I am interested in a conversation

[utilyan]

The holy scriptures is perfect in every way especially where it doesn't teach the lie of scripture being the final and only authority.

Sola Scriptura is a unbiblical false teaching.


Anyone of us can write that fake rule down in a single sentence. Yet in all the thousands upon thousands teachings in scripture never is it taught that scripture is the final and only rule.

I don't believe God was dumb enough to forget to write it down like some brethren think. It was never a rule. Had it been a rule events like acts 15 would have played out in favor of the Judaisers.


We were lied to, told scripture teaches it, and when we looked for it , it was not there.

The hypocrisy of SHOW US THE BIBLE VERSE. Show me the verse for every teaching you have or it is a false teaching......but don't ask me where the verse FOR MY RULE IS!

A real christian would be JOYFUL to share where scripture TEACHES Sola Scriptura. Instead we get sanctimonious philosophy.

We get deception emphasizing how great and useful scripture is.......but we never get the verse they swore to God was in the bible.

We get called God-haters , unbelievers of scripture........But we never get the verse they swore to God was in the bible.


A REAL bible believer believes the bible doesn't require to undermine it with external false teachings.


The HIGHEST authority is GOD almighty. Not some book.

 

[Revmitchell]

The bible is not "some book"

 

[Deadworm]

Marooncat: "There is a little thing called the internet that provides the type of information that you claim that you want to study. Might want to try it. If you really want to study it then get Bruce Metzgers book on it."

LOL, you resort to patronizing comments to mask your ignorance on the canon. I was Bruce Metzger's student at Princeton and wrote my Masters thesis under him. So I think I know his thought better than you! You need to read scholarly books on the canon like Hans van Campenhausen's "The Formation of the Christian Bible" or Robert Grant's "The Formation of the New Testament," whose material I have been using for this discussion. Post your efforts to explain away Jude's use of 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses and Paul's citation of the Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture (using the phrase, "it is written") and I will respond.

Marooncat: "The Church only adopted the OT. We did not write it. The Jews certainly understood it was inerrant."

Your generalization pontificates from ignorance here. For example, Philo (c. 40 AD) dismisses the OT application of anthropomorphic language to God as a monstrous impiety!


The New Testament does not even exist as a canonical collection of books until the 3rd century.

Marooncat: "Not true. Marcions list is known from about 140 AD or so"

Nope! Marcion's canon was rightly rejected!

Marooncat:' Again, Marcion is generally believed to have listed the 66 first in 140 AD "

More pontifications from ignorance! Marcion's list consisted of 10 Pauline epistles plus only the Gospel of Luke with OT citations deleted because Marcion rejects the OT God! I reissue my challenge: find a pre-Reformation restriction of the canon to our 66 books! You can't!

Sacred Scripture is indeed the Word of God, but it is not the complete Word.

Marooncat: "Yes it is. The Apostle John announces a curse (if I remember correctly) at the end of Revelation to anyone who adds to the Word."

You remember incorrectly and should have looked up 22:18-19.. John's curse is restricted to those who would add to the Book of Revelation. ALL academic commentaries agree on this point! John is responding to a tendency to edit and add material to Jewish apolcalypses.

The New Testament does not even claim that the Old Testament is inerrant. The inerrancy claim is a modern Fundamentalist imposition on Greek terms like "theopneustos" (2 Timothy 3:16) which the Greeks commonly use vaguely to allege the inspiration of Greek secular literature.


And what exactly do you mean by Scripture? Baptists here must remedy their deafening silence at repeated Catholic challenges on this site to identify a pre-Reformation source for precisely 66 canonical books

 

[church mouse guy]

Everyone agrees on the NT. Protestants and Jews agree on the books of the OT. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox disagree with the Jews about what books are in the OT. The RCC says that it knows better than the Jews. Just because. Is that right?

 

[church mouse guy]

Sola Scriptura is effective in settling disputes. For example, the RCC wants people to atone for sins against the environment and the ecology but there is no Biblical basis for that. Nor is there a Biblical basis for worshipping the Peruvian idol Pachamama, now found in some Italian churches. Nor does Scripture support the normalization of homosexu@lity.

 

[Deadworm]

church mouse guy: "Everyone agrees on the NT."

But what matters is the widespread disagreement on the NT canon in the first few centuries and you Baptists need to deal with that. For example, 1 Clement is a first century epistle to the Corinthians. It claims to be divinely inspired and the Corinthians must have agreed because they mass produced it and it was treated authoritatively by the early Alexandrian Fathers. By contrast, Hebrews was NOT composed by an apostle and does NOT claim to be divinely inspired. Yet it was ultimately included in the NT canon and 1 Clement was excluded! Why? No one can give the date and location where our 27 NT books were delimited as canonical. So we don't really know the criteria for the selection process and must trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Catholic tradition to justify our NT canon.

church mouse guy: "Protestants and Jews agree on the books of the OT. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox disagree with the Jews about what books are in the OT. The RCC says that it knows better than the Jews. Just because. Is that right?"

Nope! You ignore the 3 most relevant facts:
(1) What is relevant is the OT canon in Jesus' day and in the apostolic age--and there was no consensus on the number of books in the OT canon at that time.
(2) In the Greek-speaking Jewish world Jews used the Septuagint which contains the books now contained in the Catholic OT.
(3) The use of the revelatory parts of 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses in Jude is the best gauge of what his brother, Jesus, considered authoritative. In 1 Cor 2:9 Paul uses the authoritative phrase for scriptural citations "It is written" to introduce his quote from The Apocalypse of Elijah. Isaiah 64:4 is worded in a somewhat similar manner, but no OT manuscript of Isaiah has the wording in ! Corinthians 2:9. That is why the church father Origen rightly identifies The Apocalypse of Elijah as Paul's source. Deal with it!

 

[robycop3]

Can anyone show us any other LEGITIMATE authority for faith/worship besides Scripture ? (I don't consider the pronouncements of other men as 'legitimate' worship authorities.)

 

[church mouse guy]

church mouse guy: "Everyone agrees on the NT."

But what matters is the widespread disagreement on the NT canon in the first few centuries and you Baptists need to deal with that. For example, 1 Clement is a first century epistle to the Corinthians. It claims to be divinely inspired and the Corinthians must have agreed because they mass produced it and it was treated authoritatively by the early Alexandrian Fathers. By contrast, Hebrews was NOT composed by an apostle and does NOT claim to be divinely inspired. Yet it was ultimately included in the NT canon and 1 Clement was excluded! Why? No one can give the date and location where our 27 NT books were delimited as canonical. So we don't really know the criteria for the selection process and must trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Catholic tradition to justify our NT canon.

church mouse guy: "Protestants and Jews agree on the books of the OT. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox disagree with the Jews about what books are in the OT. The RCC says that it knows better than the Jews. Just because. Is that right?"

Nope! You ignore the 3 most relevant facts:
(1) What is relevant is the OT canon in Jesus' day and in the apostolic age--and there was no consensus on the number of books in the OT canon at that time.
(2) In the Greek-speaking Jewish world Jews used the Septuagint which contains the books now contained in the Catholic OT.
(3) The use of the revelatory parts of 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses in Jude is the best gauge of what his brother, Jesus, considered authoritative. In 1 Cor 2:9 Paul uses the authoritative phrase for scriptural citations "It is written" to introduce his quote from The Apocalypse of Elijah. Isaiah 64:4 is worded in a somewhat similar manner, but no OT manuscript of Isaiah has the wording in ! Corinthians 2:9. That is why the church father Origen rightly identifies The Apocalypse of Elijah as Paul's source. Deal with it!

So are you saying that the RCC disagrees with Protestants about the NT?

Let me understand what you are saying about the OT. Are you saying that because the apocrypha was translated into Greek it became part of the RCC OT?

 

[ntchristian]

Time for you to look at the historical reality of all Christendom. Are you trying to tell me that God would allow a lie (orthodoxy) to be taught for thousands of years until suddenly, magically, some human stood up and started a new Christian sect to propagate the real truth? Okay, which new sect is now the purveyor of all Christian truth?

I'm saying that any teaching that does not agree with scripture should not be believed above scripture. There are plenty such doctrines in Roman Catholicism, and, to a much lesser extent, in Orthodoxy.

Yes, I'm saying God allows untruth to be taught, and for long periods of time. That's called freedom of the will. Now let me ask you a question: Why do you suppose God would allow a church claiming to be the only true one to persecute and kill other believers for hundreds of years, and along the way to make up doctrines that cannot be found explicitly or implicitly in scripture? Now I'm not singling out Roman Catholicism for persecution and murder, as this was an approved action by the Protestants, too, all except the so-called free churches which practiced believers'-only baptism.

 

[1689Dave]

I am interested in a conversation about sola Scriptura.

First, I would like a definition of it. Can anyone provide a definition of sola Scriptura, using sola Scriptura? If no definition can be provided using sola Scriptura, who gets to define it?

I would also like to discuss how effective sola Scriptura has been in resolving theological differences.

“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.” 2 Timothy 3:15–17 (KJV 1900)

“And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:18–21 (KJV 1900)

 

[Reformed1689]

And you have YET to show where Scripture teaches this.
We have shown repeatedly where Scripture gives FINAL Authority to Christ's Church . . .

Matt 16:16-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an oral statement OR BY a letter from us."

All verses taken out of context to prop up a heretical false church called the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[1689Dave]

Catharsis for Catholicism; The Rock?

First, all believers have the power to bind and loose.

“Verily I say unto you, [all believers] Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

Given the fact that this promise is to all believers, not Just Peter, the Rock Jesus would build his church on is his teaching. Especially in the Sermon on the Mount.

“And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings [the Sermon], the people were astonished at his doctrine:” Matthew 7:28 (KJV 1900)

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” 2 John 9 (KJV 1900)

So the teachings of Christ are the rock believers would build upon.

“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:” Matthew 7:24 (KJV 1900)

Not to mention Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the Church.

“You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself the chief Cornerstone.” Ephesians 2:20 (AMP)

 

[ntchristian]

All verses taken out of context to prop up a heretical false church called the Roman Catholic Church.

Is it common on this forum to use the word "heretical", "heretic", to describe those with whom we disagree? I have great disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church and some others, but I will not call them heretics.

 

[Reformed1689]

Is it common on this forum to use the word "heretical", "heretic", to describe those with whom we disagree? I have great disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church and some others, but I will not call them heretics.

The Roman Catholic Church preaches a different Gospel that is not found in Scripture so YES they are HERETICAL. That is not to say there are not true Christians in the RCC but the church itself is HERETICAL. Absolutely!

 

[church mouse guy]

Is it common on this forum to use the word "heretical", "heretic", to describe those with whom we disagree? I have great disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church and some others, but I will not call them heretics.

I agree with you. The RCC is a Christian church but their doctrine has been watered down with custom and tradition. However, they do believe in the essentials of doctrine with the Orthodox and the Protestants. They are very liberal, and I do not think that they are capable of reform because the Pope has absolute power so whatever he says goes. Also, they cannot purge the ultra liberals out of the RCC because they take away the vote from cardinals over 80 and a Pope like Francis who is around just for a few years can appoint a majority of the cardinals and make sure that he gets liberals to carry on. The next Pope will be another one like Francis.

 

[ntchristian]

The Roman Catholic Church preaches a different Gospel that is not found in Scripture so YES they are HERETICAL. That is not to say there are not true Christians in the RCC but the church itself is HERETICAL. Absolutely!

Are there other denominations you would consider heretical?

 

[Adonia]

The Roman Catholic Church preaches a different Gospel that is not found in Scripture so YES they are HERETICAL. That is not to say there are not true Christians in the RCC but the church itself is HERETICAL. Absolutely!

Stop lying about what the Catholic church preaches. The Catholic Church preaches Jesus Christ as God Incarnate on this earth. Salvation comes from Him and His death and resurrection. He is the Savior. If anyone is heretical it is you folks who have gone your own way, who have rejected the teachings of Christian orthodoxy that has been with us since the beginning.

 

[Adonia]

I have great disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church and some others, but I will not call them heretics.

Good. The heretics are those who have rejected Christian orthodoxy, you know those people whom you now seem intent on joining.

 

[Deadworm]

Many Baptists here wrongly assume that Jews in Jesus' day agreed on what is considered canonical and viewed these writings as inerrant. It is important to correct these false assumptions because they camouflage the crisis created by the early uncertainty of the contours of the biblical canon in the first few Christian centuries. This crisis is worsened for Baptists by their unstated assumption that the Holy Spirit basically deserted the church after the apostolic age and therefore played no role in guiding Catholic tradition and its determination of the ultimate NT canon. So consider these 4 corrective points:

(1) In Jesus' time, one of the 3 major Jewish sects, the Sadducees, are wealthy Jewish aristocrats who control the Temple and Sanhedrin. They stress the supreme authority of the Pentateuch as Scripture. So they reject the teaching about life after death and angels and demons in the other books in our OT. Philo of Alexandria rejects the anthropomorphisms applied to God as monstrous impieties.

(2) The Qumran library reveals a number of Jewish works outside our OT canon which were authoritative Scripture for them. Some of these works (e. g. the War Scroll) created the delusion that angelic intervention would bring them victory over the Romans. There were 70 Jewish apocalypses, many of which envisaged glorious victory for the Jews over their Gentile enemies and thus motivated them to rebel and be destroyed. The Jewish Council of Jamnia in the 90s AD was eager to stop Jews from reading these inflammatory documents as authoritative Scripture.

(3) The Catholic OT apocrypha was essentially part of the Greek translation of the OT known as the Septuagint, which was the Bible used by Greek-speaking Jews in and outside of Palestine.

(4) Paul's reverence for the Apocalypse of Elijah, quoted as Scripture with the phrase "it is written" in 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Jude's citation of revelatory material from 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses further reflect the fluidity of authoritative sacred writings for Jews in the apostolic age.

 

[Adonia]

Why do you suppose God would allow a church claiming to be the only true one to persecute and kill other believers for hundreds of years, and along the way to make up doctrines that cannot be found explicitly or implicitly in scripture?

That was stuff done by certain individuals within the church, nonetheless the Church today has repented from those actions, it has apologized and asked forgiveness for those terrible things that were done long ago.

As for doctrines that "cannot be found explicitly or implicitly in scripture", that is just your opinion that such a thing cannot be. The Early Church Fathers and the many theologians throughout the centuries disagree with your newfound" truth".

You are now on the verge of believing what various men have come up with, starting somewhere in the 15th century, with a man like the first Baptist John Smyth not coming on the scene until the 17th century no less.

So what you are actually saying is that everyone including every doctrine, every theologian, every Bishop was wrong until the 15th century onward? Yeah, right.