Sola Scripture? Part Two

Matt Black,

The 2 brothers or sisters continue plumbing the richs of Gods wonderful scriptures.

Why must there necesarrily have to be a mediator?

If they want to they can seek wise counsel. If they dont care to then they both hold to their conviction, they continue loving each other, and they "let their brother be fully convinced in their own mind", as God expects us to do.

God bless,

Mike

 

DHK said...

I agree 100% with this and have the very same attitude towards DHK. We disagree strongly in some non-foundational areas, but DHK is my brother and its perfectly alright in Gods eyes for us to disagree, so long as we love each other. I can guarentee that if DHK and I worked together we would viewed by the lost as "those 2 Jesus freaks" and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with him against any arrows that might come our way from those who are antagonistic towards Christ and the gospel.

And we would have wonderful fellowship together. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. We are brothers.

The disagreements are simply not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. People act like its some kind of a terrible thing for brothers and sisters to simply disagree about some things.

What are you guys so scared of?

It seems like Catholics are just (((terrified))) at the thought that God actually gave them a mind and He wants them the THINK with it! They seem to have to have "command central" do all their thinking for them, so that they wont have to.

What are you Catholics so scared of?

Why does it terrify you so to actually go into the scriptures and ask God Himself to guide you into truth? He SAID that He would do it if you ask Him to!...

Why not take God up on His offer?

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

And I regard both you and DHK as my brothers in Christ and would be happy to meet and fellowship with you IRL.

But who are 'you Catholics'? Nate isn't, I'm not. I also agree with DHK's analysis of group #3. I guess I would fall somewhere between #1 and #2; I don't think anyone here is denying the supremacy or primacy of Scripture (Prima Scriptura or Suprema Scriptura; the problem I have with sola Scriptura is where you have differing interpretations of Scripture, who adjudicates in the interests of detrming truth and correct doctrine?

 

Just want to add this...

I said...

Why not take God up on His offer?</font>[/QUOTE]Do you Catholics and Catholic sympathisers ever wonder why it is that the Catholic Church actually forbids their people to take God up on the invitation that He is offering here?

God is inviting the whosoeverwills to expect Him to personally "guide them into all truth" and to give the truth "liberally" and "without reproach" to all of those who "desires wisdom".

And the Catholic Church says to those people...

"NO!!!! You are to NEVER do that! Only WE can do that!"

Does that not bother you a bit?

Doesnt it cause you to think..."what are they scared we will find out?"

Something to think about.

Mike

 

...because I'm not sure that God is offering that invitation directly to all individuals as far as doctrinal determination is concerned. Take your first quote: Jesus is here addressing the Twelve; the statement and the promise is addressed to them and it is not clear that the promise is to us by extension.

 

Matt,

The scriptures make clear that both of those invitations apply to the whosoeverwills of any generation.

The 12, the 1st century christians, born again people all through the bloodshed of the dark ages, christians today.

When Jesus said to Nicodemous, "You must be born again", was that admonition only to Nicodemous since that was the person Christ was looking at and personally talking to?

Or does it apply to everyone?

Blessings,

Mike

 

But if it applies to everyone, then it doesn't work, and that makes Jesus out to be a liar or the purveyor of false promises and hopes, and that cannot be right.

 

Was it Thou must be born again? or Ye must be born again. Problems with Modern Versions.

"Nicodemos, don't be marvelled that I said unto thee (Nicodemos), Ye all human beings must be born again."

 

I believe in the Bible as interpreted by the saints, the holy fathers, and canons of the Orthodox Church as being the final authority.

 

A saint is a holy one, set apart, a believer.
That includes me.

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Does that mean you will accept my interpretation?
DHK

 

I believe in the Bible as interpreted by the Holy Spirit who AUTHORED IT (John 16) says He will come to us and be the one that interprets FOR US!

What a great thing - "The Gospel"!!

How sad it would be to reject it.

How sad when leaders of the "ONE TRUE CHURCH" in Christ's day placed MANmade tradition ABOVE the Word of God!!

(There is someone out there right now - huddled in the dark saying to themselves "I don't care how many times BobRyan quotes scripture - I can ignore it just as often")

Why not step into the light?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Jacob,

Saint is nothing more than a synonym for "christian".

That means that if you are born of the Spirit you are a saint just like me. So, feed on the scriptures yourself, with the Holy Spirits guidance, as God desires you to do.

Holy means "set apart". If you are a child of God you are every bit as set apart as they were. So, feed on the scriptures yourself, with the Holy Spirits guidance, as God desires you to do.

The final authority is Gods scriptures, not tradition.

Almighty God condemns any view that has tradition being more trustworthy than the scriptures and the Holy Spirit led believer. That idea comes straight from the pit of hell.

Feed on the scriptures yourself, as God desires...since you meet the only 2 legitimate qualifications you look for.(assuming you are born again)

You are a saint and you are holy.(set apart)

God bless,

Mike

 

How can you have it like Jacob Dahlen says "I believe in the Bible as interpreted by the saints" and still be like the noble Bereans who searched the Bible to check to see if things were really so?

Acts:17:11: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If you just went by whatever the "church fathers" say with no independence of spirit to be able to ask the Holy Spirit yourself "what is truth?" then you couldnt be able to inquire whether there is a "Thus saith the Lord" in support of anything that is put forth.

I mean, if you say the scriptures themselves give you some sort of "permission" to change things based on "tradition".

It just doesnt fit together.


Claudia

 

I was reading this from a book called "The Great Controversy". I dont know mjuch about "Sola Scriptura" and all of that... but it just seems to me lke this entire "church traditions" thing is set up by the Devil to prevent people from discovering any new light or spiritual progress from the Scriptures.

Like God is continually revealing things to us through the Bible but the Holy Spirit's leading is stifled when you go by "what the church fathers say"... instead of searching the scriptures for yourself.

Then it leads to persecution of those who are trying to make reforms.

Like I said, I dont really know anything about all of this but thats what is seems like to me:


Great Controversy:
[SDA ocntent edited]

It is true that you don't know much about sola scriptura as you admit. You have just demonstrated by your lengthy post from the Great Controversy, Ellen G. White's work, which the SDA's rely on heavily. It goes contrary to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Scripture is interpreted in light of Ellen G. White and her book "Great Controversy" instead of Scripture being interpreted in the light of Scripture itself. You have defeated your own purpose of this thread.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss sola scriptura not to post from other religions. Posting from other religions and/or cults will defeat the purpose of sola scriptura, and demonstrate to all that sola scriptura is true and the religions like the SDA is false for they must interpret the Bible on some other basis such as the Great Controversy. What is your authority: the Bible or the Ellen G. White? If it is the Bible then use it! not Ellen G. White.
DHK

[ May 06, 2006, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

And to be really honest, in light of the fact that the false sunday sabbath that was invented by the Roman Catholic Church is still carried on by most of the Protestant world today because they failed to follow the additional light given on that subject..

well, how are they any different than the Catholics who go by "church tradition" instead of the Spirit's leading?

Even the Catholic church itself says if Protestants were truly following "Sola Scriptura" they'd become Seventh Day Adventists because the sunday sabbath is based upon Catholic tradition and not upon the Holy Scriptures.


Honestly, it just seems like a bunch of bunk to claim sola scriptura when all the while you hang onto these catholic traditions and not a word is given in the scriptures about this sunday sabbath. God has been trying to give additional light to you from His word but you just wont accept it, preferring to go by "church tradition" instead.

all of the pagan falsehoods hadnt been discovered yet. And the sunday sabbath is one of them. If you truly were in the spirit of the protestant reformers, well what would you do?

"Remember your church covenant, in which you have agreed to walk in all the ways of the Lord, made or to be made known unto you. Remember your promise and covenant with God and with one another, to receive whatever light and truth shall be made known to you from His written word; but withal, take heed, I beseech you, what you receive for truth, and compare it and weigh it with other scriptures of truth before you accept it; for it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick antichristian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once."--Martyn, vol. 5, pp.

Claudia

 

"Sola Scriptura" is basically this - Make all your arguments, all your proofs - from the Bible "alone" except to the extent that you are showing how history agrees with the Bible and so you point to generally accepted historical sources.

The "only" exception to this is the "added" source of using "another denomination's" well recognized source that is strongly in favor of that other denomination - and yet is making your point anyway. This is only useful as an "added source" to your sola-scriptura set of proofs when addressing someone from that specific denomination.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Sola Scriptura" is basically this - Make all your arguments, all your proofs - from the Bible "alone" except to the extent that you are showing how history agrees with the Bible and so you point to generally accepted historical sources.

The "only" exception to this is the "added" source of using "another denomination's" well recognized source that is strongly in favor of that other denomination - and yet is making your point anyway. This is only useful as an "added source" to your sola-scriptura set of proofs when addressing someone from that specific denomination.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Bob,

What about what I just posted, since it is basically quotes from Martyn, and the History of the Puritans, and etc.?

Is that ok?

Claudia

 

Claudia,

The reason why the Sunday sabbath isnt mentioned in scripture is because there is no Sunday Sabbath. The Sabbath has always been Saturday for those under that Law.

Christians arent under that law.

The only word to us from God regarding when to gather is...

We can gather any time we want. Saturday, Tuesday, Thursday, Sunday, etc etc etc. It makes no difference, so long as we gather together. We arent even under compulsion to gather every 7 days. We are simply admonished to gather together regularly. (Personally, I cant wait to gather. I like to do it more than one time each week)

If I for some reason cant gather at my fellowship on Sunday, I make our Saturday night service. If for some reason I cant make either I go to the mid week service. If for some reason I cant make any of those I dont gather at all that week, but gather next weekend.

The idea to gather regularly on Sunday has nothing to do with Catholicism, since it was going on in the book of Acts, which was 300 or years years before Constantine invented the Catholic Church.

In~His~Grace~

MIke

 

D28guy:


"FIRST DAY" BIBLE TEXTS

Millions of conscientious Christians attend church every Sunday, the first day of the week. They do so believing that somewhere, somehow, someone changed the day of worship. Either that, or they aren't aware that God set aside the seventh day, not the first day of the week as His holy day.
It is true, a change has been made.
But by whom? God made the Sabbath during the first week of earth's history. He set it aside as a weekly appointment between man and Himself as a blessing, a refreshment, a date between two lovers so to speak (God and man).
If God changed His mind about His special appointment day with us, wouldn't He have recorded so momentous an adjustment in the Bible?

There're eight texts in the New Testament that mention the first day of the week. Look at them carefully.
Matthew 28:1
Mark 16:1, 2.
Mark 16:9.
Luke 24:1.
John 20:1.
John 20:19.
Acts 20:7, 8.
1 Corinthians 16:1, 2.
The first five texts simply state that the women came to the sepulcher early on the resurrection morning, and that Jesus rose from the dead.
Now look up John 20:19 in your Bible. It tells us that Jesus appeared to the disciples later on the resurrection day. It says that the reason they were assembled was "for fear of the Jews."
They were scared. No telling when the Jews might grab them and treat them to the same fate as their Master. They were hiding.
They had seen their beloved Master die on Friday. They "returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Luke 23:56. And now they're hiding with the doors shut "for fear of the Jews." John 20:19.
There's no mention of a change.
The seventh text is Acts 20:7, 8. It says "and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together."
This was a night meeting the dark part of the first day of the week. In Bible reckoning, the dark part of the day comes before the light part. Genesis 1:5 "and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The dark part comes first.
The Bible reckons a day from sunset to sunset.
The seventh day begins at sunset Friday evening. The first day of the week begins sunset Saturday evening.

Paul is together with his friends on the dark part of the first day of the week — Saturday night. This is a farewell get-together. He preached until midnight, when poor Eutychus falls out the window. (Acts 20:9).
Verse eleven says that they talked till the break of day and then Paul departed. Verse thirteen shows that Paul spent that Sunday morning traveling to Assos.
There's nothing here either concerning a change of the Sabbath.
The New English bible translates this text like this:
"On the Saturday night, in our assembly for the breaking of bread, Paul, who was to leave the next day, addressed them, and went on speaking until midnight." Acts 20:7.
The last text mentions the first day of the week in 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2.
It says — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Verse three tells that he will bring the offering to Jerusalem.
As he had done in Galatia, so Paul also requests of those in Corinth to have a collection all ready when he would come to take it to the poor saints in Jerusalem. There's nothing in the text about a church service, but each person is to "lay by him in store." The first day of the week was the best time for the people to set money aside because later in the week it would be spent. That's true today as well! Paul requested this so that "there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Corinthians 16:2.
At this time the Christians are suffering hardship in Jerusalem and Paul is making his rounds to the churches taking up a collection for them. (We should be that thoughtful today).
There's nothing in this text either about a change of God's Sabbath to Sunday.
Concerning worship, what was Paul's custom?
Here it is.
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbaths reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2.
Jesus, as our example also had the custom of attending church on Saturday, the seventh day. (Luke 4:16).




THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS

The old covenant was ratified by the blood of animals (Exodus 24:5-8 and Hebrews 9:19,20) and based upon the promises of the people that they would keep God's law.
The new covenant is based on God's promise to write His law in our hearts and it was ratified with the blood of Christ. (Hebrews 8:10 and Jeremiah 31:33, 34).
Hebrews 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people."

 

Bump