Sola Scriptura in the Bible

[Adonia]

Except of course, it didn't, did it? '"For both prophet and priest are profane; yes, in My house I have found their wickedness," says the LORD. "Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery ways; in the darkness they shall be driven on and fall in them; for I will bring disaster on them. the year of their punishment," says the LORD.' (Jeremiah 23:11-12). There is page after page of stuff like that in the O.T. The religious authorities were the enemies of God most of the time. So the Lord raised up men outside of the religious establishment: "I was no prophet, nor was I the son of a prophet, but I was a sheepbreeder and a tender of sycamore fruit. then the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said to me, "Go, prophesy to My people Israel"' (Amos 7:14-15).

Who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles? Not your 'Popes,' that's for sure!
'Pope' Honorius (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681). He was also condemned as a heretic by 'Pope' Leo II and by every other 'Pope' until the 11th Century. So we have 'infallible' 'Popes' condemning another 'infallible' 'Pope' as a heretic.

Also, "John XXII did not want to hear about his own infallibility; he viewed it as an improper restriction on his rights as a sovereign, and in the bull Qui quorundam (1324) condemned the Franciscan doctrine of papal infallibility as the work of the devil" (Roman Catholic historian, August Bernard Hasler).

So in essence God appointed prophets and priests and then had other prophets speak out against them, so how exactly is another prophet "outside of the religious establishment"? I understand perfectly what is happening here, God is God and He can do anything He wants and it seems He did the same thing with His succeeding Christian Church.

As for the successors of the Apostles, I'll let the historical record speak for itself. After they died, there was but one Universal Christian Church led by Bishops which just about every Christian on this earth followed, and it certainly wasn't the Baptists or any one of the other estimated 30,000 Christian entities that exist today.

 

[Revmitchell]

As for the successors of the Apostles, I'll let the historical record speak for itself. After they died, there was but one Universal Christian Church led by Bishops which just about every Christian on this earth followed, and it certainly wasn't the Baptists or any one of the other estimated 30,000 Christian entities that exist today.

And you think that means what?

 

[BobRyan]

For my Catholic brothers and sisters. For us who are converts form sola scriptura backgrounds, I can tell you that the issue was never raised. We accepted it as a given fact--like the sky is blue or children are born of mothers. We never asked "Where did the Bible come from?" or "Why do we have a Bible?" !

As we all know - the Jews wrote 39 books of the Bible and the NT Christians wrote 27 of them -- the Catholics wrote none of them.

 

[BobRyan]

If Sola Scriptura would have been what God intended, Jesus would have just written the New Testament all by himself.

On the contrary - God always had prophets writing scripture. A better statement would be...

IF Sola Scriptura is God's intended doctrine - then Jesus would hammer the Magisterium of Christ's day - "sola scriptura" - like this.

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In keeping with the much older form of it - found in Isaiah 8

Isaiah 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this WORD they have no light"


There would have been no need of any Apostles and the new Christian Church, which of course would have eliminated the need for any Sunday gatherings of the faithful to learn and worship. Why have them if every person could decide for him or herself what God really meant?[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

So in essence God appointed prophets and priests and then had other prophets speak out against them, so how exactly is another prophet "outside of the religious establishment"?

On the contrary - as we see in Mark 7 - the elements of the magisterium were constantly turning to man-made-tradition and doctrine - and needed to be corrected repeatedly. As in the case of Mark 7 - Christ is not a ruler nor a priest - still He corrects them.

As for the successors of the Apostles, I'll let the historical record speak for itself.

Good idea - because there is only ONE example of a successor being selected and that is in Acts 1 the "successor of Judas".

Even when James is killed - no successor event takes place.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I, too, point out that 2 Timothy 3:!6 says "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired..." and not "SCRIPTURE IS ALL..." This is one of the most frequently and profoundly twisted verses in all of scripture.

As well, nowhere in scripture does scripture delineate the "Sacred Table of Contents" of the bible. Only the Catholic Church did that, and had the authority to do that.

Scripture teaches (Matthew 18:15-19, Acts 15) that all matters in dispute must be settled by the Church as the ultimate authority, not by indivbiduals or by twisting and distorting the scriptures.

The devil is the first one in all of scripture to twist the meaning of God's Word (Genesis 3). The devil is the first one to twist and distort the scriptures in his temptation of Christ, when he said, "It is written..." (Matthew 4:5-6, Luke 4:9-11).
__________________

The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the Church; the Church is the body of Christ—that is, all of those who belong to Him and faithfully and obediently follow him as sovereign Lord and savior.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You are rejecting God not Luther.

What a shockingly disgraceful accusation!

In ca. 700 B.C. Isaiah wrote:

Isaiah 8:20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

--and that my friend teachs sola scriptura.

Isaiah 8:20 does Not teach anything at all about the doctrine of sola scriptura!

That is whyall evangelical Christiansare agreed on the essentials of salvation, as opposed toall Catholicswho are confused and don't even know what it is.

What!!! Evangelical Christians teach a VERY wide spectrum of doctrines concerning salvation. Today’s Romans Catholic Church teaches a very orthodox view of salvation that is nearly identical to what many Evangelical Christians teach.

I challenge you. Ask ten Evangelical Christians to define salvation—and see if you get a unified answer. The answers that I get from Evangelical Christians vary widely from one denomination to another, and from one individual Christian to another.

You are confused and not willing to be perfectly honest.

Another disgraceful accusation! I wish that personal attacks were not permitted on Christian message boards, and that people who routinely depend upon them to write their posts would be permanently banned.

First, you had a bad experience with your Baptist church. Not all Baptist churches are the same.

Second, when one joins a BaptistChurch they agree to accept the statement of faith as written.

There can be no disagreement with either the statement of faith or the Constitution.

This is NOT true at my church! My church encourages all of its members to pray daily for God to teach them His truths and to protect them from error. We do not have a detailed statement of faith—we depend upon the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us in our study and teaching of the Scriptures.

 

[DHK]

What a shockingly disgraceful accusation!

Your are welcome to your opinion. You call your self a Baptist. Would you like to provide evidence to that claim? "It is a dreadful accusation" to make simply by observing the nature of your post.
The Bible teaches sola scriptura. It wasn't some invention made up by Luther. When one attacks it they are attacking a Biblical doctrine, thus they are attacking the doctrines of God, not Luther.

Isaiah 8:20 does Not teach anything at all about the doctrine of sola scriptura!

Again, will you give evidence that you are a Baptist?
God through Isaiah laid out the instruction here that everything was to be tested by Scripture (sola scriptura). The conclusion drawn was that if the doctrine was not according to Scripture then the person teaching it was not of God and there is no light in him, that is he is unsaved--like some of the people on this board.

What!!! Evangelical Christians teach a VERY wide spectrum of doctrines concerning salvation. Today’s Romans Catholic Church teaches a very orthodox view of salvation that is nearly identical to what many Evangelical Christians teach.

When I say "evangelical Christian" I mean "evangelical Christian." I am not speaking of those that are pretenders. I know of a church that once had a member who was a graduate of a Baptist College, was very eloquent in his prayers, did a lot of good works. But in the end he was not saved. Today he is the head of the Sikh Community. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of God.

I challenge you. Ask ten Evangelical Christians to define salvation—and see if you get a unified answer. The answers that I get from Evangelical Christians vary widely from one denomination to another, and from one individual Christian to another.

As I said when I said "evangelical" I mean "evangelical." That is why I can come to this board and come to this forum, a forum which is for all "Christian denominations" and interact with both evangelical and non-evangelicals. I find the evangelicals fairly sound in the gospel. Though I have never met them, Steaver, Martin, RevMitchell, and the many other evangelicals posting here will agree with me on salvation.
I am not sure about you.
You claim to be a Baptist. Show your credentials.

Another disgraceful accusation! I wish that personal attacks were not permitted on Christian message boards, and that people who routinely depend upon them to write their posts would be permanently banned.

You seem to have thin skin or are not able to debate and answer the post put before you, and therefore throw out some derogatory accusation. That only shows an inability to debate; to answer the post set before you. It is a sign of defeat.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say then keep quiet. You don't have to post. No one is forcing you to.
The fact is that one who misconstrues certain scriptures are confused about them. They ought to be willing to admit that and learn what they mean. Instead you take offence.

This is NOT true at my church! My church encourages all of its members to pray daily for God to teach them His truths and to protect them from error. We do not have a detailed statement of faith—we depend upon the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us in our study and teaching of the Scriptures.

So it is not true at your church. Perhaps you ought to talk to your pastor and show him the weakness of your church. Every church ought to have a good statement of faith that every member agrees on. How do you know you are in a Baptist church unless you agreed to a statement of faith?
Maybe it is a Presbyterian church in cognito? How do you know unless you have seen the statement of faith.
Hmmmm, You might be in a Catholic church!!!!! No one knows! You don't have a statement of faith!!! RoflmaoRoflmaoRoflmao

But don't fear. Here are some to help you out:

The Baptist Faith and Message of the Southern Baptist convention.
http://www.baptiststart.com/2000_1963_1925.htm

Bible Baptist Church
http://www.opportunitybiblebaptist.org/statement-of-beliefs/


Fellowship Baptist Church
http://www.fellowshipbaptistchurch.org/beliefs/

Cornerstone Baptist Church
http://www.cornerstonebaptist.com/covenant

 

[Adonia]

On the contrary - as we see in Mark 7 - the elements of the magisterium were constantly turning to man-made-tradition and doctrine - and needed to be corrected repeatedly. As in the case of Mark 7 - Christ is not a ruler nor a priest - still He corrects them.



Good idea - because there is only ONE example of a successor being selected and that is in Acts 1 the "successor of Judas".

Even when James is killed - no successor event takes place.

And what of those who had "hands laid on them"? They were men who were for all intents and purposes being ordained and sent out into the world to continue the mission. Now let's see though, we have the Apostles being given the power to bind and loose things and having that power they surely passed it on to others and did so through the ordination process. No, not as one of the 12, but as part of the untold thousands upon thousands of clergy to come after them.

It's funny how history works and we all know that the One Universal Christian Church evolved over time and we have the writings of the Early Fathers of that very church writing much of what happened down. This is all verifiable historical truth, and much to your chagrin I am sure.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And what of those who had "hands laid on them"? They were men who were for all intents and purposes being ordained and sent out into the world to continue the mission.

And? What point are you making?

Now let's see though, we have the Apostles being given the power to bind and loose things and having that power they surely passed it on to others and did so through the ordination process.

Every Gospel preacher has the power to bind and loose through the word of God, but not through the ordination process. There is nothing magical in ordination and makes ipso facto a man fit to preach and teach, and nothing in the Bibles that says it does. It is the faithfulness of those ordained that makes them fit or otherwise ( 2 Timothy 2:2). It is God who calls men to the Christian ministry, and if He does not call, the ordination by men avails nothing (Amos 7:14-15; Acts 13:2-3).

No, not as one of the 12, but as part of the untold thousands upon thousands of clergy to come after them.

See above.

It's funny how history works and we all know that the One Universal Christian Church evolved over time and we have the writings of the Early Fathers of that very church writing much of what happened down.

The only problem is that the 'One Universal Christian Church' is not the Church of Rome; that body, by its departure from Scripture, the wickedness of its priests and its persecutions of the saints, has long since forfeited any right to be so called.

This is all verifiable historical truth, and much to your chagrin I am sure.

I'm very happy to discuss Church History with you.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Your are welcome to your opinion. You call your self a Baptist. Would you like to provide evidence to that claim? "It is a dreadful accusation" to make simply by observing the nature of your post.

The Bible teaches sola scriptura. It wasn't some invention made up by Luther. When one attacks it they are attacking a Biblical doctrine, thus they are attacking the doctrines of God, not Luther.

The Bible does NOT teach sola scriptura, and my Baptist denomination of more than 1,000,000 Baptists does NOT teach sola scriptura. One of the reasons why it does not teach sola scriptura is that the Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible. Another reason why my Baptist denomination does not teach sola scriptura is found in the teaching of the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 and in 1 Peter 3:21. Most of the seminary professors and pastors in my denomination experienced being saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water; and therefore they believe, as do I, that that water Baptism has become, in the case of many believers today, a symbolic act of obedience.

God through Isaiah laid out the instruction here that everything was to be tested by Scripture (sola scriptura). The conclusion drawn was that if the doctrine was not according to Scripture then the person teaching it was not of God and there is no light in him, that is he is unsaved--like some of the people on this board.

Isaiah 8:19. Now if people say to you, “Consult the ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter; should not a people consult their gods, the dead on behalf of the living,
20. for teaching and for instruction?” surely, those who speak like this will have no dawn! (NRSV)

Where in this passage do you find any mention of, or allusion to, the Scriptures—let alone the doctrine of sola scriptura? My Baptist denomination strongly encourages its members to study the Scriptures in the original languages—or at least in translations that reflect current biblical scholarship!

Instead you take offence.

I take offence when professing “evangelical Christians” routinely use personal attacks against other members who, unlike myself, are unable to effectually defend themselves.

My definition of an evangelical Christian:

An Evangelical Christian is a man or woman, boy or girl, who has been crucified with Christ and therefore no longer lives, but Christ lives in them; and the life that they now live in the flesh they live by faith in the Son of God, who loved them and gave Himself for them. (Compare Gal. 2:20).

When “Baptists” behave like sinful unbelievers, are they Evangelical Christians?

 

[Adonia]

The Bible does NOT teach sola scriptura, and my Baptist denomination of more than 1,000,000 Baptists does NOT teach sola scriptura. One of the reasons why it does not teach sola scriptura is that the Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible. Another reason why my Baptist denomination does not teach sola scriptura is found in the teaching of the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 and in 1 Peter 3:21. Most of the seminary professors and pastors in my denomination experienced being saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water; and therefore they believe, as do I, that that water Baptism has become, in the case of many believers today, a symbolic act of obedience.


Isaiah 8:19. Now if people say to you, “Consult the ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter; should not a people consult their gods, the dead on behalf of the living,
20. for teaching and for instruction?” surely, those who speak like this will have no dawn! (NRSV)

Where in this passage do you find any mention of, or allusion to, the Scriptures—let alone the doctrine of sola scriptura? My Baptist denomination strongly encourages its members to study the Scriptures in the original languages—or at least in translations that reflect current biblical scholarship!


I take offence when professing “evangelical Christians” routinely use personal attacks against other members who, unlike myself, are unable to effectually defend themselves.

My definition of an evangelical Christian:

An Evangelical Christian is a man or woman, boy or girl, who has been crucified with Christ and therefore no longer lives, but Christ lives in them; and the life that they now live in the flesh they live by faith in the Son of God, who loved them and gave Himself for them. (Compare Gal. 2:20).

When “Baptists” behave like sinful unbelievers, are they Evangelical Christians?

A Baptist who does not believe in Sola Scriptura? Wow! But how can this be? I thought all you Baptists were on the same page.

 

[DHK]

The Bible does NOT teach sola scriptura, and my Baptist denomination of more than 1,000,000 Baptists does NOT teach sola scriptura.

A Catholic on the board responds to you with these words:

A Baptist who does not believe in Sola Scriptura? Wow! But how can this be? I thought all you Baptists were on the same page.

She is right. How can you be a Baptist when you deny some, or at least one of the most important Baptist distinctives that is believed among us? Please explain. Some Baptists would die for this truth.

One of the reasons why it does not teach sola scriptura is that the Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible.

OKay, now we know you are not a Baptist. Why not come out and say it instead of being deceptive?
Give us the truth. What are you? You are not a Baptist! You do not believe Baptist doctrine. This is obvious from what you are posting. What denomination are you from?
Baptists believe that the ordinance of baptism is purely symbolic, an act of obedience symbolizing our death to our old life of sin, and our rising again to a new life in Christ.

Another reason why my Baptist denomination does not teach sola scriptura is found in the teaching of the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 and in 1 Peter 3:21. Most of the seminary professors and pastors in my denomination experienced being saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water; and therefore they believe, as do I, that that water Baptism has become, in the case of many believers today, a symbolic act of obedience.

IOW, you can't understand a couple verses of scripture and therefore deny an essential doctrine of Scripture. Sounds goofy to me. However I don't follow the teachings of men, no matter whose Seminary teachers they may be. I follow the teachings of Scripture; of Christ. And the Bible does not teach what you are saying.

One does not get indwelt by the Holy Spirit, baptized by the Holy Spirit, etc., until he is saved, and that has nothing to do with water baptism. I wasn't baptized for two years after the time I was saved. But I still had no doubt about my salvation. Had I died in that period of two years as an unbaptized person I would have gone straight to heaven. Baptism doesn't save; it simply gets one wet. How do you think baptism can save a person. Even Jeremiah mocked that idea;

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Wash yourself with water and the strongest soap possible but you will never wash away your sins. Water can't do that; only the blood of Jesus can wash away your sins, and the blood of Jesus is not found in baptism.

Isaiah 8:19. Now if people say to you, “Consult the ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter; should not a people consult their gods, the dead on behalf of the living,
20. for teaching and for instruction?” surely, those who speak like this will have no dawn! (NRSV)

Where in this passage do you find any mention of, or allusion to, the Scriptures—let alone the doctrine of sola scriptura? My Baptist denomination strongly encourages its members to study the Scriptures in the original languages—or at least in translations that reflect current biblical scholarship!

Where?? That was their duty! To consult other scripture! To compare those that came to them to the scriptures. If those that came to them had a familiar spirit or practiced diviniation they were put to death, just as a witch was. If you practiced sola scriptura you would know that. Compare scripture with scripture.
Like Isaiah continued to say:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--A witch or false prophet doesn't speak according to the law or the testimony, that is the Word of God.
They have no light in them.

I take offence when professing “evangelical Christians” routinely use personal attacks against other members who, unlike myself, are unable to effectually defend themselves.

Are you an evangelical Christian? Perhaps you are a Catholic in disguise. I don't know. You don't post like one.
Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." You don't have the fruits of a Baptist. You tell me: What shall I conclude?

My definition of an evangelical Christian:

An Evangelical Christian is a man or woman, boy or girl, who has been crucified with Christ and therefore no longer lives, but Christ lives in them; and the life that they now live in the flesh they live by faith in the Son of God, who loved them and gave Himself for them. (Compare Gal. 2:20).

When “Baptists” behave like sinful unbelievers, are they Evangelical Christians?

You have made some of the most odd and humorous remarks here, and yet at the same time sad remarks that I have yet seen on this board.
By definition you say that you are crucified with Christ.
What does that mean? It means the flesh is dead. Sin no longer bothers you. Any kind of sinful action cannot bother you. Your flesh is dead. It refuses to react to anger, mocking, scorn, ridicule, or any temptation of any kind.
And yet you admit you are offended. You just said, "I take offense...
--If you are offended then you are not crucified with Christ; your flesh is not dead. Otherwise you would not take offense and you would not make personal attacks as you just did.

If you lived in the Spirit you would not be attacking others.

 

[Craigbythesea]

A Catholic on the board responds to you with these words:

A Baptist who does not believe in Sola Scriptura? Wow! But how can this be? I thought all you Baptists were on the same page.


She is right. How can you be a Baptist when you deny some, or at least one of the most important Baptist distinctives that is believed among us? Please explain. Some Baptists would die for this truth.

I wrote,

The Bible does NOT teach sola scriptura, and my Baptist denomination of more than 1,000,000 Baptists does NOT teach sola scriptura. One of the reasons why it does not teach sola scriptura is that the Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible. Another reason why my Baptist denomination does not teach sola scriptura is found in the teaching of the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 and in 1 Peter 3:21. Most of the seminary professors and pastors in my denomination experienced being saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water; and therefore they believe, as do I, that that water Baptism has become, in the case of many believers today, a symbolic act of obedience.

Here it is again,

The Bible does NOT teach sola scriptura, and my Baptist denomination of more than 1,000,000 Baptists does NOT teach sola scriptura. One of the reasons why it does not teach sola scriptura is that the Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible. Another reason why my Baptist denomination does not teach sola scriptura is found in the teaching of the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 and in 1 Peter 3:21. Most of the seminary professors and pastors in my denomination experienced being saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water; and therefore they believe, as do I, that that water Baptism has become, in the case of many believers today, a symbolic act of obedience.

The Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible. Therefore, this Baptist doctrine directly contradicts the doctrine of sola scriptura.

OKay, now we know you are not a Baptist. Why not come out and say it instead of being deceptive?

Give us the truth. What are you? You are not a Baptist! You do not believe Baptist doctrine. This is obvious from what you are posting. What denomination are you from?

Baptists believe that theordinanceof baptism is purelysymbolic, an act of obedience symbolizing our death to our old life of sin, and our rising again to a new life in Christ.

I also believe, as I have posted over and over again, that “the ordinance of baptism is purely symbolic, an act of obedience symbolizing our death to our old life of sin, and our rising again to a new life in Christ.” However, this doctrine is not found anywhere in the Bible, incontrovertibly proving that Baptists do not really believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura.

I follow the teachings of Scripture; of Christ.

Why is there not any evidence of this in your posts?

And the Bible does not teach what you are saying.

How can anyone who does not know what I am saying know whether the Bible teaches what I am saying?


And, of course, there is further proof that Baptists do not really believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura. For example, nearly all Baptists believe in a doctrine known as, “The Age of Accountability”—another Baptist doctrine that has absolutely no scriptural foundation.

Roman Catholics have their traditions; and Baptists have theirs—but at least the Roman Catholics are up front about their traditions.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I also believe, as I have posted over and over again, that “the ordinance of baptism is purely symbolic, an act of obedience symbolizing our death to our old life of sin, and our rising again to a new life in Christ.” However, this doctrine is not found anywhere in the Bible, incontrovertibly proving that Baptists do not really believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Because you have not found it in Scripture doesn't mean it isn't there. I suggest you look harder.

For example, nearly all Baptists believe in a doctrine known as, “The Age of Accountability”—another Baptist doctrine that has absolutely no scriptural foundation.

Really? Well, here's one who doesn't.

 

[BobRyan]

I wrote,
..
I also believe, as I have posted over and over again, that “the ordinance of baptism is purely symbolic, an act of obedience symbolizing our death to our old life of sin, and our rising again to a new life in Christ.” However, this doctrine is not found anywhere in the Bible, incontrovertibly proving that Baptists do not really believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura.

.

1 Peter 3 says flat out that what saves is NOT the "magic touch of sacramental waters" but rather the "Appeal to God for a clean conscience"

No "saved by sacrament" -- "Saved by sacramental waters" there -- as I suspect we both would agree.

Romans 10 - says the steps that "result in salvation" are the following -
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

No baptismal regeneration there - as I suspect we both would admit.

Christ comes to John to be baptized - not at all because he needed the "magic touch of sacramental waters" to cleanse him from sin. But purely as a symbolic act.

Romans 6 argues that in baptism we are buried with Christ and raised up with Christ - but this is all purely symbolic since no physical funeral or bodily resurrection is taking place.

Acts 11 has the Holy Spirit poured out upon those who are NOT baptized at all - and the gifts of the Spirit are given to those NOT baptized.

1Cor 12, and Eph 4 says these "gifts of the Spirit" are only for believers - only for the body of Christ.

Thus I am not as convinced that the doctrine that baptism is a symbol of a prior born-again condition - is without sola-scriptura testing and support..

 

[Craigbythesea]

1 Peter 3 says flat out that what saves is NOT the "magic touch of sacramental waters" but rather the "Appeal to God for a clean conscience"

No "saved by sacrament" -- "Saved by sacramental waters" there -- as I suspect we both would agree.

Romans 10 - says the steps that "result in salvation" are the following -
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

No baptismal regeneration there - as I suspect we both would admit.

Christ comes to John to be baptized - not at all because he needed the "magic touch of sacramental waters" to cleanse him from sin. But purely as a symbolic act.

Romans 6 argues that in baptism we are buried with Christ and raised up with Christ - but this is all purely symbolic since no physical funeral or bodily resurrection is taking place.

Acts 11 has the Holy Spirit poured out upon those who are NOT baptized at all - and the gifts of the Spirit are given to those NOT baptized.

1Cor 12, and Eph 4 says these "gifts of the Spirit" are only for believers - only for the body of Christ.

Thus I am not as convinced that the doctrine that baptism is a symbol of a prior born-again condition - is without sola-scriptura testing and support..

None of the verses posted here make any mention of the concept of symbolism, let alone say anything at all about the ordinance of baptism being a purely symbolic act of obedience. Furthermore, making a mockery of 1 Peter 3:21 does not change what the Apostle Peter believed and wrote,

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Peter finds here a correspondence between the water of the flood and the water of baptism. The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed. Corresponding to that, water baptism, when it is not merely the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, now saves us. Compare Colossians 1:9-14,

Col. 1:9. For this reason also, since the day we heard of it} we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,
10. so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11. strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously
12. giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
13. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed; Christ “rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”

Peter sees salvation being accomplished through water baptism. Paul apparently did also,

Titus 3:4. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6. whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7. so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Paul clearly states here that God our Savior “saved us… by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” Paul and Peter were both Jews, and to a Jew washing with water for spiritual cleaning and water baptism were very closely related to each other. The very large majority of New Testament scholars believe that both Paul and Peter taught that water baptism is effectual for the salvation, and the Early Church Fathers taught that God’s Grace for salvation was conferred upon believers through water baptism. This appears to me to have been the case in the Early Church, not as the exclusive means of conferring grace, but as the typical means. In Acts 10:44, we find a definite exception, and in my experience, the exception has become the norm.


Moreover, upon hearing Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, the Jews and proselytes asked Peter and the other disciples, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). And Peter replied, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). According to Peter, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ serves the purpose of the remission of sins. Should we believe the Baptist tradition regarding baptism—or should we believe the Scriptures regarding baptism?

(All quotations from the Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

 

[BobRyan]

None of the verses posted here make any mention of the concept of symbolism,

They don't use the "word" symbol - like the "word Trinity" is hard to find in the Bible. But if you look at the details - and you don''t think Christ was lost before being baptized then it looks "symbolic".

And the Eph 4, 1Cor 12 statements about the Holy Spirit given to the saints - makes it appear that Acts 11 has some "believers" some "saints" getting the gifts of the Spirit - without first being baptized.

What is more - Romans 10 makes no mention of "baptism resulting in salvation" -- what does Romans 10 say "results in salvation"??

Peter finds here a correspondence between the water of the flood and the water of baptism. The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed. Corresponding to that, water baptism, when it is not merely the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, now saves us. Compare Colossians 1:9-14,

Peter sees salvation being accomplished through the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" instead of "sacramental waters of baptism" -- thus the appeal to God is followed by baptism - but baptism's waters themselves do nothing.

,

Titus 3:4. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6. whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7. so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Paul clearly states here that God our Savior “saved us… by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”

Which is why the Acts 10 outpouring of the Holy Spirit leads us to conclude that the waters of baptism were not preventing that event - since they had not yet happened at all for those folks.

. In Acts 10:44, we find a definite exception, and in my experience, the exception has become the norm.

Not so. In Acts 10 they are are born-again believers - then receive the Holy Spirit's gifts then are baptized.

The "norm" is not so much that people are receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized - the "norm" is that Romans 10 works just as stated - prior to baptism "resulting in salvation" just as the text says.

Moreover, upon hearing Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, the Jews and proselytes asked Peter and the other disciples, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). And Peter replied, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). According to Peter, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ serves the purpose of the remission of sins. Should we believe the Baptist tradition regarding baptism—or should we believe the Scriptures regarding baptism?

No one is proposing that the new believer not be baptized. But we are promoting the fact that the point of salvation happens just as Romans 10 states -- just as we see in Acts 10, just as Romans 6 indicates a symbolic death and resurrection rather than a literal funeral.

(All quotations from the Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995) (In my case as well)

 

[DHK]

I wrote,

The Bible does NOT teach sola scriptura, and my Baptist denomination of more than 1,000,000 Baptists does NOT teach sola scriptura.

1. The Bible does teach sola scriptura. Your saying it does not doesn't change the facts. You are entitled to your opinions for what they are worth. Without evidence they are worth nothing. You still have not provided evidence that you are a Baptist. I don't believe you are. You are not presenting Baptist doctrine on this board.
However lets define a couple of definitions and go from there:

First, what is "sola scriptura"? From Wikipedia--

Sola scriptura

(Latinablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

--This is the primary belief of Baptists. You will find it among all Baptist distinctives. We all believe that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Let's consider that:

What Are the Eight Baptist Distinctives?
These teachings may be remembered by associating them with the letters that form the word “BAPTISTS.”

Biblical Authority
The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture’s inherent authority.
2 Timothy 3:15–17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21
http://www.garbc.org/about-us/beliefs-constitution/baptist-distinctives/
--Every GARBC church in America and worldwide believes in this great distinctive of sola scriptura.

Bible- The soul authority in faith and practiceThe Bible is a Divine Revelation given of God to men, and is a complete and infallible guide and standard of authority in all matters of religion and morals; whatever it teaches is to be believed, and whatever it commands is to be obeyed; whatever it commends is to be accepted as both right and useful; whatever it condemns is to be avoided as both wrong and hurtful; but what it neither commands nor teaches is not to be imposed on the conscience as of religious obligation.
http://www.fbinstitute.com/moore/baptistdist.html
--This is a historical link giving proof that not only every Baptist church, but every church that was Baptist in nature, from the first century onward believed in sola scriptura.

Basically Baptists have considered the Bible as authoritative for faith and practice because of its very nature. Baptists have insisted that the divine nature of the Bible is the basis of its authority. No other writing compares to the Bible. The Bible stands alone among all other writings in that it is uniquely from God and about God.
https://www.baptistdistinctives.org/wpassets/article4_2_21_05b.pdf
--This site gives an in-depth study of the Baptist distinctives that are common to ALL Baptists. Sola scriptura, of course, is one of them. The evidence is there and it is plentiful. If you do not believe in this very basic Baptist distinctive then you are not a Baptist. In fact IMO, I don't see how one can be a Christian without believing in the authority of the Bible. What is your authority?
The Great Controversy?
The RCC Catechism?
The Book of Mormon?
The Granth Sahib? (Maybe it is this one)

One of the reasons why it does not teach sola scriptura is that the Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible.

Try Rom.6:1-4; Mat.28:19,20; Acts 2:41; 8:36-39; 10:43-48; 16:30-33, etc.

Another reason why my Baptist denomination does not teach sola scriptura is found in the teaching of the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 and in 1 Peter 3:21.

Who says sola scriptura is not found there? You just gave a couple of references. You didn't even offer an explanation. Why do you make an assertion without evidence. To be frank, it is a stupid thing to do. Is that the level of intelligence we are to expect? Post heresy and then expect all to believe it without giving any supporting evidence.

Most of the seminary professors and pastors in my denomination experienced being saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water; and therefore they believe, as do I, that that water Baptism has become, in the case of many believers today, a symbolic act of obedience.

What seminaries? The J.W.'s have seminaries also. Did you go to theirs? Remember, you have not identified yourself, given no proof that you are a Baptist, other than some lame claim. Your posts are all non-Baptistic in doctrine. The Bible says "By their fruit you shall know them." Where is the fruit that you are a Baptist?

Here it is again,
The Bible does NOT teach sola scriptura, and my Baptist denomination of more than 1,000,000 Baptists does NOT teach sola scriptura. One of the reasons why it does not teach sola scriptura is that the Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible. Another reason why my Baptist denomination does not teach sola scriptura is found in the teaching of the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 and in 1 Peter 3:21. Most of the seminary professors and pastors in my denomination experienced being saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water; and therefore they believe, as do I, that that water Baptism has become, in the case of many believers today, a symbolic act of obedience.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.
If you repeat, "The moon is made of green cheese" often enough perhaps you will come to believe it, but that won't make it true. One can convince themselves of a lie, but that doesn't bring about truth.

The Baptist doctrine that water Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience is NOT taught, or even so much as alluded to, in the Bible. Therefore, this Baptist doctrine directly contradicts the doctrine of sola scriptura.

More opinion; no evidence. Prove your statements.

I also believe, as I have posted over and over again, that “the

ordinance of baptism is purely symbolic, an act of obedience symbolizing our death to our old life of sin, and our rising again to a new life in Christ.” However, this doctrine is not found anywhere in the Bible, incontrovertibly proving that Baptists do not really believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura.

The doctrine is in the Bible, and has been shown to you. Here is the reference once again.
1Cor.11:23-30.

Why is there not any evidence of this in your posts?

You only see what you want to see. My posts are full of scripture.

How can anyone who does not know what I am saying know whether the Bible teaches what I am saying?

We see what you post and compare it with scripture. That is sola scriptura. Much of what you post is not biblical.

And, of course, there is further proof that Baptists do not

really believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura. For example, nearly all Baptists believe in a doctrine known as, “The Age of Accountability”—another Baptist doctrine that has absolutely no scriptural foundation.

You will have to ask Baptists if they believe that or not. Have you done that? Did you ask Martin? Or are you just making false accusations?

Roman Catholics have their traditions; and Baptists have theirs—but at least the Roman Catholics are up front about their traditions.

So now you are admitting that you are a Roman Catholic and not a Baptist. Honesty is the best policy.

 

[Craigbythesea]

They don't use the "word" symbol - like the "word Trinity" is hard to find in the Bible. But if you look at the details - and you don''t think Christ was lost before being baptized then it looks "symbolic".

Is it not dishonest to substitute the word that I used, “concept,” with the word “word,” and then argue against what I did not say? Here is what I wrote,

“None of the verses posted here make any mention of the concept of symbolism, let alone say anything at all about the ordinance of baptism being a purely symbolic act of obedience.”

The word “Trinity” is never used in the Bible, BUT the concept of the Trinity is found throughout the Bible. The concept of water baptism being a symbolic act of obedience is not found anywhere in the Bible. The Bible does not teach that water baptism is a symbolic act of obedience, but our Baptist churches teach that doctrine anyway—based upon experience and tradition rather than the Scriptures. On one side of their mouths, our Baptist churches teach a doctrine based upon experience and tradition rather than upon the Scriptures, and on the other side of their mouths they hypocritically teach the non-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura!

And the Eph 4, 1Cor 12 statements about the Holy Spirit given to the saints - makes it appear that Acts 11 has some "believers" some "saints" getting the gifts of the Spirit - without first being baptized.


What is more - Romans 10 makes no mention of "baptism resulting in salvation" -- what does Romans 10 say "results in salvation"??

These points are absolutely irrelevant to the fact that the Bible does not teach that water baptism is a symbolic act of obedience.

Peter sees salvation being accomplished through the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" instead of "sacramental waters of baptism" -- thus the appeal to God is followed by baptism - but baptism's waters themselves do nothing.

I do not appreciate it when people misrepresent what Peter wrote. Here is what he wrote,

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20. who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (RSV)

In this passage, Peter teaches us about salvation through the means of water. In verse 20, he tells us that eight persons (Noah and his family) were “saved through water.” In verse 21, he tells us that baptism now saves us, corresponding to the salvation of Noah and his family by the means of water. Peter further tells us that water baptism does not save us “as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” If we remove from this statement what baptism does not do, but leave in place what it does do, we get the following statement,

Peter further tells us that water baptism saves us as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is syntactically impossible to accurately construe 1 Peter 3:21 is any way that changes the fact that it says that baptism saves the recipients of the baptism, and that it does so as an appeal to God for a clear conscience. One can argue with Peter’s theology and say that he was mistaken, but one cannot argue with his syntax.