin to know what actually belonged and what didnt with any certainty.
Not EVERY Old Testament book says that God is speaking directly, but we dont just assume that Paul was LYING when he said that ALL scripture in the Old testament is 'God breathed'. No, we ASSUME that Paul wasnt a liar and even those books that DONT say God is speaking directly ARE STILL His inspired word, thus ARE 'Gods word'.

2.0
The question then is are the letters and historical accounts of the New Testament 'Gods Word' or the words of men ?
Lets look at the New Testament and see what we find...

Paul shows here in no uncertain terms that what he is writing ARE the commandments of the Lord.
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
(1Co 14:36-37 KJV)
Paul surely presents that what he has written here to the Corinthians IS the commandments of God, thus what he writes IS the 'word' of God, otherwise Paul is a liar.
Paul is also VERY clear to be sure to alert the reader to when HE is speaking his own mind. Notice here that Paul makes plain distinction between the instruction of the Lord and when he is speaking his own thoughts in the matter;
Now to those who have married I command, yet not I, but the Lord: A wife is not to be separated from her husband-- and even if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband--and a husband is not to divorce his wife.
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her.
(1Co 7:10-12 EMTV)
Paul has no need to deceive. When he is not speaking the Lords instruction he apparently isnt afraid to state the fact. So there is no reason to believe on Pauls end that when he speaks words of instruction and guidance, and even just for encouragement, that he IS speaking by inspiration of the Lord unless Paul says otherwise.


3.0
What is the TRUE churches position where Gods word is concerned ?
The church does not DICTATE that the scriptures are Gods word, no she only CONFIRMS and AGREES in the matter by the witness of the Spirit of truth who indwells the church body, through the internal evidences within the scriptures themselves and by the many witnesses throughout history whom also evidence that the bible is Gods word to His people. By 'internal evidences' is meant any EVIDENCE that shows inspiration, not some unreasonable demand that the text state 'this is Gods word' which isnt the only type of evidence for inspiration that exists, yet those with agendas might demand.
Gods does not exist BECAUSE of the church, the church exists BECAUSE of God. Nor does His word exist BECAUSE the church, but the church exists BECAUSE of Him.
Men come and men go. Church doctrines change with the winds. One day a man is called a heretic, the next he is a 'separated brother'.
We cannot trust the passing whims of man. The only tangible thing we can trust for doctrine is Gods word which does not change with each new decade and every new church leader (popes, pastors, etc) and their wavering views.
The church does not decided what is and isnt Gods word, Gods word IS His word regardless. Each word that He has inspired IS His word whether the church accepts those words or not. The church can only decide to believe that the words ARE or arent His. She cannot change the fact that they are.
We either have faith in GOD that He has preserved His word, or we do not.
GOD is the source of our even believing in Him, thus HE is the source that convinced men of inspiration when canon was being brought together, and so we have FAITH in HIM that the bible is HIS word. Not because some man told us to believe, but because His Spirit witnesses with our Spirit and because His word HAS endured for a testimony to His church that He has preserved it.

The Bible teaches that the Spirit will guide us into all truth.
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will announce to you things to come.
(Joh 16:13 EMTV)
It also teaches us that men would arise from our very ranks, wolves who teach heresies from among ourselves, not sparing the flock...
Act 20:29 For I know this, that savage wolves will come in after my departure, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also from among you yourselves will arise men speaking things having been distorted, in order to draw away the disciples after them.
So we cannot even trust those among us with any absolute certainty, regardless of their claims. Ultimately we can only really trust the word of God that has been protected and preserved by Him, just as He did with the Old Covenant scriptures, we trust that he has done with the new, the internal and historical lending evidence that our faith in Him is very much justified.

What this comes down to is faith, not what we hear from men.
If we CANNOT trust God then we are in the wrong religion.
If we CAN trust God, then we CAN trust Him that He has not let His true assembly be deprived of the instruction He gave for her in the beginning of this age by letters and historical accounts and even prophecy as represented in our bibles.

If God did not preserve His word and the church has been left without instruction, then that means God has failed.
Since God did not fail then we can be assured that the writings by Paul and others that HE WANTED preserved for His people have BEEN preserved for them.
We trust GOD, not man, that His word HAS been kept for us even though some have tried to destroy it and others have tried to shroud it in ancient tongues to keep us from knowing it.
Gods word has prevailed because GOD has protected it, just as He has protected His church.
 
follower of Christ said:
I think we BOTH know Im going to say whatever I FEEL to say within the confines of this forum, gent..so you will have to learn to live with seeing it.

No problem, it was you shedding the tears about me replying to your posts... Sorry to rain on your idea that this is your personal soapbox to preach from...

Regards
 
follower of Christ said:
SCRIPTURE TEACHES DOCTRINE..thats what it IS by its very nature....the TEACHINGS of our God to His children.
Thus it IS sufficient FOR TEACHING doctrine...and it IS the FINAL authority in matters OF doctrine...end of story...[/color]

.

Several presumptions are made that you are not addressing...

1. What IS the Scriptures? A community must agree on that, since the contents are not self-authenticating.
2. The intent of Scriptures, when written, was not to be an all-encompassing text book. They are letters to communities who need help and succour in the face of human tendencies and the devil. There is no indication that the author INTENDED to cover EVERY theological issue, thus, making sola scriptura void.
3. The Bible says it is USEFUL for teaching doctrine. NOT by itself, as Ephesians 4:11-13 points out.

Regards
 
follower of Christ said:
francisdesales said:
Sister, Jesus went into the desert to PRAY. Not to read!

And uh...the NEW testament had not been GIVEN for doctrine at that point, now had it, FD ????

Christ was quoting the OLD Testament, friend. Your point is worthless...

The fact of the matter is that men can come to know God without ever reading a page of the Bible, making sola scriptura null and void.

Regards
 
Back
Top