Bible Study Sola scripture ?

[th1b.taylor]

The "Sola Scriptura" itself refutes the idea that only the Bible is authoritative.

1TI 3:14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The church is the pillar and foundation of faith, NOT the Bible

And scripture supports the authority of oral tradition.

2Ti 2:1-2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
That is Paul's endorsement of oral tradition.

Also, the decisions of the 7 great councils (which gave us the Trinity the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the "dual" nature of Christ) were based on both scripture (and the NT canon was not settled when they began) and what the Church had taught everywhere and at all times from the beginning. (That includes oral tradition and the writings of the early church leaders.)

This sounds like the same seed as the one that has pulled the Catholics so far astray.

 

[reba]

 

[th1b.taylor]

Zin loi, but it does.

 

[GodsGrace]

Evidently, you've made up for lost time.
[and no, not just because we happen to agree on various subjects. I'm sure that if we talked long enough, we'd find some detail that we disagreed on.]

I've come to understand certain passages differently (not to mention those I still don't understand) than I used to over the years initiated by chuch leaders, leading me to a better understanding of the Authority (God's word). But they've been the leaders, not the Authority (capital A).

Two different words and meanings (authority/leader). Related, sure. But different, none the less.

Take authority:
The Biblical meaning of the word has, at its root, authority delegated to leaders.

Yet at some point, their must be some ultimate Authority from which all human delegates derive theirs.

Matthew 21:23-27 (NASB) And after he arrived at the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him while he was teaching, saying, “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one question. If you tell the answer to me, I also will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. From where was the baptism of John—from heaven or from men?” And they began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “If we say ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men,’ we are afraid of the crowd, because they all look upon John as a prophet.” And they answered and said to Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. ​

How various denominations (or people) answer these same questions (underlined above) is very telling as to their understanding of God's Word.

If anyone is in a church that claims that its baptism saves men (the chuch's physical baptism), RUN!

Could you please explain a little better please.

Authority.
Jesus had authority.
Who gave Him authority?
And what happened when He left? Did He not leave His authority with others? The Apostles perhaps?

John 20:21-23
Jesus gives the Apostles authority to forgive sin.

Mathew 28:19
Jesus gives authority to the Apostles to go into all the world, teaching all to observe what Jesus taught them and to baptize in the name of the Father , the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:8
Jesus gives the Apostles authority to be His witnesses to the remotest part of the earth.

Acts 9:15
Jesus gives authority to Paul to be an instrument to bear Jesus' name to the Gentiles, and Kings and sons of Israel.


Question:
Who had authority after the Apostles died?
There was no bible yet.

 

[GodsGrace]

He was honoring her. It was love that He did what He did.

I have no scripture for this.
It is ONLY my own thought and I present it as such.

Jesus had not begun His ministry yet, but He knew He was close to it and was ready.
Perhaps He had to emotionally detach Himself from His mother?
He said that those that did the will of His Father in heaven are His mother and brother and sister...
Mathew 12:48

Jesus would also be His mother's Savior.
Perhaps He couldn't consider her as a mother anymore, as a child would,
but as a woman who needed salvation.
He called her Woman, not out of disrespect, but in a loving manner so as to disassociate Himself from her to be able to go out and begin His ministry since He knew very well how it would end.

Comments?

 

[chessman]

And what happened when He left? Did He not leave His authority with others? The Apostles perhaps?

Yes, He left the Holy Spirit (God) with the Apostles and with you and with me.

Your turn to answer one question:

From where was the baptism of John—from heaven or from men?

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, He left the Holy Spirit (God) with the Apostles and with you and with me.

Your turn to answer one question:

From where was the baptism of John—from heaven or from men?

Sorry Chessman. I don't agree.

Jesus left the authority with the Apostles.
The Apostles left the authority with Bishops.
Acts 1:21-26

In Acts 20:17 we see that already there were elders in the new church.
The books of Timothy demonstrate that there were those who were to preach.

Not everyone is authorized or has the gift of teaching.
A person must study many years if he is to teach the bible.
WE are not teachers.

If we have a personal revelation, it should be kept as such.
Otherwise, we must adhere to theologians and what they glean from the bible and how it is to the advantage of how we live our lives.

We are not allowed to believe whatever we want to believe. We must adhere to what Jesus wanted us to know from His preaching. Too many strange doctrine are introduced because some are taught by the HolySpirit.

If this is true and correct and there is only ONE Holy Spirit, why are such different ideas reached??

I don't understand the reason for your question on John.
I'm not trying to trick you, so there's no reason for you to turn the question around as Jesus did.

 

[Jim Parker]

I love 1 John 1:1 which explains why the bible was written (each letter or gospel individually).

Weellll......I think 1 John 1:1 tells us what John et. al. proclaim.
1 John 2:1ff tells us why John was writing but it refers only to what he wrote, not the entire Bible.

I find 2 Thessaloneans 2:15 to be very important. The NASB says:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."
The NASB uses the word Tradition instead of Teachings. I believe a tradition is more important than a teaching, but when we're speaking about God's word, they are the same and equal.

I think that is accurate; tradition ~ teaching.
The word "tradition" is regularly used to refer to what is universally taught whether orally or by letter or by scripture and includes the accepted interpretation of scripture.
Ex: "the Apostolic Tradition"

If we read the ECF, we find that everything they said is based on the bible. The bible is our source for doctrine. It could be said that the ECF's could also be that source since they, of course, had faith in the letters before the N.T. was assembled.

I think an important statement, which seems almost an afterthought of Paul, gives us a very important teaching:
1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
This one phrase flies in the faces of the multitude who believe the best source of doctrine is "My, my KJV and the Holy Ghost leading me." From such a perceived "spring of knowledge" a multitude of nonsense and babble has come forth to "bless" us.

I've tried on several occasions to post the ECF but most will not heed what they taught. It's surprising to me that someone will not believe what a person who KNEW John the Apostle wrote about a subject, but they will trust what someone in the 1500's said or someone in the 1800's, or even the new hyper-grace movement which is currently enveloping Christianity.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer called it "Cheap Grace."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83530-cheap-grace-is-the-grace-we-bestow-on-ourselves-cheap

Eph 4:14... we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,...
2Ti 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
Ecc 1:9 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.

When I went to seminary, they glossed over the writings of the early church. That's like hiring a contractor who "glosses over" the details of the foundation of the house he's building for you.
I find that most Protestants are unaware of their tacit understanding that nothing of significance happened between Acts 28:31 (ca. 65) and Luther nailing up his 95 theses in 1517 (For Pentecostals, nothing happened until the Azuza Street revival in 1906.) except that "them damn KATH-licks" messed up Christianity. :shock

By my post I meant that only the bible is authoritative because any doctrine must be based on that; otherwise, anyone could just make up their own doctrine.

People do anyway. Some of it is way out there!

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

This sounds like the same seed as the one that has pulled the Catholics so far astray.

Please.
Keep your Catholic bashing to yourself.
You are probably unaware of how much Reformed, Protestant doctrine comes directly from the RCC.

 

[GodsGrace]

Weellll......I think 1 John 1:1 tells us what John et. al. proclaim.
1 John 2:1ff tells us why John was writing but it refers only to what he wrote, not the entire Bible.

I think that is accurate; tradition ~ teaching.
The word "tradition" is regularly used to refer to what is universally taught whether orally or by letter or by scripture and includes the accepted interpretation of scripture.
Ex: "the Apostolic Tradition"

I think an important statement, which seems almost an afterthought of Paul, gives us a very important teaching:
1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
This one phrase flies in the faces of the multitude who believe the best source of doctrine is "My, my KJV and the Holy Ghost leading me." From such a perceived "spring of knowledge" a multitude of nonsense and babble has come forth to "bless" us.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer called it "Cheap Grace."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83530-cheap-grace-is-the-grace-we-bestow-on-ourselves-cheap

Eph 4:14... we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,...
2Ti 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
Ecc 1:9 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.

When I went to seminary, they glossed over the writings of the early church. That's like hiring a contractor who "glosses over" the details of the foundation of the house he's building for you.
I find that most Protestants are unaware of their tacit understanding that nothing of significance happened between Acts 28:31 (ca. 65) and Luther nailing up his 95 theses in 1517 (For Pentecostals, nothing happened until the Azuza Street revival in 1906.) except that "them damn KATH-licks" messed up Christianity. :shock

People do anyway. Some of it is way out there!

iakov the fool

I agree with all of the above.
Now I must say that some RC doctrine is a bit off to me and I cannot agree with it.
But if anyone here read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they would find many beautiful ideas and concepts and teachings in it.

Also, I'd have to say that the Catholic or Universal church kept Christianity in tact for hundreds of years before Christianity was accepted (by the Roman Emperor Constantine) and the bible was assembled. (the N.T.).

If it were not for the persons of that time, there would be NO Christianity!

 

[GodsGrace]

This sounds like the same seed as the one that has pulled the Catholics so far astray.

Catholics aren't so bad Taylor. I used to be one and look at me!!
In fact, they explain some concepts really well. The Mass is practically the book of Revelation.
They do have some dogma that is not understood by me.
I mean that it does not seem biblical.
But most of it, about 90% certainly is based on the bible.
They ARE NOT like Mormons are JW's.
This is simply not true.
JW's don't even believe Jesus is God!

 

[Jim Parker]

Also, I'd have to say that the Catholic or Universal church kept Christianity in tact for hundreds of years before Christianity was accepted (by the Roman Emperor Constantine) and the bible was assembled. (the N.T.).

If it were not for the persons of that time, there would be NO Christianity!

Not quite.
The Orthodox church has been sustained by the Russians from the fall of Constantinople until today.
Also, the Oriental Orthodox (Syrian) and Coptic churches have maintained the faith unchanged until today.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

JW's don't even believe Jesus is God!

And Mormons have a totally pagan concept of what a god is.

iakov the fool

 

[chessman]

Yes, He left the Holy Spirit (God) with the Apostles and with you and with me.

Sorry Chessman. I don't agree.

Okay.

John 20:22 (NASB) And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit". ​

I agree with the Scripture in that they did just that, received the Holy Spirit.


I answered your question then I asked you:

From where was the baptism of John—from heaven or from men?

You didn't answer my question.
The reason I asked this question is because it is relevant to the discussion of who has authority to do things. It's not a trick question.

Matthew 21:23-24 (NASB) And after he arrived at the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him while he was teaching, saying, “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one question. If you tell the answer to me, I also will tell you by what authority I am doing these things.
​

If you don't want to answer the question I asked, that's okay. I understand. But if you study the Bible, the answer is given.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Catholics aren't so bad Taylor. I used to be one and look at me!!
In fact, they explain some concepts really well. The Mass is practically the book of Revelation.
They do have some dogma that is not understood by me.
I mean that it does not seem biblical.
But most of it, about 90% certainly is based on the bible.
They ARE NOT like Mormons are JW's.
This is simply not true.
JW's don't even believe Jesus is God!

Actually, you're right in Europe and in most of the USA but then, just south of Texas, the Catholic Church allows the practice of so much heresy. Take Guatemala where sacrificed animals are killed on the front portal of the Church, and as bad a practice as it is, they're reported to be to idols.

There are, likely, just about the same percentage of saved people in the Catholic Church as there are in any of the rest of the catholic Church. Denomination has nothing to do with it. But right now they have a Pope that is embracing Islam as equal to Christianity and I will never go there.

 

[GodsGrace]

Okay.

John 20:22 (NASB) And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit". ​

I agree with the Scripture in that they did just that, received the Holy Spirit.


I answered your question then I asked you:


You didn't answer my question.
The reason I asked this question is because it is relevant to the discussion of who has authority to do things. It's not a trick question.

Matthew 21:23-24 (NASB) And after he arrived at the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him while he was teaching, saying, “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one question. If you tell the answer to me, I also will tell you by what authority I am doing these things.
​

If you don't want to answer the question I asked, that's okay. I understand. But if you study the Bible, the answer is given.

Chessman,
I didn't explain myself properly it seems.

This is going to have to wait till tomorrow, I just came here to log off.
Just quick...
Jesus breathed on the Disciples.
I wasn't present at the time.
He did this for a reason.
So they could teach and spread the teachings of Jesus.
I am not empowered to do this.

We all received the Holy Spirit when we became born again.
Should we all be running around teaching?
1 Timothy speaks much to this. Chapter 3 comes to mind regarding deacons and overseers.
Are we all Deacons?

Jesus received His authority from Himself. He's God.
All authority has been given to Jesus
Mathew 28:18

I don't have such authority. Do you?

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually, you're right in Europe and in most of the USA but then, just south of Texas, the Catholic Church allows the practice of so much heresy. Take Guatemala where sacrificed animals are killed on the front portal of the Church, and as bad a practice as it is, they're reported to be to idols.

There are, likely, just about the same percentage of saved people in the Catholic Church as there are in any of the rest of the catholic Church. Denomination has nothing to do with it. But right now they have a Pope that is embracing Islam as equal to Christianity and I will never go there.

I agree that too much is accepted by trying to invite everyone by maintaining their culture. I do not find this to be corrrect.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not quite.
The Orthodox church has been sustained by the Russians from the fall of Constantinople until today.
Also, the Oriental Orthodox (Syrian) and Coptic churches have maintained the faith unchanged until today.

iakov the fool

Jim,
I had posted that the Universal, or Catholic church, kept Christianity together UNTIL Constantine, at which time the bible was canonized and made into a book. After that heresies still arose, but it was much easier to keep the church together as a whole when everyone had one book to believe in - much as the reason the CCC was written - so that all may know what the church believes.

As far as the Orthodox church maintaining the faith unchanged until today,
Yes, and I admire it for that. The RCC has changed even as recently as the 60's.

 

[Jim Parker]

I had posted that the Universal, or Catholic church, kept Christianity together UNTIL Constantine,

Ah SO des ka!
Sloppy reading on my part. :dunce

 

[GodsGrace]

Ah SO des ka!
Sloppy reading on my part. :dunce

Cute!
Good night...