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?

francisdesales said:
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
No, my problem with you is that you know we disagree, but you continually find some way to provoke something with me. I figure its that you have nothing else to do on that particular day.

Now, lets get back to the topic.
 
francisdesales said:
Several presumptions are made that you are not addressing...
No, several that YOU claim are not being addressed.

1. What IS the Scriptures? A community must agree on that, since the contents are not self-authenticating.
What are the OT scriptures then, gent ?
PROVE that even your church OR the Jews got it right ....you CANT...NEITHER can they.
When its all said and done the ENTIRE BIBLE can be subject to corruption/suspicion when MEN are the ones who have said what belongs and what doesnt.

GOD is the ONLY being that can be trusted. He preserved His OT scriptures by the hands of the hardhearted jew...and He did the same with the NT thru the hands of disobedient men as well.
2. The intent of Scriptures, when written, was not to be an all-encompassing text book.
Sorry but that is YOUR assertion and likely based on what your church as demanded that you believe.
You werent there, you didnt write it, so you have NO authority to sit here and tell us what the INTENT was, now do you ?


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.
Fallacious.
The scripture IS our source of doctrine, therefore it is the FINAL authority in matters OF doctrine.
You dont have to agree, gent...the truth remains....

3. The Bible says it is USEFUL for teaching doctrine. NOT by itself, as Ephesians 4:11-13 points out.

Regards
Boy you really have the typical double standard, dont ya ?
You just told someone else that their passage didnt actually make the argument they were presenting...and yet here YOU are doing the exact same thing :naughty

Im sorry, show us where this says (READERS, this was written BEFORE the NT as we know it was finished and canonized...ie no 'bible' existed as of yet as far as the NT goes) 'the bible isnt the final authority in matters of doctrine'...or anything even close...
 
follower of Christ said:
To repeat...[quote="follower of Christ":3n9kcxov]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...


.[/quote:3n9kcxov]

I will agree, if you can find this in Scripture. Can you?
 
francisdesales said:
Christ was quoting the OLD Testament, friend. Your point is worthless...
Christ is quoting the oracles of GOD...
I take it YOUR assertion is that the New Testament ISNT the oracles of God, then ?

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.
Laughable.
Such a case where a man has no bible has nothing to do with the bible BEING the final authority in matters of doctrine WHERE one exists.
Not even a good try....and see my signature, FD...I put that passage there specifically for you some time ago....
 
dadof10 said:
follower of Christ said:
To repeat...[quote="follower of Christ":zu9hch3k]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...


.

I will agree, if you can find this in Scripture. Can you?[/quote:zu9hch3k]
Such a pathetic, illogical argument.
So your assertion is that if the bible doesnt SAY "the bible is Gods word" then it ISNT Gods word by default ?
 
Now for that "circular" thing to rear its head again :screwloose
 
No lines have been crossed as yet but it's getting close.
<nudge>
 
I posted this previously.
Any responses from those who seem to claim that the bible (NT) isnt the 'scriptures' or the word of God ?
Particularly part 2.0a ?


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.
 
For you readers, take note again of Pauls NEW testament words...
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)
Now HOW can ANYONE claim that the Pauls writings are NOT the FINAL authority in a Christian doctrinal matter when Paul clearly states that his words given ARE the COMMANDMENTS of the Lord Himself ???

It is beyond reason and even logic to claim that what Paul wrote ISNT the final authority in a doctrinal issue when the writing itself IS Gods COMMANDS.

One would have to be arguing doctrine with God Himself to dispute that what Paul wrote wasnt authoritatively final.
 
follower of Christ said:
dadof10 said:
I will agree, if you can find this in Scripture. Can you?
Such a pathetic, illogical argument.
So your assertion is that if the bible doesnt SAY "the bible is Gods word" then it ISNT Gods word by default ?

No, my assertion is that the Bible doesn't teach your assumptions. My only point is that the following DOCTRINES are not taught even implicitly within Scripture:

"My personal view is that Scripture Alone is the FINAL authority in matters of Christian doctrine."

"Thus it IS sufficient FOR TEACHING doctrine...and it IS the FINAL authority in matters OF doctrine...end of story..."


How is expecting someone who believes Scripture is the "final authority", to actually PROVE it using Scripture, illogical? :shrug
 
follower of Christ said:
Not even a good try....and see my signature, FD...I put that passage there specifically for you some time ago....

Wow, FOC, he's really in your head if you go so far as to change your signature for him only.
 
Things really need to settle down in here, especially the ad hominem attacks. I'm assuming you're all adults so please start acting like it.

Thanks.
 
follower of Christ said:
No, my problem with you is that you know we disagree, but you continually find some way to provoke something with me. I figure its that you have nothing else to do on that particular day.

A high sense of self-worth is not conducive to receiving a differing opinion from someone else. Don't take it so personally. It has nothing to do with harassing you personally...

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

You seem to suggest that the commands of the Lord ceased after the Old Testament. Nowhere in these scriptures is there mention that God will cease to reveal His commands / His words after the Old Testament. The keys words to note here are not just those I underlined, but those that I’ve now highlighted in bold as well.

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...


francisdesales said:
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 means Beliefs + Traditions = Biblical.

In other words, we do not add to or subtract any belief or tradition that do not conform to God’s Word. That’s exactly what the above scriptures say – hence, they prove Sola Scriptura. These scriptures do not necessarily prove the integrity of the New Testament because the New Testament is already undoubtedly the Word of God, with many other references given there not to add to or take away from scriptures ...


francisdesales said:
"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".

I absolutely agree with you on this, and thank the early Church and fathers for that.


francisdesales said:
Thus, sola scriptura fails immediately.

This I disagree. Do you know what exactly defines Sola Scriptura?

I don’t think you quite understand the concept. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines and traditions. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same however, cannot be said of traditions.


francisdesales 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.

Although Paul taught both oral and written traditions, in this passage he is not saying “Do not go beyond what is oral teaching†. On the contrary, his emphasis is on showing the supremacy of scripture, ie written over oral tradition. What makes this even more concrete is the fact that during that time in 54AD, only a few of the NT books were written, yet the church still warned to abide within the scriptures. Already at that time of transition (50 – 90 AD) between 100% oral (30 – 50 AD) and 100% written (96 AD – present), written word was given the highest standard and limiting factor.


francisdesales 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.

We can’t possibly ignore what we do NOT know, can we? We have no idea what was unwritten by Luke that was inconsequential.

While it’s certainly true that Luke did not include everything and that he could have other unwritten personal sources, the point is that Luke wrote an orderly account so that they may know the certainty of the things taught. Which obviously and naturally follows that the unwritten accounts are the uncertain things that Luke did not deem fit for teaching. Again this clearly shows the superiority of written over oral. The former “oral†things that MUST be taught, Luke translated into “writtenâ€Â, so that they become certain.


francisdesales 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.

The Bereans EXAMINED scriptures every day. That’s precisely what application of Sola Scriptura is all about. Examining traditions against scriptures to find the truth. This passage is clearly teaching that Sola Scriptura is the right way. As I explained earlier, Sola Scriptura does not negate traditions, but only CONFIRMS authentic ones.

Isn’t Eucharist biblical?


francisdesales said:
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.

You said it yourself – the men had no scriptures during that time, DURING THAT TIME , so obviously oral preaching had to be appealed to during that time as long as scriptures weren’t available.


francisdesales 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.

Ephesians 4:11-13
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.


If you are referring to apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers who will teach us scriptures, I absolutely agree with you that it is another means by which men are “thoroughly equipped†… There’s no fallacy involved at all. You know why? Because it is ENTIRELY BIBLICAL – again Sola Scriptura is proved. We haven’t violated God’s Word in any way. I reiterate that traditions are perfectly fine as long as they do NOT contradict scripture.


francisdesales 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.

This is the final reminder from God not to add to or take away from His Words. Final reminder does NOT means ONLY reminder. From Deuteronomy to many other scriptures up till this final book of canon, God has issued many such warnings. I think by now, any Bible believer should get the message loud and clear : Sola Scriptura !


francisdesales said:
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.

What Jesus said is pretty loud and clear : “It is written†, “It is written†, “It is written†…. He did NOT say to the devil : “It is heardâ€Â, “It is spoken†or “It is orally transmitted†.

He quoted written scriptures, NOT unwritten traditions. Fasting and praying are also traditions that are not to be abandoned by believers as they are entirely scriptural and what Jesus Himself did. I’m not sure how Catholics overcome the devil these days, but the Protestants/Christians overcome the adversary by scriptures exactly as Jesus did.


:amen
 
dadof10 said:
No, my assertion is that the Bible doesn't teach your assumptions.
please...
Ive given proof that the bible IS the word of God....so your argument is WITH God if your claim is that the bible (ie GODS commands and instruction) isnt THE authority.

The bible doesnt have to say precisely what some of you here demand with your semantics games...


My only point is that the following DOCTRINES are not taught even implicitly within Scripture:

"My personal view is that Scripture Alone is the FINAL authority in matters of Christian doctrine."

"Thus it IS sufficient FOR TEACHING doctrine...and it IS the FINAL authority in matters OF doctrine...end of story..."
See above...and read my other longer post...
How is expecting someone who believes Scripture is the "final authority", to actually PROVE it using Scripture, illogical? :shrug
AGain, is GOD the final authority ?
HIS word is as well.
There is no twist you are going to put on this, no semantics games you will play, that is going to change the facts here.
 
dadof10 said:
follower of Christ said:
Not even a good try....and see my signature, FD...I put that passage there specifically for you some time ago....

Wow, FOC, he's really in your head if you go so far as to change your signature for him only.
Please ....
I do a LOT of things in response to absurdity I see.
 
follower of Christ said:
I posted this previously.
Any responses from those who seem to claim that the bible (NT) isnt the 'scriptures' or the word of God ?
Particularly part 2.0a ?

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.

I don't normally respond to off-site links to make your supposed points. Do it yourself, and please summarize, I don't have the time to answer long-winded posts that someone ELSE made, rather than you... I am responding to you, not Mr. Tipton

However, since you asked about 2.0, I'll answer it and you may go from there...

follower of Christ said:
2.0
The question then is are the letters and historical accounts of the New Testament 'Gods Word' or the words of men ?

Before we begin, let me comment that this is not an issue. We both agree that the NT is God's Word. Never have I said that the New Testament is ONLY "words of men". Our differences is how we CONCLUDE that the said writings are Sacred and God's Word. You rely on a circular argument, I rely, by faith, in those who have told me it is God's Word, the Church. So we see you start with a straw man argument...

follower of Christ said:
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.


Easy with the illogical conclusions. You are reading your own theology into what Paul said (and DID NOT say...)

The issue is whether sola scriptura is the ONLY rule of faith. By Paul saying what he wrote is the Commandments of God (which I do not dispute, or have ever disputed here) does NOT mean that ONLY what he wrote is a Commandment from God!

What an amazing leap of presumption.

That is the fatal presumption of your case here. You presume because Paul writes something that is from God, it is the ONLY MEDIUM by which Christians can know God's Word. Preposterous poppycock..

Paul HIMSELF is supremely confident that what he teaches is God's Word, and it is HIS TEACHINGS that are infallible, not the means of transmission. No matter HOW he teaches, HE believes it is God's Word -and it has authority with his audience because they ACCEPT the message. No matter HOW he gives the message, it is infallible. Penning it doesn't suddenly make them "infallible", my friend.

Paul CLEARLY tells the Thessalonians to hold onto the traditions (teachings) that they had received - BOTH oral AND written. I find NOWHERE in Sacred Scriptures where this COMMANDMENT FROM GOD (as you have stated) has been abrogated, set aside, or made inconsequential.

Thus, to wit, sola scriputra falls.

NOT on whether the Bible is the Word of God or not (thanks to your deviation...). But because it is NOT ALONE as a teaching medium to instruct and perfect the saints to do the Will of God. Reflect on Ephesians 4:11-13 and see what this short passage does for "sola scriptura".

No doubt you will grant me that the first century of Christianity is a stunning success to the growth of Christianity WITHOUT the useage of the New Testament? Thus, a person finds the Bible USEFUL, not NECESSARY to the point of being the ONLY means of hearing God's Word. Millions are converted to God on the words of pastors and preachers alone. As we know, these men do more than just read the Scriptures to their flocks...

The issue is not whether the Bible is God's Word, but rather, whether it is the ONLY place we find the infallible teachings of God. Since the Bible never states that, and even ACTIVELY ENDORSING ANOTHER SOURCE (the CHURCH), we can safely know that the Bible is NOT the sole source of our faith.

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
A high sense of self-worth is not conducive to receiving a differing opinion from someone else.
Lets leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals :yes
Secondly, Im clearly not receptive or open to your opinion, FD. I'd think we'd have figured that out months ago during the last sparring match we had over this very topic...kwim ? :)


Don't take it so personally. It has nothing to do with harassing you personally...

Regards
The claim is easy enough to make....

Back to the topic, please.
 
francisdesales said:
I don't normally respond to off-site links to make your supposed points. Do it yourself....I am responding to you, not Mr. Tipton
Uh..I think Ive been VERY clear that that is MY work from that site...ie I AM Mr. Tipton.
If you dont want to cope with the facts, then dont, but lets not play games...
 
francisdesales said:
Before we begin, let me comment that this is not an issue. We both agree that the NT is God's Word. Never have I said that the New Testament is ONLY "words of men". Our differences is how we CONCLUDE that the said writings are Sacred and God's Word. You rely on a circular argument, I rely, by faith, in those who have told me it is God's Word, the Church. So we see you start with a straw man argument...
Inevitable, isnt it ;)
Honestly, I really dont care what you want to call it, FD.
What I see is a man who has lost the debate having to rely on secular reasoning to keep from accepting fact.


Easy with the illogical conclusions. You are reading your own theology into what Paul said (and DID NOT say...)
Not even a good try :lol
Paul is either speaking the commandments of God Himself....or Paul is a liar....so which is it ?

The issue is whether sola scriptura is the ONLY rule of faith. By Paul saying what he wrote is the Commandments of God (which I do not dispute, or have ever disputed here) does NOT mean that ONLY what he wrote is a Commandment from God!
Yes, yes...I realize some would like to add 100 ECFs into the mix, but sorry, for some reason the CC decided to NOT include these men within the canon...your argument is with them, not us....
 
Back
Top