Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

[Adonia]

I believe I can. But here is what is more important. While the Bible is not a book of science it is scientifically accurate. That is true science does not contradict the Bible or vice-versa. Science has always supported what the Bible says. In fact if the principles taught in Lev.17:11 some 1400 + years before Christ was born George Washington wouldn't have died when he did. "The life of the flesh is in the blood," the Bible teaches. They let his "life" (blood) out and he died. IOW, they practiced blood-letting. But the sickness was not carried by the blood; his life was.


Going by the best information that we have I believe that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

Yes I do. I believe they were wiped out by the Flood and the great climactic changes that the earth underwent shortly thereafter.

Absolutely. God created the earth to revolve around the sun, and the moon to revolve around the earth. How else would we get a 24 hour day.
Consider:
1. If the days were longer, much longer, (long days = long nights) then most of the plants would die for a lack of sunshine and the inability to go through the process of photosynthesis.
2. Note this very simple thing in creation:

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
--Flowers, plants, fruit-yielding trees, etc. were all created on the third day.

Now go the sixth day:
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The above plus the creation of man was on the sixth day (vs. 31).
--Every creeping thing refers to the insects. That includes the bees (honey bees. From the third day to the sixth day--3 nights or as some believe--3 thousand years, trees and flowers would not be pollinated. They would all be dead. Much of plant life depends on the bees. Even now we are hearing about that crisis. But three thousand years without bees! Impossible.

Yes, the days were 24 hour days. Common sense tells us that. If you want some more reasons why this is so, I have plenty. But the above should be enough.

To go back to your first objection:
Science backs up the Bible. It does not contradict it. But that is not true with the RCC.
It is obvious that science contradicts the outlandish claims that the RCC makes.
I have just shown you that; demonstrated it. Peter was never in Rome. Do you want some more proof. I will give it to you. It is impossible for Peter to have ever been in Rome. It is a RCC lie perpetuated by the RCC. The entire foundation of the RCC is built on a lie. It is not truth. Only Christ is truth. See John 14:6.
Your religion is built on a lie. That we know.
Peter was not a bishop; not a pope; never in Rome.
Can you prove any of the above to be true?

Creation done in 24 hour days and a 7 day week and the earth is only between 6 to 10,000 years old - and you say I blindly believe stuff? It's time you put your thinking cap on and come back to reality.

According to Universe Today ( a Space and Astronomy news outlet) scientists estimate that planet earth is 4.54 billion years old, which coincidentally is the same age as the rest of the planets in our solar system. As for the dinosaurs, the best guess is that they were killed off about 66 million years ago after an asteroid hit the earth and caused a cataclysmic climate change. All in all, that is a far cry from your estimation that the earth is a maximum of 10,000 years old.

Now none of that information causes my belief in God, His creation of all the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ to falter in any way, shape, manner or form. Why would such a reality be a problem for you? You are right with one thing though - true science does not contradict the bible or vice - versa, it is what you erroneously come up with as you attempt to reconcile the two that's the problem.

 

[DHK]

Creation done in 24 hour days and a 7 day week and the earth is only between 6 to 10,000 years old - and you say I blindly believe stuff? It's time you put your thinking cap on and come back to reality.

Here is where one might say that the Catholic doctrine has changed.
Christ doesn't change. God doesn't change. The Bible doesn't change. But on this topic the RCC has changed its stance. For centuries it stood against evolution. Now it allows evolution. Why the change? It has caved in to godless "science so-called."

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

According to Universe Today ( a Space and Astronomy news outlet) scientists estimate that planet earth is 4.54 billion years old, which coincidentally is the same age as the rest of the planets in our solar system. As for the dinosaurs, the best guess is that they were killed off about 66 million years ago after an asteroid hit the earth and caused a cataclysmic climate change. All in all, that is a far cry from your estimation that the earth is a maximum of 10,000 years old.

It doesn't make them right does it. Are you that gullible to simply take their word over God's Word without doing any research on your own. Poor Catholics. They reject sola scriptura and thus reject the author of Bible rejecting God and His Word and turn to philosophy instead.
Why are you putting your faith in philosophy and in "oppositions of science falsely so called."

A paraphrase of the same verse:
(CEV) Timothy, guard what God has placed in your care! Don't pay any attention to that godless and stupid talk that sounds smart but really isn't.

Weymouth in 1912
(WNT) O Timothy, guard the truths entrusted to you, shunning irreligious and frivolous talk, and controversy with what is falsely called 'knowledge';

What is science?
"It is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." (from dictionary.com)
--All true science is gained through observation. There is no observation in evolution. For example, who was there to observe the Big Bang? No one. It is outside the realm of science and now inside the realm of faith and the metaphysical where science does not belong. If there is no observation it isn't science. Science requires observation.
--Secondly, there is nothing that we have today accurate enough to measure four billion years. That also is all guess work and outside the realm of science.
--Even your 66 million years is far too long of a stretch for anyone to measure. Man doesn't have the tools to measure those wide expanses of time. It is just his own guess work. It is not science.
Creation vs Science. The two don't oppose each other; in fact they agree. But what you gave as an example isn't science, it is only purported as such.

Now none of that information causes my belief in God, His creation of all the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ to falter in any way, shape, manner or form. Why would such a reality be a problem for you?

There is nothing here that is a problem for me. I know what I believe. I know where unbelievers stand. You stand with them. You have taken a stand against creation and against God. You don't believe in sola scripture "thus saith the Lord," nor the biblical record of God's creation, or the way that God told Moses to write it down.
You would rather put your faith in what some here call "scientism." It is not science at all. Science can be observed. There is a scientific method. But with things like the "Big Bang," it is just another religion that requires blind faith. No one was there. No one saw it. There is no evidence that it ever took place. It is another theory to take the place of the biblical record of creation, and that is exactly why it was proposed--not for the sake of science itself. Read up on the real history of it.

You are right with one thing though - true science does not contradict the bible or vice - versa, it is what you erroneously come up with as you attempt to reconcile the two that's the problem.

Science and the Bible do reconcile with each other.
The Bible teaches they do. It also teaches that there are people that won't agree with this.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

v of v
I'm inclined to leave your glossing over of centuries of Roman Catholic persecution and slaughter just as it is, so that people can see how your Church justifies itself for murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents for no other reason than that they refused to bow the knee to your false Pope.

The Catholic Church is the spiritual home to countless saints, women like St. Gianna Beretta Molla, men like St. Maximillian Kolbe, teenagers like Blessed Chiara Luce Badano. Your disapproval of their Church which you've mistakenly come to dislike should by no means lead you to disregard their witness to holiness and purity in this cruel world whose inhabitants killed even their Lord. Also, you mentioned recent events. The betrayal of Christ byJudas Iscariot, one of the 12 whom He selected to be an Apostle, isn't exactly a recent event. Neither are St. Peter's denials of Christ. Did you have some other unique and innovative sins in mind worse than those committed by the very men upon whom Christ chose to confer His divine authority?

I am aware of Roman Catholics who have led exemplary lives. It is not they whom I criticize- I am sorry for them that they give their best efforts to a false church. You know very well what I was referring to, and the wicked cover-up that appears to have come from the very top.

It's apostolicity is a joke as long as it denies sola scriptura

This point, apart from the fact that it begs the question by presuming the illegitimacy of my position without bothering to demonstrate it in rational terms, speaks to matters which are objectively and publicly accessible to all. For early Christian writers presented to us public and verifiable records of Papal Succession which you're free to demonstrate as invalid. To do so, according to Sola Scriptura, mind you, would be both unScriptural and invalid until you take the time to demonstrate how points 1 and 2 above lead to point 3. And to deny them according to the very point whose legitimacy you've not yet demonstrated is to, again, beg the question.

My point is that it denies the authority of the apostles by sidelining their words as found in Scripture. As or Papal Succession, I deny the Papacy altogether. Where is a 'Pope' found in Scripture? Where are your 'cardinals' and all the other placemen? What saith the Scriptures? "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9). But as for your 'Papal Succession,' I've already told you that 'Pope' Honorius (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council in 680, and by 'Pope' Leo II and by every other 'Pope' until the 11th Century when Hildebrand reinstated him so as not to have any heretical 'Popes' on record. I've also told you about the three 'Popes' fighting it out in Rome in around 1040, and the Great Schism where there were rival 'Popes' at Rome and Avignon busily excommunicating each other for seventy years or so. Your 'Papacy is a joke. Some of the most wicked men imaginable have held the office.

Again, you're begging the question by presuming the validity of that which you've, according to your fallible human mind, determined amounts to "faithfully preaching" the message of Christ and the Apostles.

To preach the word of God is to take the Scriptures and expound them, and bring out their meaning. The very fact that you have to ask shows that you're not familiar with the genre.

But when a person asks "Where is the truth taught?" and you respond by saying "Wherever the word of God is preached faithfully" and the person follows up with the question "Where is the word of God preached faithfully?" you can't logically respond by saying "Wherever the truth is taught." In such a case, the means by which you come to recognize the truth, which involves answering questions like "How shall I go about distinguishing mere human opinion from divine revelation?" with principled answers must be considered.

Every born-again Christian is equipped to know truth from error. 'But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written tom you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and no lie is of the truth' (1 John 2:20-21). Christians are to use their God-given ability to separate truth from error, whether that error comes from some mega-church Pastor or from the Church of Rome.

Ultimately, though, rather than bringing up all of this, why don't you just show me how #3 logically follows from points 1 and 2 above?

Herbert

I just have.

 

[herbert]

Martin,

After you asked me to trim things down I decided to take a different approach with you. I provided two responses instead of one.

You were free to choose to respond to the shorter response or the longer response. Without responding to the shorter, though, you went ahead and chose the longer of the two.

As I see it, since the question of Sola Scriptura acts as a sort of linchpin doctrine from which nearly all of your other doctrines flow, until you demonstrate the validity of it, your numerous criticisms won't really amount to much. For they all flow from Sola Scriptura.

Again, it is my claim that Sola Scripture is at best a fallible inference. It has not been revealed by God, Scripture, an angel, a prophet or any act of revelation.

And for all the talk here, I have not yet heard a single person speak clearly and directly to my "challenge":

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

The other way to consider my challenge would be to show how 3 follows 1 and 2 below:

1. Christ is the divine Son of God.
2. Christ affirmed the authority of Scripture.
3. Scripture is the sole and final authority for all Christians.

Again, if I missed it, sorry. But if you could please respond to this or paste a previous response which explains what I asked of you above so that I can read, I'd truly appreciate it.

Herbert

 

[DHK]

Again, it is my claim that Sola Scripture is at best a fallible inference. It has not been revealed by God, Scripture, an angel, a prophet or any act of revelation.

And for all the talk here, I have not yet heard a single person speak clearly and directly to my "challenge":

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

This is a non sequitur.
BTW, in every day speech, a non sequitur is "It can also refer to a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question:"
This comes from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Where it also states:
"Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many types of logical fallacies."
--The fact is you have stated a somewhat irrelevant "statement" or "challenge" seeing that there are 66 books in the Bible not just one. Why does a person need to demonstrate from the book of Hebrews the doctrine of sola scriptura when it has so clearly been demonstrated in many other books. There are 66 books not one. If the Bible says it just once, then that is good enough.

Isa.8:20 was the standard for the nation of Israel. Everything was tested against the law. If it was not according to the law of God, it was not of God.

Acts 17:11, The Bereans did the same thing. They checked out Paul's NT message with their OT. If his NT message did not check out according to the scriptures they had (the OT), they were not going to believe it. And Paul commended them for this. It was sola scriptura. We see this all throughout the Bible.

The other way to consider my challenge would be to show how 3 follows 1 and 2 below:

1. Christ is the divine Son of God.
2. Christ affirmed the authority of Scripture.
3. Scripture is the sole and final authority for all Christians.

As to #1: Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
That is the testimony of God the Father as recorded in the Word.

Also, John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
--The claim of Jesus was a claim to deity.

As to #2. Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
--Jesus used all three divisions of the OT when speaking to the two on the way to Emmaus. That is his endorsement on the entire OT.
1. The Law of Moses is the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.
2. The Prophets include all the prophetical books and the historical books.
3. The Psalms or writings are the Poetical books.
--In these three divisions are all 39 books that we have today in our OT.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
--The scripture was sacred and inspired. Not one verse, one word, one letter, or even a part of a letter would be missing. God would preserve His Word. It is a promise from Christ. A yod is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and a tittle is the smallest part of a letter, like the crossing of a "t".

Christ is the Son of God, that is God Himself.

He is the one who says that Scripture shall remain forever, that it will be preserved, and that He Himself will preserve it--even to the smallest letter and/or part of a letter.

If it is so important for the King of kings and Lord of lords to preserve the Word of God until such time that heaven and earth shall pass away, then it should be important enough to us to study it and heed it as he commanded us.

Note that three times in one chapter--just in a matter of a few verses he tells us that if we are to demonstrate our love to him we need to keep his commandments, his Word. The only way to do that is to follow them or obey them as they are written in the Scriptures:

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

--The great demonstration of our love for Christ is our obedience to Him according to His Word which is sola scriptura.

 

[utilyan]

If sola scriptura was true it would have been clearly spelled out to be true.

On the contrary scripture states scripture alone is dangerous, hard to understand, REQUIRES proper guidance.

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.

I've pulled out actual BIBLE VERSE stating the TRUTH. And the sweet thing is this ain't the only verse.

Yet none of you can pull one verse saying scripture alone is valid.

The best line is that it PROFITS instruction, never claiming to BE the instruction. It HELPS doctrine never claims to BE doctrine.

This error is expected. Its not just a few 30 million folks out of 1.2 billion folks can't read. Catholics themselves made the mistake.......they can't read.

ie. UNTAUGHT and UNSTABLE.

Anyone who actually knows how to read and has reading comprehension can clearly understand 2 Timothy 3:16

Some folks in this world are two cans short of a six pack.

They read:
24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

But in their backwards spiritual dyslexia......its You see that a man is justified by FAITH ALONE and not by works.


They read:
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.

They think, Well for if father forgives you then you will forgive others.

Let me tell you God bless these people. They have my upmost forgiveness and mercy. And its party because of them I believe so much in God. Because there is no way anyone can get this stuff wrong unless there were some divine intervention.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

But in their backwards spiritual dyslexia......its You see that a man is justified by FAITH ALONE and not by works.

'For by grace you have been saved through faith.......It is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast' (Ephesians 2:8-9).
But of course some people have backwards spiritual dyslexia......its By works you have been saved, not by grace or faith, so that you can boast.' And worse yet, they haven't found away to reconcile Paul and James.

 

[herbert]

Hello, DHK-

This is a non sequitur.
BTW, in every day speech, a non sequitur is "It can also refer to a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question:"
This comes from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

What I asked anyone here to demonstrate is not "totally unrelated" to the original statement or question and therefore it does not represent a non sequitur because within the context of this conversation those two "proofs" were presented as part of the justification to which one appeals for holding to Sola Scriptura.

As I said above, however, it is my position that:

Sola Scripture is at best a fallible inference. It has not been revealed by God, Scripture, an angel, a prophet or any act of revelation.

This position is something that can either be disproven or proven. It is not some secret, gnostic belief. Therefore, I ask anyone here to demonstrate that it is wrong.

Nothing you have presented indicates, hints at, suggests, or otherwise relays the truth of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

All of the Bible verses you quote are fully compatible with the truth of the Catholic Faith.

If you wish to transition out of the realm of mere human opinion and into the realm of divine revelation, you must demonstrate, somehow, that Sola Scriptura is a "revealed" doctrine. You have not done so. And repeating yourself doesn't do anything to build your case.

To broaden the "challenge," I'll say this:

Please demonstrate how any of Scripture's self-references result in "Sola Scriptura."

As I've said, Scripture goes so far as to affirm its authority. But nowhere does Scripture teach its sole authority. As a matter of fact, the New Testament never so much as refers to itself as a collection of texts. Therefore, as I've said, even your particular collections of texts as a "canon" or "set" relies upon and is linked to the work of the Holy Spiri through Tradition within Christ's Church.

Again, looking at it in the form of two premises and a conclusion, I can present it this way, and ask that anyone here demonstrate how 3 follows from 1 and 2:

1. Christ is the divine Son of God
2. Christ affirmed the authority of the Scriptures.
3. Therefore, all Christians are bound to Scripture alone as the sole and final authority.

To be clear, it is my position that 3 does NOT follow 1 and 2.

And if "Sola Scriptura" is to be proven true, you must demonstrate that 3 follows 1 and 2. On the other hand, if, by any other means, you can show that SS is divinely-revealed, that would be fine, also.

Until that happens, for all the table-pounding, for all the unrelated comments, it is nothing but a fallible inference grounded not in the Word of God, but the fallible minds of men.

Herbert

 

[herbert]

Martin,

When I respond to each of the many points you make, you seem to lament the "vast" responses I share, so I'll just respond to a couple fundamental points:

You said:

I have already done this,

Either I missed it, or you didn't actually respond directly to my challenge. Whatever the case, would you please repeat or paste your response (which speaks directly to what it is I'm asking) below so that I may consider your position? To make things as clear as possible, allow me to re-state what it is I am asking:

As I said to DHK, please respond directly to either of these:

Please demonstrate how any of Scripture's self-references and self-affirmations result in "Sola Scriptura."

or demonstrate how 3 follows from 1 and 2 below:

1. Christ is the divine Son of God
2. Christ affirmed the authority of the Scriptures.
3. Therefore, all Christians are bound to Scripture alone as the sole and final authority.

To be clear, it is my position that 3 does NOT follow 1 and 2.

And if "Sola Scriptura" is to be proven true, you must demonstrate that 3 follows from 1 and 2. On the other hand, if, by any other means, you can show that SS is divinely-revealed, that would be fine, also.

Until that happens, for all the table-pounding, SS is nothing but a fallible inference grounded in the fallible minds of uninspired men. It is not a doctrine revealed by God and is thus of no concern to those who are committed to following what the Holy Scriptures actually teach.

Herbert

 

[DHK]

Hello, DHK-
Nothing you have presented indicates, hints at, suggests, or otherwise relays the truth of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

All of us have presented a Biblical case for sola scriptura. No matter what argument is presented you simply reject it. It is the argument of an atheist (note: I am not calling you one).
No matter how much evidence one may set in front of an atheist that Christ rose again from the dead, will the atheist believe? No. He has already made up his mind not to believe. You have already made up your mind to dismiss the evidence, whatever it is, that is set in front of you. (or so it appears).

All of the Bible verses you quote are fully compatible with the truth of the Catholic Faith.

Some basic truths do agree with the RCC. No doubt we can find some that agree with the J.W.'s as well. It is not those that we are in agreement that we are concerned about, rather those that we are in disagreement: purgatory, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc.

If you wish to transition out of the realm of mere human opinion and into the realm of divine revelation, you must demonstrate, somehow, that Sola Scriptura is a "revealed" doctrine. You have not done so. And repeating yourself doesn't do anything to build your case.

Please remember how many times you have repeated yourself (non sequitur, straw man, etc.).
As I said previously: well-thought out arguments have been placed before you, but you simply reject them. When the Scripture is quoted it is not human opinion any longer. It is an appeal to authority, God as our authority, which is what sola scriptura is all about.

[qTo broaden the "challenge," I'll say this:

Please demonstrate how any of Scripture's self-references result in "Sola Scriptura."

As I've said, Scripture goes so far as to affirm its authority. But nowhere does Scripture teach its sole authority. As a matter of fact, the New Testament never so much as refers to itself as a collection of texts. Therefore, as I've said, even your particular collections of texts as a "canon" or "set" relies upon and is linked to the work of the Holy Spiri through Tradition within Christ's Church.

No true believer believes what you have stated.
The Bible did not come to us through Tradition within "The Church." When your premise is a fallacy then your conclusion will be a fallacy, and thus your beliefs are based on error. Is it any wonder you don't believe in sola scriptura or that it is taught in the Bible. It does. If it didn't then Jesus would not use the Bible as "His sole authority" when answering others. And that has already been demonstrated to you. The RCC never existed until over 300 years after the time of Christ.

Again, looking at it in the form of two premises and a conclusion, I can present it this way, and ask that anyone here demonstrate how 3 follows from 1 and 2:

1. Christ is the divine Son of God
2. Christ affirmed the authority of the Scriptures.
3. Therefore, all Christians are bound to Scripture alone as the sole and final authority.

To be clear, it is my position that 3 does NOT follow 1 and 2.

And if "Sola Scriptura" is to be proven true, you must demonstrate that 3 follows 1 and 2. On the other hand, if, by any other means, you can show that SS is divinely-revealed, that would be fine, also.

Until that happens, for all the table-pounding, for all the unrelated comments, it is nothing but a fallible inference grounded not in the Word of God, but the fallible minds of men.

Herbert

I assume you will agree to the first two statements, and that they don't have to be proved.
I already gave you a decent answer here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...ciency-of-scripture.99648/page-5#post-2230976

You ignored it. Christ clearly presented himself as the Lord, the Scriptures as divine, sufficient, and went through every part of the OT. He then requires us to obey him, as in obeying the Scriptures.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

According to Universe Today ( a Space and Astronomy news outlet) scientists estimate...

This part of your quote serves to illustrate how sinful sin is. And what ruin the fear of man/the love of men brings and what a snare it causes. Mankind would rather place the opinions of men over the Word of God. We would prefer to go the way of the wicked, walk in counsel of the ungodly, rather than sit at supper with the prophets and patriarchs. You prefer the accolades of modern man than praise of God. We would take the word of scientists over Moses.

Those who would walk in the counsel of the ungodly will stand in the way of sinners and sit in the seat of the scornful. These are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. But the godly has his delight in the law of the Lord, and in His law he doth mediate day and night. They shall be like a tree planted by rivers of water that brings forth fruit in his season. His leaf shall also not whither and whatsoever he does shall prosper. See Psalm 1.

 

[Internet Theologian]

It is interesting to note how discounted and flippantly are treated the Words of Christ, and, the Word of God (Scriptures), all for the sake of the traditions of men, and is done without blushing or shame.

Nothing new under the Sun.

 

[JonC]

It is interesting to note how discounted and flippantly are treated the Words of Christ, and, the Word of God (Scriptures), all for the sake of the traditions of men, and is done without blushing or shame.

Nothing new under the Sun.

It is interesting. Sometimes men are simply blinded by their own ideologies and theories such that they cannot see God's Word but through the lens of human tradition.

 

[Adonia]

This part of your quote serves to illustrate how sinful sin is. And what ruin the fear of man/the love of men brings and what a snare it causes. Mankind would rather place the opinions of men over the Word of God. We would prefer to go the way of the wicked, walk in counsel of the ungodly, rather than sit at supper with the prophets and patriarchs. You prefer the accolades of modern man than praise of God. We would take the word of scientists over Moses.

Those who would walk in the counsel of the ungodly will stand in the way of sinners and sit in the seat of the scornful. These are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. But the godly has his delight in the law of the Lord, and in His law he doth mediate day and night. They shall be like a tree planted by rivers of water that brings forth fruit in his season. His leaf shall also not whither and whatsoever he does shall prosper. See Psalm 1.

There is nothing sinful about using one's intelligence to rightly figure out the truth in regards to what is said in the Holy Scriptures. No Catholic deny's God's creation of the world, we just think that a 24/7 creation time period does not pass the smell test. God's time frame is different than ours, he operates beyond time and space as we humans know it. One day in our time could be 10 billion years in God's time and in reality we are all just guessing.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There is nothing sinful about using one's intelligence to rightly figure out the truth in regards to what is said in the Holy Scriptures. No Catholic deny's God's creation of the world, we just think that a 24/7 creation time period does not pass the smell test. God's time frame is different than ours, he operates beyond time and space as we humans know it. One day in our time could be 10 billion years in God's time and in reality we are all just guessing.

Andonia -

There is something very sinful about not submitting our intelligence to the Holy Scriptures. To place our reason about revealed truth is to violate the 1st commandment and set ourselves as a god above the one True and Living God.

The creation of the world must not pass or fail by our "smell test" but must be taken from Holy Scripture. The Lord has chosen to communicate with His people. Rationalizing that we are simply guessing is to impugn the Lord who has chosen to give us His Holy Word and to suppose that we could not understand it. The Lord says, "All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge." Proverbs 8:8-9

See how the Lord says that His words are very plain to those who understand and right (rather than wrong) to them that find knowledge. It stands then that the inverse would be true. To those without understanding the words are not plain. To those who have not found knowledge the words are not right in their eyes.

The language of Genesis could not be more plain to human understanding concerning time. There was an evening, and a morning, which is a day. The Lord furnished the cycle of the earth to mark the time frame. Do we suppose it takes 10 billion years for the earth to rotate? Does it take millions of years for the sun to rise and set? Of course not!

So the timing of God's creation and the manner in which he did it is explained so plainly in Genesis that a child can understand it. The difficulty with people comes from their sin. Pride prevents them from submitted to the Word of God. Loving the praise of this world will always cause a snare Andonia. Place God first. And place His Word above the words of scientists, priests, and popes. You will not give an account at judgement to popes or councils. You will give an account to the Word of God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin,

When I respond to each of the many points you make, you seem to lament the "vast" responses I share, so I'll just respond to a couple fundamental points:

Thank you for being concise. I really appreciate that. Part of the reason that I answered your longer responses was to show how unwieldy things can get.

Either I missed it, or you didn't actually respond directly to my challenge. Whatever the case, would you please repeat or paste your response (which speaks directly to what it is I'm asking) below so that I may consider your position? To make things as clear as possible, allow me to re-state what it is I am asking:

As I said to DHK, please respond directly to either of these:

Please demonstrate how any of Scripture's self-references and self-affirmations result in "Sola Scriptura."

or demonstrate how 3 follows from 1 and 2 below:

1. Christ is the divine Son of God
2. Christ affirmed the authority of the Scriptures.
3. Therefore, all Christians are bound to Scripture alone as the sole and final authority.

To be clear, it is my position that 3 does NOT follow 1 and 2.

I have answered this before, but not to worry. As I said, I don't usually do syllogisms, and the one you have posted above is certainly not anything that I have ever posted.

If I were to do a syllogism, it might go like this:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God.
2. He regularly quoted from the Scriptures, affirmed their authority, referred others to the Scriptures, never endorsed any other form of revelation as normative, and specifically denounced 'tradition' (Mark 7:5-13).
3. Therefore, the onus is on those who deny that Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians to prove that they are following Christ.

How does that work for you?

Have you seen that I have opened a separate thread on the subject of 'Tradition'?

 

[Adonia]

It is interesting. Sometimes men are simply blinded by their own ideologies and theories such that they cannot but see God's Word through the lens of human tradition.

So which is true - a 24 hour day and 7 day time of

Andonia -

There is something very sinful about not submitting our intelligence to the Holy Scriptures. To place our reason about revealed truth is to violate the 1st commandment and set ourselves as a god above the one True and Living God.

The creation of the world must not pass or fail by our "smell test" but must be taken from Holy Scripture. The Lord has chosen to communicate with His people. Rationalizing that we are simply guessing is to impugn the Lord who has chosen to give us His Holy Word and to suppose that we could not understand it. The Lord says, "All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge." Proverbs 8:8-9

See how the Lord says that His words are very plain to those who understand and right (rather than wrong) to them that find knowledge. It stands then that the inverse would be true. To those without understanding the words are not plain. To those who have not found knowledge the words are not right in their eyes.

The language of Genesis could not be more plain to human understanding concerning time. There was an evening, and a morning, which is a day. The Lord furnished the cycle of the earth to mark the time frame. Do we suppose it takes 10 billion years for the earth to rotate? Does it take millions of years for the sun to rise and set? Of course not!

So the timing of God's creation and the manner in which he did it is explained so plainly in Genesis that a child can understand it. The difficulty with people comes from their sin. Pride prevents them from submitted to the Word of God. Loving the praise of this world will always cause a snare Andonia. Place God first. And place His Word above the words of scientists, priests, and popes. You will not give an account at judgement to popes or councils. You will give an account to the Word of God.

While creation by God is true, what we have here is a story made to a simple level that all men, even uneducated men, could easily understand. We do not disregard Gods hand in all of creation, just questioning the time period - so that now makes us guilty of the sin of pride? You to tend to read certain parts of the Scriptures literally, just like other people do to other parts of the Scriptures regarding certain doctrines. Are we to assume that you now believe the literal interpretation concerning the Holy Eucharist as orthodox believers do? If you do fine, if not, where does that leave you vis a vis Jesus's stated words concerning that particular issue - guilty of the sin of pride perhaps?

 

[JonC]

So which is true - a 24 hour day and 7 day time of

I don't know. I wasn't there and have not found enough evidence as to the hours of a day prior to the completion of Creation. I do know that sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin. I know that because of this Creation was subjected to futility. There may be some implications there.

 

[Adonia]

I don't know. I wasn't there and have not found enough evidence as to the hours of a day prior to the completion of Creation. I do know that sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin. I know that because of this Creation was subjected to futility. There may be some implications there.

I agree, sin through Adam and death through sin, but could you expound on your "creation was subjected to futility" statement?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So which is true - a 24 hour day and 7 day time of


While creation by God is true, what we have here is a story made to a simple level that all men, even uneducated men, could easily understand. We do not disregard Gods hand in all of creation, just questioning the time period - so that now makes us guilty of the sin of pride? You to tend to read certain parts of the Scriptures literally, just like other people do to other parts of the Scriptures regarding certain doctrines. Are we to assume that you now believe the literal interpretation concerning the Holy Eucharist as orthodox believers do? If you do fine, if not, where does that leave you vis a vis Jesus's stated words concerning that particular issue - guilty of the sin of pride perhaps?

Adonia -

What we have in Genesis 1 is God's Holy Word describing the origin of the universe. This is history. If we look at the language we see no evidence that its a metaphor, an allegory, et. We are all guilty of pride if we are unwilling to submit to Holy Scripture, wouldn't you agree? The Holy Scriptures are made up of many different types of writing. And so, by God's grace, I would take what he has said in a literal manner, literally, and what He has said allegorically, as an allegory, and metaphorically, as metaphors, et.

Concerning the Lord's Table, I take the Lord's teaching quite literally on the subject. Perhaps you think Jesus' teaching in John 6 is about the Lord's Table?