Sola Scriptura

I agree that the RCC is not a candidate for the "do not eat meat" problem in 1Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 regarding eating meat offered to idols.

On the subject of meats - I would argue that "sola scriptura" would insist that Lev 11 is not a source text for demons and that 1Tim 4 states that what is approved - is that which is approved by the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Do you only read SDA approved translations? That is not what my Bible says. Not even close.

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
--First, this is all it has to say. This is as far as you have to go. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused. There are no exceptions here Bob. No Levitical Law exceptions. No exceptions that are going to displease God. All of God's creature's are good. To say that they aren't good and make it a religious decree is a doctrine of the devil.

1 Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
NOTE: It is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
The act is done. It doesn't have to be approved. There is no approval waiting. Where do you get that man-made theology from. It has been sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. It plainly says that. It is not a conditional statement. It is not a future statement. It is not a hypothetical statement. It is a declarative statement, that is one of fact--sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

I am not trying to turn this into a discussion on meats - but since someone else is bringing that up... I don't mind discussing it.

More precisely fruits and nuts in Gen 1.

the animals were given "every green plant".

In Gen 6 and 7 and 8 we see that the "clean unclean" animal distinction was known and observed.

1. There is no "all that moves" in Acts 10. What we have in Acts 10 is Peter insisting that he has still to that very day - never violated the Lev 11 commands. And then 3 times Peter gives the meaning of the vision saying that he is to call no MAN unclean (instead of making the much sought after argument about the idea of eating rats and cats).

2. In 1Tim 4 Paul says that only that which is approved by God's Word in valid for food. And in 1Cor 8 and 1Cor 10 Paul shows what the "meats" vs "vegetarian" issue was for the NT church.

3. In Col 2:16 we see a reference to man-made traditions similar to Mark 7 where WHEAT is not approved of by the Jews if eaten with non-ceremonially-baptized fingers.


Before the fall - humans ate fruits and nuts - animals ate "every green plant".

After the flood mankind was given "every green plant" as well. See Genesis 8. (but not the poison plants of course)

in Christ,

Bob

 

Apparently your Bible translation debunks your idea as much as my NASB debunks your idea.

That which is sanctified by the Word of God - is valid. This is not a case of Paul waving his hands over the Bible and saying "pay no attention to the Word of God - now all is approved of no matter what the Word of God says to the contrary" - in your all for rat-cat-sandwhich solution.

in Christ,

Bob

 

It is, already is, done deal, don't-argue-with-God-about-it, sanctified.
It is not a hocus pocus deal, as you pretend it to be Bob.
That is why The Lord told Peter:
Call not unclean, what I have cleansed!
And blasphemously, you do!

God has cleansed these foods, and you argue with God and tell him to his face that he has not. This is unbelievable.

 

Since you mention "Churches" and "Rome" in the same sentence, maybe you can answer me this question...

Why is it that most (there may be a handful that may have originated in Western Europe after the Reformation)Baptist Churches are based out of North America and its from North America that many of the mission Baptist Churches we see in Eastern Europe are from?

If the Church started the day of Pentecost and spread throughout Eastern Europe, why don't we see "authentic" Baptist Churches in places like Antioch?

I really don't want the standard answer..."the mean 'ol Roman Catholics did away with the "Baptists"...Because the Eastern Orthodox Church survived the Crusades, the onslaught of Islam and Communist Russia and continues to survive to this day under Islamic rule, without having to go "underground"...

In XC
-

 

and what exactly does "truth" and "freedom" have to do with anything?...Jesus Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of the world and that the gates of Hell would never prevail! Amen! I just don't recall Jesus uprooting His ministry and relocating in the name of 'truth' and 'freedom' ...

so why would the "movement of 'evangelical truth'" have to relocate to North America?

again I point you to the Orthodox Christian Church...her Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandra are still in existence today and has been for some 2,000 years...and most are surviving under Islamic rule, yet neither has had to relocate.

care to guess just how many Russian Orthodox Christians perished during the reign of Communism in Russia? It's quite a staggering figure, yet the Russian Church survived, without relocating and is today a prominent fixture in the life of the Church.

In XC
-

 

That which is sanctified by the Word of God - is valid. This is not a case of Paul waving his hands over the Bible and replacing scripture with Apostolic tradition - saying "pay no attention to the Word of God - now all is approved of no matter what the Word of God says to the contrary" - in your all for rat-cat-sandwhich solution.

Hint: there are two places you don't want to go when arguing the case for sola scriptura with those who object to it.

1. Using man-made traditions to delete the 4th commandment.
2. Using the argument above that is of the form 'pay no attention to what the Bible says about food in Lev 11 - because apostolic tradition says that the Bible is to be ignored on that point".

"They studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by Paul) WERE SO" Acts 17:11

You bend the Bible to make the claim in 1Tim 4 that Paul is telling his readers to ignore the Bible and just listen to him on the subject of Lev 11 clean vs unclean foods. That is the most extreme form of "non-sola-scriptura" even for a Catholic argument.

The Bible is its own interpreter - instead of the Acts 10 lesson being about the joy of eating rat and cat sandwiches - Peter says the Acts 10 lesson is to call "no man unclean".

Your argument fails the test of scripture (sola scriptura) - "again". This is why I am amazed that you would bring up the flaw in your own argument on sola scriptura -- IN a sola scriptura subject thread!

in Christ,

Bob

 

oh, the Church has been on the "move" since the "fourth century"...interesting...so how come we have writings from the Apostolic, Church and Desert Fathers dated prior to the "Fourth Century", yet their writings hardly seem Baptist in theology?

is it b/c of all the "moving" the theology had to change as well?

In XC
-

 

ALL their writings were destroyed? come on Dr. you're living in a fantasy world...why wasn't the Gnostic writings destroyed also or all the false Gospels...how on earth did they survive this onslaught of destruction? Ever seen the documentary "banned from the Bible"?...there's hundreds of writings that are heretical, yet these survived?

Do you think the Pope of Rome during the Crusades really favored the other Patriarchates of the East? You do recall Rome "sacked" Constantinople at least 3 times...Hey, I'm not defending what the RCC did...I'm an Orthodox Christian, in case you haven't noticed...the poor 'ol protestants weren't the only ones that felt the heat from the RCC, Dr.

If you believe the Apostolic Church Fathers were the origin of apostasy, then Dr., that's a bold statement, since the Apostolic Fathers of the Church were the disciples of the very Apostles of Jesus Christ Himself!

What does that say about Christ when He said He would lead His Church in all truth and remind His Church of ALL things? Huh Dr.? Seems the promise failed right out of the starting gate, per your observations.

again, you don't have to regurgitate your "Roman policy"...again, I'm speaking from an Orthodox perspective and do not represent Roman Catholicism...our two Churches may have been cut from the same cloth in the beginning, but since 1054 (and possible earlier), the RCC has been doing her own thing since she, in essence, excommunicated herself from the Church.

In XC
-

 

In Acts 20 Paul says "after my departure" wolves will come in "from among your own selves" teaching false doctrine. Question - when did Paul depart? The 2nd century? the third century?

In 1Tim 1 Paul says that Timothy's mission is staying on at Ephesus was to repell the tide of doctrinal error tryng to come into the church.

Titus 1 makes the same claim by Paul to Titus.

Doctrinal error was baying at the doors the whole time. And when Paul "departed" - sure enough - it came in. (Though most noticably at the point that persecution ended).

in Christ,

Bob

 

You are correct. Been reading through J.A. Wylie's "The History of Protestantism." Very good summary. I also have Peter Allix's work on the Waldenses.

 

Your error (like most) is based on your theology, especially Ecclesiology. As long as you have wrong theology you will never have a right view of history. Jesus never promised to be with his "Church." There is no capital "C" and no English word "church" in the Greek. The NT authors did not speak English, and did not use the word "church" which has many meanings. They used the Greek word "ekklesia" which has one meaning, "assembly." Thus Jesus said, "I will build my assembly and the gates of hell shall not prevail against my assembly. The assembly is the local church beginning with the disciples, and then with the local church at Jerusalem, and then at Antioch, "where the disciples were first called Christians." Paul went on three missionary journeys. He never established "the Church," but rather independent churches, ekkesia, assemblies. There were no denominations in the Bible. Until you get that concept out of your head you will never understand church history.

Because they were persecuted by a denomination, not a church; persecuted by a "state-church" not a church at all.
Because evangelical truth was carried by local assemblies, local churches, or individuals sent by them.

And they don't have the truth; they have tradition. They are as far from the truth as one can be. They rely on man not the Word of God.

Denominations perish. There were underground churches that flourished in Russia all the while the Communist regime was in power. Read the biography of Brother Andrew. He could not supply the demand of Bibles for the Christians meeting together in the assemblies, the churches, that existed in Russia.
The denomination existed for decoration. It was apostate all along--much like the RCC is today: not a gathering of believers, but one of unbelievers.