Bible Study Sola scripture ?

[GodsGrace]

I assure you that only God carries on Christianity. He needs no help from men. Maybe you did not mean it the way it reads, but the people did not carry Christianity - Christianity carried the people.

Yes. God has a plan and it will be carried out to His liking.

What I meant is that many heresies were being circulated in the second century and forward. If it were not for the early fathers that kept the teachings of Jesus in tact, who knows what we would have today.

Of course God does His will and besides that there will always be a remnant - even in our times of many losing their faith. However, let's not forget that it's men who carry out the will of God, and many of them gave their lives for it.

We should not diminish this by saying that God does everything.

 

[GodsGrace]

I assure you that only God carries on Christianity. He needs no help from men. Maybe you did not mean it the way it reads, but the people did not carry Christianity - Christianity carried the people.

The more I think about this, the more I don't understand what you're saying.

You said God needs no help from men.

So if we just sit here and DO NOTHING, Christianity will flourish?
Or are we supposed to witness and testify and go to church and read and teach our children, etc.?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Sometimes, I"m tempted to do RCIA and turn Catholic. I like Dorothy Day (I think she's a saint now...).

Protestantism seems to be a mess. Its not just the obvious fragments and factions, either. Ever read Baran research? Even a lot of church going Protestants are thoroughly worldly in their/our understanding of salvation, Jesus, sin, etc. For all the church goers in the USA, something like 9% of the total population has a genuinely Biblical, Protestant worldview.

I guess I"m saying...Protestantism has done some great things. Max Weber, the German sociologist, even wrote a book on Protestantism and the rise of (American-style) capitalism, which has definitely been a mostly good thing. But...I'm wondering if maybe the catholic church is the way to go. I mean, they seem to be the 1 Biggest force against all the ugliness of (post)modern society. I'm fascinated by what little I know of social justice, which I understand is something a lot of more conservative Protestants aren't so fond of...I just think its great that the catholics have a faith that can engage people, communities, entire societies, at all levels.

You had best be very careful. It looks to me like this Pope wants to head the One World Church, he has already indicated that Christians, Jews, and Islamists should all worship in one Church. That makes sense, right? Not! B9iw your head so fhs Muslim can remove your head.

 

[GodsGrace]

True. And Jesus, through the Holy Spirit is with us every day. Matt 28:20, John 20:22

So who has authority now, God or us?

God.

 

[GodsGrace]

It is not a difficult task to compare the "twisted" teaching to what has been taught everywhere and at all times. That is the process by which the great councils found the teachings of Arius and Nestorius and the rest of the heretics to be corrupt.

False analogy.
The two processes have absolutely no points of commonality.
The phrase is whispered from one person to the next.
Teaching is done openly, in public, where anyone can hear it and challenge it.

And the question was brought before the church leaders at Jerusalem who considered both sides and came to a conclusion. The Church handled it quite easily.

And the Spirit can lead a person to truth but won't force him to accept it. That's why we have tens of thousands of denominations, sects, factions, etc. all of whom will swear that the Holy Spirit led them into their particular "truth" which are be in direct conflict of "truths" that the same Holy Spirit had allegedly let others into. The only way to resolve all these "truths" all being at once true and contradictory is that the Holy Spirit is either confused or a joker. (And I'm not going THERE!)

That is exactly why the Church convened the 7 great councils: to determine whether a teaching was from God or from the individual's imagination. They did not assume, as you seem to, that any individual was fully capable of accurately hearing from the Holy Spirit. They tested every doctrine to insure it agreed with the "memoirs of the apostles" (Gospels), the apostles letters and the apostolic tradition.

The churches which stuck to this process have the same teachings as the Church had almost 2000 years ago. They are called Orthodox, Coptic, and Syrian.

(They are so averse to change that they joke about it.
Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Change???)

iakov the fool

Hi Jim,
Great post.
(I like the joke)

I'd like to say that we must distinguish between.

SOLA SCRIPTURA
We take the bible to be our authority. A supreme authority is necessary and we all must agree that it has to be the bible. The ECF had the letters being circulated and based their theology on those and on writings of previous fathers, then, finally, the bible (N.T.) was available and we can now refer to that.

SOLO SCRIPTURA
A person sits at home with a bible, reads through it and makes his own theology.
Apparently being taught by the Holy Spirit. It's difficult though, at times, if it's the Holy Spirit or our very own thoughts. This cannot be determined by the solo scriptura person since he has nothing to compare his beliefs to.

THIS is a very dangerous practice.

We are told not to forsake the assembling of ourselves.
The letters to Timothy tell how the church holds truth, not each individual person.
Also, God may reveal a personal truth FOR ME ONLY. This is not to be taught or shared since it is not for others.

1 Timothy 4:7

P.S.
Sola scriptura is practiced by a church.

 

[th1b.taylor]

It is not a difficult task to compare the "twisted" teaching to what has been taught everywhere and at all times. That is the process by which the great councils found the teachings of Arius and Nestorius and the rest of the heretics to be corrupt.
And more than three times, throughout scripture God has promised curses
False analogy.
The two processes have absolutely no points of commonality.
The phrase is whispered from one person to the next.
Teaching is done openly, in public, where anyone can hear it and challenge it.

And the question was brought before the church leaders at Jerusalem who considered both sides and came to a conclusion. The Church handled it quite easily.

And the Spirit can lead a person to truth but won't force him to accept it. That's why we have tens of thousands of denominations, sects, factions, etc. all of whom will swear that the Holy Spirit led them into their particular "truth" which are be in direct conflict of "truths" that the same Holy Spirit had allegedly let others into. The only way to resolve all these "truths" all being at once true and contradictory is that the Holy Spirit is either confused or a joker. (And I'm not going THERE!)

That is exactly why the Church convened the 7 great councils: to determine whether a teaching was from God or from the individual's imagination. They did not assume, as you seem to, that any individual was fully capable of accurately hearing from the Holy Spirit. They tested every doctrine to insure it agreed with the "memoirs of the apostles" (Gospels), the apostles letters and the apostolic tradition.

The churches which stuck to this process have the same teachings as the Church had almost 2000 years ago. They are called Orthodox, Coptic, and Syrian.

(They are so averse to change that they joke about it.
Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Change???)

iakov the fool

And God is Omnipotent, there is nothing He is not capable of, nothing, and more than three times He has promised to strike the man with the worst plagues that can be suffered from His had if he or she adds or takes away a single word from the scriptures. And never forget the Holy Spirit in us, His not stupid, He knows what is true and pure.

 

[GodsGrace]

You keep misquoting this "proof Text':

1 Timothy 3:15 (NASB) but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
​

Every church that has the Living God leading its house is the pillar and support of the truth. Which is why Paul thru the Holy Spirit of God wrote it in Scripture.

What do you mean by the Living God?
Is there a dead God?

Do you mean that some churches are dead?
Certainly this is what you must mean.
In this case, I'd have to agree. But this is due to HUMANS.
God's church is always a church of the Living God.
Unless it's a cult, of course.

 

[JohnDB]

At the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught the Beatitudes.
"Blessed are the theologically correct for they shall..."
Wasn't one of them.
No single man can have a perfect understanding of God.

Enoch, Noah, and a few others were said to have "walked with God" so obviously they agreed about something. Abraham was God's friend...A whopper of a title.
I am but one voice in a huge group to God. A single particle of smoke in a incense offering. And if I were to separate myself from the cloud of vapor....

The first word in The Lord's Prayer is "Our"...As in speaking collectively for a group in agreement...As in, we aren't supposed to do it alone all the time.

 

[GodsGrace]

And God is Omnipotent, there is nothing He is not capable of, nothing, and more than three times He has promised to strike the man with the worst plagues that can be suffered from His had if he or she adds or takes away a single word from the scriptures. And never forget the Holy Spirit in us, His not stupid, He knows what is true and pure.

Hi Bill,
I think of this often after coming to this forum.
I've heard such strange ideas here that I never heard before.
These persons say that these ideas are given to them by the Holy Spirit.
How can this be?
I believe one should choose a church he feels comfortable in and that teaches the MAIN doctrines he believes in and can bear to listen to during a sermon.
A church will always guide a person.
I don't think we're supposed to make up our own doctrine, which is what some people do.

Let's take eternal security for instance. A favorite topic here.
Some believe salvation cannot be lost.
Some believe salvation can be lost.
But each group can find a church that is a bible believing church and that will guide them.

There are others, instead, who invent their own theology and this I find to be very damaging to Christianity, also because they tell others of these strange ideas and the others can be turned away from our beautiful faith.

Comment?

 

[Nathan]

What's dangerous?
Years ago I studied the early church Fathers a little and found they spoke perfectly biblically and what Jesus taught. Even though the bible, as a book, (the N.T.) was not even assembled yet.

You quote Jeremiah. One of my favorite scriptures. Used when teaching the New Covenant. Which is where it starts, right there in the O.T.

I know that nothing was twisted because they all agreed with each other. One liked to be different - I don't give him too much consideration anymore precisely because he WAS different. Many heretics came along, but they were removed from the Christian believing church and so Christianity was maintained.

I do trust what, for instance, Ignatius of Antioch wrote. He was taught by John the Apostle. I believe you must know that Jews were very good at passing down history, either orally or written. Scribes used to count words to make sure they didn't miss any. This held mistakes down to a minimum. The bible may be inspired, but humans wrote it and copied it.

So if the Holy Spirit teaches us today, why do some believe they cannot lose their salvation when it is plain that one can??

I do feel it's necessary to believe some on this earth - those that follow the scriptures without any preconceived notions.

Some make a doctrine and then look for scripture to support it.

Some read scripture and then make a doctrine based on the scripture.

Ah, what you describe in the last half of your post is classic lukewarm Christianity.

Think about it. How do you get lukewarm water? You mix hot and cold - good and bad, light and darkness.

That's what's amazing to me really. How some will really believe what the Bible says, then come to a verse that just doesn't sit well, and then find someone or something that will make more sense. Most often it's followed up with the idea that it's not "about salvation" - kind of - so it doesn't matter if there is not agreement on it.

Case in point. You have some who don't think that lukewarm faith is an issue. They will say, "it's not pleasing, but it's still water".....

Most "Christians" in the world today have part of their faith in the truth, and the other part in tradition. They say that their tradition is the truth, so they convience themselves they are all in the truth. Lukewarm.

 

[Christ_empowered]

((me again))

I'm tempted to go Catholic because of tradition and unity. I get that this pope has softened up on some things, but it seems to me (complete non-catholic, clearly) that he's just emphasizing a different element of Catholic tradition.

I dunno. I didn't get genuinely saved until some serious Pentecostal intervention. They're great people, but sometimes I think there's some flaws there. But then again...where to turn? The PCUSA I grew up with? Ummmm...ok...

The RCC seems to be a massive force for good in this world. Because of tradition and the hierarchy, they can't change the church to suit the whims of a given age. That's --huge--. Just using PCUSA as an example, they've discarded Scripture in place of worldly wisdom very recently, and because they're "mainline," people who call them out on in are called "intolerant," etc. Protestant churches lack the tradition and authority structure to prevent things like that from happening.

 

[chessman]

Who had authority after the Apostles died?

God

Bingo! That's my point. The same authority was present in the church of the living God before the Apostles lived as was present while they lived and as is present after they lived (now). God!

I'm not sure why you said that immediately after the Apostles died there was no Bible (God's word, God's authority) yet. Sure there was.

There was no bible yet.

Did Paul not write God's word into his letters before he died, for example?
John's revelation of Christ completed the Bible. But God's word and thus His authority was most certainly present prior to John's death. That's my point.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am floored at the idea that every believer does not have the truth of God in them. We might not all be able to teach it, or preach it, but we can all know it and understand it - independent from other human beings. Its possible. Its true.

Yes, God desires us to learn from each other - to use our gifts for the body - but there is a time coming(and seems has already arrived) when men are going to be going crazy trying to draw people away to their own doctrines. The truth is in the Bible, and the Bible speaks of Jesus who is the Christ.

I disassociated myself from every denomination years ago when I realized what was happening. From then until now I have learned from the Spirit Himself, and have gleaned from others who are walking in truth also. There is not one religious group in this day and age that is walking in absolute truth. I am sure of it. But just as sure as I am of that, I am equally sure that among the groups there are many who are walking in truth.

Christ Himself guaranteed this and I believe it. I take everything I hear, from anyone I know, and hold it up to His light.

How have we come from relying on the Spirit in us to guide us, to relying on mere mortal men to guide us, is beyond me. I can only assume that it came from the same thought process the believers in Corinth had - each following the person of their choice rather than the Spirit.

With the truth the survey the Barna Group did in the mid-eighties and the results you should nt be surprised at the lack of knowledge the average ¿Christian? has. In that survey "The Faithful" were defined as people that attended service no less than three time a week and nobody else could take the survey.

From my experience, that isw 10 to 15 percent of the membership roll. Of that 10 to fifteen percent, less than ten percent believed the basic tenants of the Christian faith. For the whole membership I see it translating out to less than two percent of the Church Roll are Believers.

Now, the first incorrect assumption about this is the survey would be open and people would see your answers but it was a Double Blind Survey, not even the Pastor could not see how any person answered, so as to get the most honest answers possible. And I submit that someone had been in Church forever and knew the right answers and lied on his paper making the number less than the result.

As I'm given to understand the survey had questions in the nature of "Do you believe Mary was a virgin? Do you believe Jesus paid for your sins on the cross? Do you believe Jesus will return in the clouds to take you out of here and into Heaven?" Basics, nothing more and in their heart of hearts, they do not believe. I have no idea why they are not to hung over Sunday Morning to be in Church, if they believe not, why?

And yet there is a world filled with people hat , very, seriously ask me, you don't, really believe all of that, do you?

 

[JohnDB]

Ah, what you describe in the last half of your post is classic lukewarm Christianity.

Think about it. How do you get lukewarm water? You mix hot and cold - good and bad, light and darkness.

That's what's amazing to me really. How some will really believe what the Bible says, then come to a verse that just doesn't sit well, and then find someone or something that will make more sense. Most often it's followed up with the idea that it's not "about salvation" - kind of - so it doesn't matter if there is not agreement on it.

Case in point. You have some who don't think that lukewarm faith is an issue. They will say, "it's not pleasing, but it's still water".....

Most "Christians" in the world today have part of their faith in the truth, and the other part in tradition. They say that their tradition is the truth, so they convience themselves they are all in the truth. Lukewarm.

Actually your allusion to the letter in Revelations is telling. Hot was a hot springs spa that was said to have medicinal properties. These springs were on top of a River valley. The river was of snow melt from the mountains and very cold as it went to thousands of farms to nourish them.
The city itself (as most Roman cities did) had public water supplies. But the mineral content was high and the geothermal activity heated it a little so that when you drank it you felt queasey.

So...If maybe you went to church on Sunday mornings... Especially Sunday School you might have not used this analogy. You would have learned that nourishing and/or healing are things God expects us to do. Sitting at home just to drink our own koolaide is what makes God sick.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ah, what you describe in the last half of your post is classic lukewarm Christianity.

Think about it. How do you get lukewarm water? You mix hot and cold - good and bad, light and darkness.

That's what's amazing to me really. How some will really believe what the Bible says, then come to a verse that just doesn't sit well, and then find someone or something that will make more sense. Most often it's followed up with the idea that it's not "about salvation" - kind of - so it doesn't matter if there is not agreement on it.

Case in point. You have some who don't think that lukewarm faith is an issue. They will say, "it's not pleasing, but it's still water".....

Most "Christians" in the world today have part of their faith in the truth, and the other part in tradition. They say that their tradition is the truth, so they convience themselves they are all in the truth. Lukewarm.

Your third paragraph is making the same objection I was.

You could reread my post, but it's not worth it.
If I'm lukewarm, do you suppose God will spit me out?

 

[GodsGrace]

((me again))

I'm tempted to go Catholic because of tradition and unity. I get that this pope has softened up on some things, but it seems to me (complete non-catholic, clearly) that he's just emphasizing a different element of Catholic tradition.

I dunno. I didn't get genuinely saved until some serious Pentecostal intervention. They're great people, but sometimes I think there's some flaws there. But then again...where to turn? The PCUSA I grew up with? Ummmm...ok...

The RCC seems to be a massive force for good in this world. Because of tradition and the hierarchy, they can't change the church to suit the whims of a given age. That's --huge--. Just using PCUSA as an example, they've discarded Scripture in place of worldly wisdom very recently, and because they're "mainline," people who call them out on in are called "intolerant," etc. Protestant churches lack the tradition and authority structure to prevent things like that from happening.

I agree CE. But then I'm going to be put in the position of defending Catholicism and I don't consider myself a Catholic.

Protestant churches do lack authority. Each one does what it wants to.
Tradition is looked down upon.
It's a tradition to have Thanksgiving Dinner with family. Should that be looked down upon?
This is a long conversation and unless you want to discuss something precise, it just can't be done.
I live in a place where I cannot choose my church - you do. Make the best of it...

 

[GodsGrace]

With the truth the survey the Barna Group did in the mid-eighties and the results you should nt be surprised at the lack of knowledge the average ¿Christian? has. In that survey "The Faithful" were defined as people that attended service no less than three time a week and nobody else could take the survey.

From my experience, that isw 10 to 15 percent of the membership roll. Of that 10 to fifteen percent, less than ten percent believed the basic tenants of the Christian faith. For the whole membership I see it translating out to less than two percent of the Church Roll are Believers.

Now, the first incorrect assumption about this is the survey would be open and people would see your answers but it was a Double Blind Survey, not even the Pastor could not see how any person answered, so as to get the most honest answers possible. And I submit that someone had been in Church forever and knew the right answers and lied on his paper making the number less than the result.

As I'm given to understand the survey had questions in the nature of "Do you believe Mary was a virgin? Do you believe Jesus paid for your sins on the cross? Do you believe Jesus will return in the clouds to take you out of here and into Heaven?" Basics, nothing more and in their heart of hearts, they do not believe. I have no idea why they are not to hung over Sunday Morning to be in Church, if they believe not, why?
fdzlly beli
And yet there is a world filled with people hat , very, seriously ask me, you don't, really believe all of that, do you?

A distant relative of mine was in church in my hometown one Sunday some years ago.
He was complaining about health and I told him God would help him to be strong.
He asked if I really believed that. We had just been in church together.
So I asked HIM, did HE believe it. Did HE believe in life after death.
He said NO. So I asked him why he went to Mass. He said because he was used to it.
Many go for that reason --- but maybe the day is coming soon when only believers will be in ANY church.

 

[chessman]

Do you mean that some churches are dead?

Yes, that's what I mean. God's not living in their 'house'. People can assemble in a house, building, outdoors, wherever and call it 'church' (Greek, Roman, Russian, Bible, Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Orthodox, etc. etc.). But is it really the church of the living God???

Only if it holds up high the authority of God's word as its truth does God live there.

The church of the living God's common confession is great and will read something like:

He (Jesus Christ) who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

​

 

[chessman]

Protestant churches do lack authority.

No they don't!

 

[JohnDB]

A distant relative of mine was in church in my hometown one Sunday some years ago.
He was complaining about health and I told him God would help him to be strong.
He asked if I really believed that. We had just been in church together.
So I asked HIM, did HE believe it. Did HE believe in life after death.
He said NO. So I asked him why he went to Mass. He said because he was used to it.
Many go for that reason --- but maybe the day is coming soon when only believers will be in ANY church.

Just a thought.
Would it be possible to catch a ride to a church that you liked? Maybe a train?
It's either that or possibly starting a small group of like-minded believers.