There are HUNDREDS of churches believing different; CLAIMING the Bible is their source!

[Tenchi]

It does not say it is solely sufficient.
I have shown you that it is necessary but not solely sufficient.
If you are going to ignore that there is no point in continuing.

But the verse does indicate the sole sufficiency of Scripture in the things Paul described (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness), as I showed you by highlighting the words "complete" and "every". You are the one ignoring the actual text of the verse.

2 Peter was not accepted as canonical until the 4th century.

It was said by Eusebius, Jerome and Origen to have been doubted by some as to its genuineness but they themselves never indicated that they regarded 2 Peter doubtfully. In any case, the letter was ultimately universally-accepted as written by Peter and thus a part of the canon of Scripture, so what is the point you're trying to make? As far as I can see, making the observation about the epistle that you have doesn't undermine anything I pointed out about Paul's epistles being regarded by the apostles and Early Church as Scripture.

 

[Mungo]

But the verse does indicate the sole sufficiency of Scripture in the things Paul described (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness), as I showed you by highlighting the words "complete" and "every". You are the one ignoring the actual text of the verse.

You still haven't got it have you?
It doesn't say that scripture alone is sufficient to be "complete" and "every".

Let's say you need A plus B to be "complete" and "every".
If you have just B then you are not "complete" and "every".
So Paul saying you need B to be "complete" and "every" does not mean you do not need A as well.
It just means that if you already have A then you need B to be "complete" and "every".

If you can't follow that, I give up.

It was said by Eusebius, Jerome and Origen to have been doubted by some as to its genuineness but they themselves never indicated that they regarded 2 Peter doubtfully. In any case, the letter was ultimately universally-accepted as written by Peter and thus a part of the canon of Scripture, so what is the point you're trying to make? As far as I can see, making the observation about the epistle that you have doesn't undermine anything I pointed out about Paul's epistles being regarded by the apostles and Early Church as Scripture.

Read what Dave Armstrong actually writes regarding 2 Peter.
90-160 - Not considered canonical, nor cited
160-250 - Not canonical ? First mentioned by Origen x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
? before Origen indicates Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x before Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement Book rejected, unknown, or not cited
So far No-One has accepted it.
250-325 Still disputed, which implies some acceptance.
325 Council of Nicea - Questions canonicity
It was not until the late 4th century that 2 Peter was accepted as canonical.

 

[Free]

Jesus introduced this parable to his disciples and to a great throng of curious people, saying: “The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man that sowed fine seed in his field. While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat, and left. When the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds appeared also.” (Matthew 13:24-26)

A quick look through the other kingdom illustrations in Matthew chapter 13 helps us to realize that the expression “the kingdom of the heavens” as used in these illustrations cannot refer to the completed Messianic government or kingdom in the heavens. Can one imagine “weeds,” leavenlike “badness” (Matthew 13:33; 1 Corinthians 5:8) or people likened to wicked, unsuitable “fish” (Matthew 13:47-50) being associated with Christ in his heavenly kingdom? Hardly! These illustrations must, are referring to good and bad developments with respect to the choosing of Christ’s future associates in “the kingdom of the heavens.” In particular, the parable of the wheat and the weeds illustrates a condition among those on earth who claim to be called to reign with Christ in his kingdom. This situation would be permitted for a time, before being brought to an end at the symbolic “harvest.”

Jesus himself later explained the symbolic meaning of the “householder,” or the “man that sowed,” “his field,” the “fine seed,” “his enemy” and the “weeds.” The account reads: “After dismissing the crowds he went into the house. And his disciples came to him and said: ‘Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.’ In response he said: ‘The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; as for the fine seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, and the enemy that sowed them is the Devil.’”—(Matthew13:36-39)

Jesus identified himself as the “Son of man.” (Matthew 8:20; 25:31; 26:64) Interestingly, it was in connection with the Kingdom that Jesus was prophetically called the “son of man” in a vision received by Daniel. That prophecy states: “To him [the “son of man”] there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.” Showing that the Son of man would have associates ruling with him, the prophetic vision also says: “And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an indefinitely lasting kingdom, and all the rulerships will serve and obey even them.” (Daniel 7:13, 14, 27).

You have to post your source as per the ToS. Also, I'm not going to read through that much material. If there is something specific that addresses what I posted, then please just post that.

I did happen to notice the same thing as Dorothy Mae :

'These “weeds” became particularly apparent during the second and third centuries, at which time such unscriptural doctrines as the inherent immortality of the soul, hellfire and the Trinity began to be taught by so-called church fathers.'

This is fallaciously begging the question.

Also this:

'About the year 100 “the weeds appeared.” About the year 300, there were more “weeds” than there were wheat.'

This is also begging the question, but also ignores that "weeds" began appearing almost immediately, as we see in Scripture.

 

[Tenchi]

You still haven't got it have you?
It doesn't say that scripture alone is sufficient to be "complete" and "every".

Let's say you need A plus B to be "complete" and "every".
If you have just B then you are not "complete" and "every".
So Paul saying you need B to be "complete" and "every" does not mean you do not need A as well.
It just means that if you already have A then you need B to be "complete" and "every".

If you can't follow that, I give up.

It's not that I can't follow your...reasoning, it's that you seem unable to actually comprehend my remarks.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (NASB)
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

What does Paul write here? Does he write, "You need Scripture plus x,y,z in order to be a man of God who is "complete, equipped for every good work"? No. He wrote only that, for the purposes of teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness, Scripture is sufficient.

Paul, though, referred to a "man of God" in the passage above and so it is understood that such a man has the Holy Spirit dwelling within him, illuminating his mind and heart to divine truth (Romans 8:9-14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16; John 14:26), and is mixing his study of God's word with the faith necessary to make doing so profitable (Hebrews 4:2). Is anything more required for the Scripture to be sufficient in equipping a man (or woman) of God for every good work? Nope.

It was not until the late 4th century that 2 Peter was accepted as canonical.

Again, so what?

 

[BroRoyVa79]

The Bible contains God's truth but not all that Jesus taught. The Bible says that.
Moreover the apostles preached God's truth (see post #55)

I'm not understanding this statement here. Jesus taught from the Old Testament, at that time the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and some Aramaic Texts. He also taught from Second Temple Judaism and Rabbi teachings and writings, often Jesus spoke against the latter since it was used to muck up the plain teachings of the Torah (Old Testament).

So, There's no mysterious hidden oral "stuff" that the apostles preached that were hidden mysterious oral "stuff" that Jesus preached. While no, the Bible does not cover every single conversation Jesus likely had with the apostles, the Bible tells you the main stuff is there.

You admit this in your response to Dorothy:

Luke taught Theophilus orally. Then later he wrote it down.
And where did Luke get it from?

Paul quoted from the OT.

Paul quoted from the OT means that Paul quoted from scripture. This doesn't mean that oral teaching didn't have scripture as its foundation back then as your original statements and continued statements seem to be implying. That somehow there's some mysterious teachings in the oral stuff.

The extra stuff is what Jesus was harping on when he was getting into it with the Pharisees and Sadducees because they were adding nonsense to the Old Testament teachings as I said and removing guilt from people based on favoritism, etc.

Read what Dave Armstrong actually writes regarding 2 Peter.
90-160 - Not considered canonical, nor cited
160-250 - Not canonical ? First mentioned by Origen x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
? before Origen indicates Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x before Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement Book rejected, unknown, or not cited
So far No-One has accepted it.
250-325 Still disputed, which implies some acceptance.
325 Council of Nicea - Questions canonicity
It was not until the late 4th century that 2 Peter was accepted as canonical.

You're kind of citing this without getting into some of what was going on here. First and foremost they had three main requirements to canonize writings. 1) Apostolic Authority, 2) The Writing followed Orthodox Doctrine, and 2) It was broadly accepted by believers. This became an issue because you had a lot of documents floating around claiming to be written by the apostles or their disciples and they had to sift through the nonsense.

Eusebius said that 2 Peter was an issue because he didn't believe it was genuine at the time meaning there was a group who didn't believe it was written by Peter at the time. Which also means there was a group who believed it was written by Peter at the time. The hesitancy was because the Church was combating Gnosticism and a lot of that nonsense had Peter's name as author as I said.

Still, the references in it to the epistles of Paul, his reference to being on the Mount of Transfiguration, among many other personal allusions to Peter's life and other internal evidence in the epistle give strong evidence to Peter authorship. Which puts 2 Peter somewhere in the 60's AD, 1st century AD, for it's authorship. Also, there is external evidence of it being an earlier document such as, the 3rd century Papyrus 72 quotes both Epistles of Peter and a 2nd century Sahidic quotes from 2nd Peter as did Clement of Alexandria's Bible in the late 2nd century included 2 Peter. Bible.org has a link discussing this: Is 2 Peter Peter's?. It seems that a lot of the current scholarly issues with 2 Peter being written by Peter is splitting hairs whereas the early Church was worried about pseudepigraphs (forgeries), but its all a moot point to bring up when the Church as a whole eventually accepted it as canon and written by Peter because they were still dealing with forgeries and such a practice was extremely scorned at the time of its acceptance into the cannon. The fact it was admitted into canon after going through such scrutiny really makes bringing up its late acceptance moot. So, why die on this hill of when it was accepted? Is it to try to say that 2 Peter can't be trusted as capturing the teachings of Christ or something?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Are you just trying to wind me up?

No

WRITTEN AND ORAL - NOT JUST ORAL, NOT JUST WRITTEN

Unusually written and mostly written as compared to
oral faiths. Moses was their first of the great prophets and he wrote books. All the prophets seemed to write books. Their Kings wrote books, at least the first two good ones. Of course they weren’t silent. But the authority was always written material, never ever a man… until Jesus who upheld all written material.

Once again:
The Jews were a people of oral tradition.

No, they were a people of books starting with Moses although there seem to be books dating back to Enoch. God likes books.

In his book Second Exodus, Martin Barrak, who is a Jew converted to Catholicism, explained that the Jews as well as having the written Torah, also had an Oral Torah. On Mount Sinai God gave Moses additional instructions which were passed from father to son by word of mouth.

Like what? They couldn’t even manage to preserve the name of God.

This Oral Tradition was only to be written down if the Jewish people should ever find themselves so fragmented that the Oral Torah might be lost.

The books Moses and prophets wrote were written long before then. I have heard this claim but it says clearly that Moses wrote the bookS of the law. David wrote. Solomon wrote. All the prophets wrote and long before the exile.

The Rabbis deemed this to be the case in 190AD , 45 years after Rome finally razed Jerusalem. It was written down by Rabbi Judah Hanasi in about 200AD as the Mishna. Jewish sages in Jerusalem and Babylon wrote commentaries on the Mishna which are called the Gemara. The Mishna and the Gemara are called the Talmud, which was closed on about 600 AD.

The Talmud says untrue things about Jesus and so is definitely NOT inspired no matter what the Jews say.

According to an article in Wikipedia “The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an accompanying oral tradition passed on by each generation. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions.” And also says “the written Torah was seen as containing many levels of interpretation. It was left to later generations, who were steeped in the oral tradition of interpretation to discover those ("hidden") interpretations not revealed by Moses”

That might be. They reject the written inspired scripture for the “traditions of men” as Jesus said.

 

[Mungo]

No

Unusually written and mostly written as compared to
oral faiths. Moses was their first of the great prophets and he wrote books. All the prophets seemed to write books. Their Kings wrote books, at least the first two good ones. Of course they weren’t silent. But the authority was always written material, never ever a man… until Jesus who upheld all written material.

No, they were a people of books starting with Moses although there seem to be books dating back to Enoch. God likes books.

Like what? They couldn’t even manage to preserve the name of God.

The books Moses and prophets wrote were written long before then. I have heard this claim but it says clearly that Moses wrote the bookS of the law. David wrote. Solomon wrote. All the prophets wrote and long before the exile.

The Talmud says untrue things about Jesus and so is definitely NOT inspired no matter what the Jews say.

That might be. They reject the written inspired scripture for the “traditions of men” as Jesus said.

You and Tenchi seem determined to ignore or twist what I say.
I'll waste no more time in this thread.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Untrue - see my previous post

It’s true.

The Bereans were not more noble because they were sola scriptura.

The Bible says they were.

It was the Thessalonian Jews who were sola scriptura.

Where?

They rejected Paul's teaching because they considered it did not line up with scripture (OT). They rejected it as the word of God.

So did the Pharisees. Didn’t make them noble.

The Bereans on the other hand did accept Paul's new oral teaching. They "received the word with all eagerness."
Of course they checked out the scriptures that Paul referred to.

Sola scriptura.

Paul selected 12 apostles but one of them, Peter, he appointed leader.
See the OP in this thread - The Primacy of Peter

Where is that in scripture?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You and Tenchi seem determined to ignore or twist what I say.
I'll waste no more time in this thread.

That’s cause you’re losing

 

[WIP]

That’s cause you’re losing

This is one of the problems I often see in theological debates. Each side is desperately trying to win the argument rather than gaining understanding and truth. We humans sure do hang on to our pride and arrogance rather than being humble as we are called to do.

 

[Hopeful]

Most sprang from the Catholic Church as 'Protestants' - but, essentially taking the core beliefs WITH them!

HOW do you determine as what you have been taught is the TRUTH?

Jesus makes answering that question easy.
He said..."And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Free of what?
Jesus answers..."Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."

I determine if a "church" is of God by asking if they commit sin.
If they say "Yes", I know they do not teach the truth that can free one from committing sin..

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is one of the problems I often see in theological debates. Each side is desperately trying to win the argument rather than gaining understanding and truth. We humans sure do hang on to our pride and arrogance rather than being humble as we are called to do.

I do not see that as the reason for withdrawal in discussions. I do not think Mungo is proud or arrogant. I think he believes as Catholics do which is not uncommon and is faced with inconsistencies in his position and that is threatening. So he hurls an insult and runs away.

The problem is this for gentle and kind believers in character. If one explores what the other side believes, it might come to be that one finds that what one has believed for all of one's life does not stand in its entirety. That is very threatening. Shall one maintain what one has believed or shall one venture to question it by looking into what opponents believe? The whole house of one's theology is threatened. So one decides either NOT to search the scriptures to see if what one believes is so or to see if what the other believes is so or does one shut it all down in fear. The latter is the most common choice.

To pursue coming to understand another's position has a lot of risk. One might have to change one's thinking OR one renders oneself blind. It is a great pity because testing what you believe against what other's believe is the chance to find the truth and the truth is rock solid whether you or they think it. After that, One is free to explore what everyone else believes as stubbornness or pride is not holding the edifice together. It is held together because it is true. The truth is never afraid of questions, never ever. Untruth is desperately afraid of questions. Who knows what might ensue?

 

[WIP]

I do not see that as the reason for withdrawal in discussions. I do not think Mungo is proud or arrogant. I think he believes as Catholics do which is not uncommon and is faced with inconsistencies in his position and that is threatening. So he hurls an insult and runs away.

The problem is this for gentle and kind believers in character. If one explores what the other side believes, it might come to be that one finds that what one has believed for all of one's life does not stand in its entirety. That is very threatening. Shall one maintain what one has believed or shall one venture to question it by looking into what opponents believe? The whole house of one's theology is threatened. So one decides either NOT to search the scriptures to see if what one believes is so or to see if what the other believes is so or does one shut it all down in fear. The latter is the most common choice.

To pursue coming to understand another's position has a lot of risk. One might have to change one's thinking OR one renders oneself blind. It is a great pity because testing what you believe against what other's believe is the chance to find the truth and the truth is rock solid whether you or they think it. After that, One is free to explore what everyone else believes as stubbornness or pride is not holding the edifice together. It is held together because it is true. The truth is never afraid of questions, never ever. Untruth is desperately afraid of questions. Who knows what might ensue?

Actually, I was focusing on your comment about Mungo losing. Losing what? When we are debating a topic and start thinking in terms of the participants as winners and losers, the debate is going off track.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Actually, I was focusing on your comment about Mungo losing. Losing what? When we are debating a topic and start thinking in terms of the participants as winners and losers, the debate is going off track.

He had no answers to the questions that show holes in his position. Well, frankly speaking, debates by nature have winners meaning those who can logically defend their positions and losers, those who can only lob false accusations against the persons and run off.

We aren’t twisting anything. His position is full of holes, obviously. But he won’t go there for the reasons I said. It’s childish like the immature who can only shout “you’re all mean!!” and run home.

 

[atpollard]

Most sprang from the Catholic Church as 'Protestants' - but, essentially taking the core beliefs WITH them!

HOW do you determine as what you have been taught is the TRUTH?

I question the accuracy of the title. Giving the benefit of the doubt, “hundreds” (plural) begins at two-hundred. I question whether there are actually 200 distinct Christian beliefs that differ from one another (no two identical) and are all based on Scripture (according to those holding the belief).

There may be more than 200 denominations, but being a German speaking Lutheran and a French speaking Lutheran does not constitute “distinct beliefs” … only different ’synods’ from different cultures that agree on the beliefs in the Book of Concord (a Catechism of Lutheran interpretation of the Bible).

As for determining what beliefs are true … I rely on the Baptist Distinctive known as “Individual Soul Liberty”.

INDIVIDUAL SOUL LIBERTY:

Baptists have had a long-term determination to adhere to the Biblical doctrine that they call "Individual Soul Liberty."​

​

Church history verifies that Christians have died for this principle. The teaching that individuals are sovereign in matters of faith is one that Baptists will not compromise.​

​

The individual soul is answerable to Almighty God and to Him alone. This precludes giving up that independency to a pope, a priest, a system, an organization, a convention, a fellowship, an association, or any other human being. None of these are given the authority to interpose anything whatsoever between the individual believer and God concerning any matter of faith.​

​

A person may then choose to be a Baptist, a member of another Christian denomination or to choose no religious belief system and neither the church, nor the government, nor family or friends may either make the decision or compel the person to choose otherwise. Furthermore, a person may change his/her mind at any time.​

​

This doctrine springs from the many examples in church history where the independency of the believer was stifled and sometimes even forbidden. Under the rule of Constantine, Roman law demanded that all people in the Roman Empire become Christians. The result of this law was forcing Christianity upon the masses by infant baptism and a meaningless profession by adults. Accordingly, the Dark Ages are a testimony to the absolute failure imposed on believers when the "church" begins to dictate whatever "truth" it deems necessary to force all members to conform. Not only is Roman Catholocism guilty of this but so are many of the mainline Protestant denominations.​

​

Furthermore, Baptists themselves would do well to avoid the denial of this doctrine. Pastors who overlord their flocks or churches that submit themselves to denominational control will need to return again to the Scriptures concerning this vital historical Bapist distinctive. To demand, whether directly or indirectly, that believers submit to any kind of authoritarian rule is both unscriptural and, in fact, questionable. This generation has seen its Jim Jones's and David Karesh's. Whenever believers give up their individual soul liberty in favor of following the demands of another person or affiliation, they do indeed compromise this essential doctrine of the faith.​

 

[theSeriousOne]

YOU ARE IN THE THEOLOGY FORUM.
EVERYTHING YOU STATE MUST BE BACKED UP BY SCRIPTURE.
ESPECIALLY WHEN ASKED.
PLEASE ADHERE TO THIS RULE.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD.
IF NECESSARY USE TALK WITH STAFF.

THANKS.

What have I said that is NOT supported by Scripture- ESPECIALLY Jesus' own words?

 

[GodsGrace]

What have I said that is NOT supported by Scripture- ESPECIALLY Jesus' own words?

IN THE THEOLOGY FORUM IT IS NECESSARY TO QUOTE BOOK CHAPTER AND VERSE.

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD. IF NECESSARY USE TALK WITH STAFF.

THANKS.

 

[theSeriousOne]

IN THE THEOLOGY FORUM IT IS NECESSARY TO QUOTE BOOK CHAPTER AND VERSE.

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD. IF NECESSARY USE TALK WITH STAFF.

THANKS.

Too bad the majority of members don't.

 

[GodsGrace]

Too bad the majority of members don't.

We're trying to enforce that rule.
It's not easy.

 

[theSeriousOne]

We're trying to enforce that rule.
It's not easy.

I often reply to accusation. I'll give it a shot!