Featured Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

I understand where you are coming from, but the truth is that all Christians do agree on the essentials of the Faith, and that the doctrines of the Church of Rome are NOT found in the Bible, but drawn from traditions and false revealtions so called from God!

ALL true christians would agree ont he Cardinal/Fundamental doctrines of the faith, its just that Rome has so many more that are against what the essential truths are!

 

I remember you "complaining" that I had not answered some other posts of your posts either sufficiently enough or not at all. So I went back and began to answer them point by point.
The most recent post was located here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...ciency-of-scripture.99648/page-8#post-2233072

But this is wrong.
Paul said: "Be ye followers of me even as I am of Christ." This is what the inspired Word says--not to follow another man. The other man may be of the devil. Unless he is following the Word (sola scriptura) how would you know?
Of course, if your point is being in Rome, Peter could have taught them by epistle and not by his presence. Paul wrote Romans before he arrived at the city as a prisoner. The statement doesn't prove anything.

And who translated this letter. It obviously wasn't in English, and there was no such thing as a pope at the end of the second century. Someone is reading into this letter that which is not there. Both did plant together at Corinth. That we know from the Bible.

This is unlikely. It is unlikely for two reasons:
Romans 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
--Paul would never build upon another apostle's foundation. He would not work with another apostle. He was a pioneer missionary and would go only where other apostles had not gone. Note there was never any mention of Peter in his epistle to the Romans, a glaring omission if Peter had been there. But Peter was not there. Therefore God sent Paul to Rome where no other apostle had been.
--Secondly, Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul an apostle to the Gentiles. How could they work together if they had different ministries? The Jews in Rome had never even heard of Paul's case. If Peter had been there I am sure that they would have known, but they were totally ignorant of it.

Clement wrote in the 3rd century and Peter lived and wrote in the first century.
When Mark learned of Peter, Peter was in Jerusalem, not Rome. Someone has their facts wrong.

These events took place in Jerusalem where Peter lived:
Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.
--Jerusalem was also the place where Mark lived.
Peter and John Mark did work together, and Mark learned from Peter, but they were in Jerusalem not Rome.
--Again, I don't find any viable evidence that Peter was in Rome.

The evidence I rely most on is Biblical. The Biblical timeline does not give any time for Peter to be in Rome before his death. He is an apostle to the Jews.
The church may have been corrupt before Constantine as it got there gradually. It was Constantine introducing paganism that was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Montanitsts separated from what was Christianity in general, because of the corruption that they saw in the churches at that time. They came into existence ca. 150 A.D. There were elements of Roman Catholicism here and there before Constantine, but it was Constantine that put it into the form of a "state church" which it remains to this day in many nations.

 

Jesus Christ, The hearer's of our Lord, The Apostles, did not practice Sola Scriptura.


Is Scripture the foundation the pillar of TRUTH?

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


Truth is many of you don't believe scripture at all. Believing scripture means actually believing what it says.


James 2
24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

AMEN!!!! You are not justified by faith alone! We believe directly what scripture says. Instead of BACKWARDS

BACKWARDS BACKWARDS BACKWARDS .


How do I know what a Baptist believes?
Jesus says:

Matthew 6
14“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15“But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Jesus says this? Ok I know a Baptist believes BACKWARDS:

For if the FATHER forgives you, THEN you will forgive others.

Am I right, this is what you believe?

2 Peter 3
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter tells you.. SOLA SCRIPTURA is dangerous. You have requirements. You must be taught rather then untaught, stable rather then unstable.

Scripture is HARD TO UNDERSTAND guaranteed to be distorted without a superiors guidance.

Which is why 2 former UNTAUGHT and UNSTABLE Catholics, Luther and Calvin have no proper view of scripture. They have a failing grade. UNTAUGHT. They are jumping around faithwise, UNSTABLE.

They had NO TEACHER of scripture. They don't understand.


Who taught you and who taught him? And the lineage must be traced all the way back to Christ.

 

The Lord states to us that ALL who are saved have the infallible teacher of the Bible to instruct us, the Holy Spirit of promise...

Why was it that men such as Calvin and Luther saw and knew the true Gospel, while the teachers of the Church of Rome all these years continue in a false gospel?

 

You said it right by using the word "men". Here you have a couple of men who believe they knew more than the combined wisdom of over 1500 years of the Christian Church's teachings. And of course it wasn't too long before the "reformers" themselves were at odds with each other over doctrinal differences.

What's this "false" gospel that you say we have? We believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world and his admonition of love for each other. All that he taught we believe with the only difference among us is how we interpret certain parts of the Scriptures. We too claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding us, and who are you to say that isn't so?

 

Says who, you? We interpret the Scriptures different than you do, and that is all you have - a different interpretation of the Scriptures. Ours came first and then suddenly you folks came up with something different and now you say that you are right? Well, I for one am not buying your proclamation.

 

You deny the pauline theology of the CRoss, youy believe in Batismal regeneration, a heresy, and you do not believe in the real jesus, nor the real Gospel, nor the real canon of scripture...

God always had even in the cathoilic church some who knew the real Gospel, but the church refused to repent and change to teaching the true Gospel, so he sent the reformation into it in order to have the real and true Gospel be found again!

The church of rome denies the validity and truth of the Gospel, hence the myth of purgetory, only some are saints, other books were also inspired, etc!

 

The roman church did NOT ver teach the true Gospel though, as the ealiest churches were assemb lies of believers, local churches...

And they held to the essential truths of the faith once and for all delivered by God to them, vie Jesus and His Apostles, and the church of rome adds trafitions of men to those already givn to us by god!

Again, its not a question of one of us understanding the bible differently in some passages, as all Christians will have some disagreements in areas of doctrines/practices, but we will agree on the essentials of ther faith, while the Church of Rome denys many of them, including the most important one of what the gospel really is!

 

It is not a couple of men.
First, we are neither Calvinists nor Lutherans. I don't follow their theology so you don't get brownie points for referring to them. Refer to the Bible. We believe the Bible; you don't. You believe the Tradition of your church over the Bible, and thus are like any other pagan religion in this world--no different than Hinduism.

The RCC has always preached a false gospel.
They have never been a Christian church and never will be.
Theirs is a message of works; salvation by works just like Hinduism and the pagan religions of the world.
Christianity teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
The RCC does not believe this gospel message, the very heart of Christianity.

 

God reveals His truth to men, and at the point of Luther's enlightenment and true conversion he became aware of the apostate teachings of Rome, which are of course contrary to the what the LORD Himself has revealed in His Word. And there were more than a couple of men. By the way, your attitude reminds me of the same attitude of apostate Israel toward the prophets sent to them. You fail to measure them by the truth found in examining the Word, and practice contempt before investigation. This is all the fruit of not enduring sound doctrine, 2 Timothy 4.

Your last sentence above is laughable, as if your apostate church were exempt from doctrinal differences. That is not the case, for even in false systems as yours there is division on doctrine, and that is coupled with false doctrine.

Your false gospel, as preached by Rome is that the work of Christ and WORD of Christ is insufficient, note Hebrews 10:29 for application. The fact your apostate church has an office of 'priest' glaringly shows the belief that His work was insufficient. There is much more, but that is enough and too much at the same time.

The devils also believe, James 2:19. Sects have love for one another too. So does the LGBTQ community, and some of these say they also believe. It's all just 'talk'. I find it interesting you believe in Jesus as Savior of the World, yet no mention of His being LORD. It would be fair to say that you would not have skipped a beat in honoring to the highest apex Mary if this thread were about her.

So you admit doctrinal differences in your sect. Good. Let's just say that the Holy Spirit is to glorify Christ, John 16:14, not Mary for starters. He, frankly, is certainly not leading your church to do such a thing, nor is He leading you to teach doctrines that mitigate the finished work of Christ, Galatians 1:8-10.

No apologies forthcoming for my usage of Scripture being totally devoid of the traditions of apostate men from RC.