The Final Authority of Scripture

[The Biblicist]

Look, lets just drop the ridicule, jesting and personal accusations. I apologize where I have strayed into those areas.

This thread is entirely based upon my contextual interpretation and application of Isaiah 8:16-20. So far, as I can ascertain you and your Catholic friend have done everything possible to avoid dealing with the very substance this thread is based upon - the text of scripture.

Can you honestly provide any contextual based evidence where I have misinterpreted this text or misapplied it to the texts that I have applied it unto?

 

[DHK]

That's my experience DHK,

Your experience is Catholics worship marry and statues, practically devil worshippers. Are we going to get a double standard?

There is no double standard.
This is a Baptist Board. The rules are posted on every page. I suggest you read them.
As a Catholic you are a guest on this board. You don't have rights. It is a privilege for you to be here. What you posted is your opinion, and that is all. You say "experience." Some post experiences how they have been to heaven and back and have seen God on his throne and even the devil in hell. Do you believe them? That is their experience. The fact is that the Bible says: no man has seen God and has lived. Thus the Bible is our authority and not your experience or anyone else's experience.

Prove your case through the Bible. How is sola scriptura wrong through the Bible, and how does belief in it make anyone unsaved.
However I can show you that Catholics worshiping idols is breaking the Ten Commandments is idolatry and that a continuation in such a sin is not a characteristic of a true Christian.
I can show you how a Catholic who believes that baptism is the new birth and believes that baptism therefore saves, cannot possibly be saved for only Christ can save.
I can state my case through the Scriptures. Can you? If you can't, then don't post.

 

[utilyan]

Look closely

1 Corinthians 11
1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.


He imitates Christ, he does traditions and commands they keep it JUST AS I DELIVERED.
Same chapter few verses later:

1 Corinthians 11
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.


Do you see a tradition here? do you see a imitation of Christ?

do you see tradition, JUST as I DELIEVERED , what he received from the lord, that which I also delivered to you.

We see a tradition being REPORTED by scripture. like a news paper. The news paper doesn't negate the event.

If I wrote on paper you drive a car around the block to remember mom's birthday, that doesn't mean you are going to switch method on account it is on paper.

In same way you see an independent Eucharist being reported these people are not going to verify through scripture what is traditionally already established. You don't see them opening a bible.

Same way we still remember mom's birthday not on account of the authority of paper, it is independent.

 

[The Biblicist]

Tradition.
2 timothy 3
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You know very well that the Greek term translated "writings" is the common Pauline and Jewish designation for the Old Testament Scriptures. You know very well that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha as scripture.

2 timothy 2
1You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

As I said, prophets (and Paul is a prophet as were all Biblical writers) spoke by inspiration as much as they wrote by inspiration. However, the only oral teaching that is preserved is that which is preserved by inspiration in written form. You and I don't live under the personal ministry of Paul do we? This is my response for all the texts similar to this.

Luke 10
16“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

This is precisely what you are guilty of. You are rejecting the very claims of Christ through his apostles inspired writings - scripture. He chose the apostles to convey His words to all future generations as scriptures.

Romans 10
14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

They preach the gospel which Paul says is "according to the Scriptures" - I Cor. 15:3-4

1 peter 1
25BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER.”
And this is the word which was preached to you.

What was preached to them that is directly connected to being born again? The gospel and the gospel is "according to the scriptures." The scriptures have been around for thousands of years despite attempts by men like you and they will continue to endure.

John 14
25“These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.



John 16

12“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

Yes, and they preserved them for future generations under the direct leadership of the Spirit in the form of scipture.

Preaching , Saying, HEARING, word of mouth.

yes, and all are found in context of Biblical writers who spoke and then committed to writing what the Spirit chose to preserve.

I have shown you various verses of authority and you cannot produce ONE single verse that says WRITTEN WORD is superior nor final authority.

Just one? The very text you have been ignoring since the beginning of this debate is entirely sufficient to prove you wrong:

1. "to the law and to the testimony if they SPEAK not according to THIS WORD it is because there is no light [truth] in them" - Isa. 8:16

Notice SPEAKING is inferior to THIS WORD as THIS WORD is the final authority to determine the truth of what a person SPEAKS!

2. Peter says that the written word of prohecy is "MORE SURE" than his own oral testimony

3. Paul says that the scriptures are SUFFICIENT for doctrne, teaching, etc. - 2 Tim. 3:16-17

4. Paul commended the Bereans for submitting Paul's oral teachings to scripture rather than just believing them without first validating them by scripture.

5. Jesus condemned oral tradition as defective and used Scripture to correct it but NEVER used oral tradition to correct scripture.

 

[utilyan]

Look, lets just drop the ridicule, jesting and personal accusations. I apologize where I have strayed into those areas.

This thread is entirely based upon my contextual interpretation and application of Isaiah 8:16-20. So far, as I can ascertain you and your Catholic friend have done everything possible to avoid dealing with the very substance this thread is based upon - the text of scripture.

Can you honestly provide any contextual based evidence where I have misinterpreted this text or misapplied it to the texts that I have applied it unto?

I appreciate your efforts. I believe you care for me, if you didn't you wouldn't write anything at all.

In the text you provide Isaiah is prophet not a book. He is verbally preaching. What I'm saying The WORD of GOD is not limited to ink and paper alone.

 

[The Biblicist]

Look closely

1 Corinthians 11
1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Again, oral apostolic teachings handed down to them by Christ preceded the writtten preservation of them. The epistle to the Corinthians was one of the early scriptures and Paul claims it is inspired by God (1 Cor. 14:37-38).

He imitates Christ, he does traditions and commands they keep it JUST AS I DELIVERED.

. Christ never sanctioned oral traditions to be equal, much less superior to scripture. He corrected traditions by God's written Word but never did vice versa as did Paul.

Same chapter few verses later:

1 Corinthians 11
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.


Do you see a tradition here? do you see a imitation of Christ?

do you see tradition, JUST as I DELIEVERED , what he received from the lord, that which I also delivered to you.

We see a tradition being REPORTED by scripture. like a news paper. The news paper doesn't negate the event.

Note his words "For I RECEIVED FROM THE LORD that which I delivered to you". He was taught by divine revelation and then orally communicated it to them and then sealed it as inspired scripture (1 Cor. 14:37-38). That is the process of prophets but the oral is replaced by the written record because the written record is "more sure" than apostolic oral teaching for obvious reasons that they can only be preserved by fallible people with fallible memories.

If I wrote on paper you drive a car around the block to remember mom's birthday, that doesn't mean you are going to switch method on account it is on paper.

. By the time you passed that orally in the ear of twenty people without the use of that paper it might come back as "Mom drove you car around the block on her birthday" or worse. Common sense should tell you the total unreliability of preserving oral traditions. Look at the of oral traditions by the time of Christ. The books of Moses were written during the same time as his oral tradition but it is these books that Christ used to condemn and correct oral tradition.

 

[utilyan]

You know very well that the Greek term translated "writings" is the common Pauline and Jewish designation for the Old Testament Scriptures. You know very well that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha as scripture.



As I said, prophets (and Paul is a prophet as were all Biblical writers) spoke by inspiration as much as they wrote by inspiration. However, the only oral teaching that is preserved is that which is preserved by inspiration in written form. You and I don't live under the personal ministry of Paul do we? This is my response for all the texts similar to this.




This is precisely what you are guilty of. You are rejecting the very claims of Christ through his apostles inspired writings - scripture. He chose the apostles to convey His words to all future generations as scriptures.




They preach the gospel which Paul says is "according to the Scriptures" - I Cor. 15:3-4

What was preached to them that is directly connected to being born again? The gospel and the gospel is "according to the scriptures." The scriptures have been around for thousands of years despite attempts by men like you and they will continue to endure.




Yes, and they preserved them for future generations under the direct leadership of the Spirit in the form of scipture.



yes, and all are found in context of Biblical writers who spoke and then committed to writing what the Spirit chose to preserve.



Just one? The very text you have been ignoring since the beginning of this debate is entirely sufficient to prove you wrong:

1. "to the law and to the testimony if they SPEAK not according to THIS WORD it is because there is no light [truth] in them" - Isa. 8:16

Notice SPEAKING is inferior to THIS WORD as THIS WORD is the final authority to determine the truth of what a person SPEAKS!

2. Peter says that the written word of prohecy is "MORE SURE" than his own oral testimony

3. Paul says that the scriptures are SUFFICIENT for doctrne, teaching, etc. - 2 Tim. 3:16-17

4. Paul commended the Bereans for submitting Paul's oral teachings to scripture rather than just believing them without first validating them by scripture.

5. Jesus condemned oral tradition as defective and used Scripture to correct it but NEVER used oral tradition to correct scripture.

"THIS WORD" Does not equal to INK and PAPER. The context is what GOD told Elijah to SPEAK by mouth.

There are instances God told Elijah to write things down, this is not one of them.



If we go through the logos of John. The word became man and was God. Do you say the Bible is God?

 

[The Biblicist]

I appreciate your efforts. I believe you care for me, if you didn't you wouldn't write anything at all.

Thank you for recognizing that.

I

n the text you provide Isaiah is prophet not a book. He is verbally preaching. What I'm saying The WORD of GOD is not limited to ink and paper alone.

The text does not say bind up and seal isaiah the prophet! The text is Messanic in its context and application and is quoted as such by New Testament writers. So any historical application does not invalidate the ultimate application which is to Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

"THIS WORD" Does not equal to INK and PAPER. The context is what GOD told Elijah to SPEAK by mouth.

You don't "bind up" and "seal" verbally spoken words. Binding and sealing are the accurate historical terms used for a "biblos" or scroll. These terms are never used for free flowing speaking. Moreover, you are ignoring the clear and explicit Messanic application.

If we go through the logos of John. The word became man and was God. Do you say the Bible is God?

The term "logos" refers to the manifestation of invisible thoughts by words. Jesus is the visible manifestation of the invisible God and therefore the Word "of God" or the manifestation of God and His words. The Bible is also the manifestation of God's mind or will - thus the Word "of God."

 

[utilyan]

Again, oral apostolic teachings handed down to them by Christ preceded the writtten preservation of them. The epistle to the Corinthians was one of the early scriptures and Paul claims it is inspired by God (1 Cor. 14:37-38).


. Christ never sanctioned oral traditions to be equal, much less superior to scripture. He corrected traditions by God's written Word but never did vice versa as did Paul.



Note his words "For I RECEIVED FROM THE LORD that which I delivered to you". He was taught by divine revelation and then orally communicated it to them and then sealed it as inspired scripture (1 Cor. 14:37-38). That is the process of prophets but the oral is replaced by the written record because the written record is "more sure" than apostolic oral teaching for obvious reasons that they can only be preserved by fallible people with fallible memories.

. By the time you passed that orally in the ear of twenty people without the use of that paper it might come back as "Mom drove you car around the block on her birthday" or worse. Common sense should tell you the total unreliability of preserving oral traditions. Look at the of oral traditions by the time of Christ. The books of Moses were written during the same time as his oral tradition but it is these books that Christ used to condemn and correct oral tradition.

Can I get your input on post #55 concerning reliability when God is involved?

 

[DHK]

Look closely

1 Corinthians 11
1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

He imitates Christ, he does traditions and commands they keep it JUST AS I DELIVERED.
Same chapter few verses later:

I don't know what translation you are using but it is not a good one. Consider the KJV here:
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--This is a command--to wear a head-covering in the service. Paul spends the first 16 verses of this chapter giving a number of reasons why a woman ought to wear a head-covering in church. It is not a tradition, but a command.

1 Corinthians 11
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Do you see a tradition here? do you see a imitation of Christ?

He received revelation directly from the Lord and quotes word for word the word's of Jesus. He describes what went on in the upper room though he was not there. He gives the command of Christ.
This is not a tradition. It is a command. If the Lord's Supper is only a tradition to you I pity you! It is a command that we are to carry out until the Lord comes again.
As Christ himself says; "This do until until he comes."
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (11:25). It is a command.

do you see tradition, JUST as I DELIEVERED , what he received from the lord, that which I also delivered to you.

We see a tradition being REPORTED by scripture. like a news paper. The news paper doesn't negate the event.

If I wrote on paper you drive a car around the block to remember mom's birthday, that doesn't mean you are going to switch method on account it is on paper.

In same way you see an independent Eucharist being reported these people are not going to verify through scripture what is traditionally already established. You don't see them opening a bible.

Same way we still remember mom's birthday not on account of the authority of paper, it is independent.

It is a pity how you downgrade the Lord's Supper to that of a newspaper clipping. It is a command we keep until Jesus comes again. In it we remember his death by partaking of the wine or juice, and the bread. It is not a mystical and superstitious event called transubstantiation. That again cannot be substantiated through Scripture. Be that as it may, you have a very low view of it all comparing it to a newspaper clipping. It is the command of Christ himself.

 

[utilyan]

You don't "bind up" and "seal" verbally spoken words. Binding and sealing are the accurate historical terms used for a "biblos" or scroll. These terms are never used for free flowing speaking. Moreover, you are ignoring the clear and explicit Messanic application.




The term "logos" refers to the manifestation of invisible thoughts by words. Jesus is the visible manifestation of the invisible God and therefore the Word "of God" or the manifestation of God and His words. The Bible is also the manifestation of God's mind or will - thus the Word "of God."

In short the bible is God, Correct?

 

[utilyan]

I don't know what translation you are using but it is not a good one. Consider the KJV here:
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--This is a command--to wear a head-covering in the service. Paul spends the first 16 verses of this chapter giving a number of reasons why a woman ought to wear a head-covering in church. It is not a tradition, but a command.


He received revelation directly from the Lord and quotes word for word the word's of Jesus. He describes what went on in the upper room though he was not there. He gives the command of Christ.
This is not a tradition. It is a command. If the Lord's Supper is only a tradition to you I pity you! It is a command that we are to carry out until the Lord comes again.
As Christ himself says; "This do until until he comes."
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (11:25). It is a command.


It is a pity how you downgrade the Lord's Supper to that of a newspaper clipping. It is a command we keep until Jesus comes again. In it we remember his death by partaking of the wine or juice, and the bread. It is not a mystical and superstitious event called transubstantiation. That again cannot be substantiated through Scripture. Be that as it may, you have a very low view of it all comparing it to a newspaper clipping. It is the command of Christ himself.

We keep the command by the command. you however go over God's head having to verify scripture. None of the apostles do communion because scripture told them to.

You don't like the translation? Well I'm not a ancient Greek scholar.

How bout we use the original?
1 Corinthians 11:2
Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καὶ καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε

I believe this is where King James gets it.

Focus on "παραδόσεις"


That comes from paradosis

When Jesus challenges evil tradition its "παράδοσιν"

Same word.

I'll leave links to the original Greek, to both verses.

3862. paradosis

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/11-2.htm

http://biblehub.com/text/mark/7-8.htm



Your best bet is to negate the word tradition entirely.

 

[DHK]

We keep the command by the command. you however go over God's head having to verify scripture. None of the apostles do communion because scripture told them to.

God's Word, (Christ's commands) are encapsulated and inspired in the Bible. What Christ said to the apostles he said in the Bible. What he commanded to the apostles is written in the Bible. So your statement is quite frivolous. They obeyed the commands that are both written and commanded in the Scripture. You are wrong.

You don't like the translation? Well I'm not a ancient Greek scholar.

How bout we use the original?
1 Corinthians 11:2
Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καὶ καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε

I believe this is where King James gets it.

Focus on "παραδόσεις"

That comes from paradosis

When Jesus challenges evil tradition its "παράδοσιν"

Same word.

I'll leave links to the original Greek, to both verses.

3862. paradosis

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/11-2.htm

http://biblehub.com/text/mark/7-8.htm

Your best bet is to negate the word tradition entirely.

It is evident that you are not a Greek scholar. Your forte is argumentation and that often without logic.
Here is the definition of paradosis according to the eminent lexicographer J.H. Thayer:

Thayer Definition:
1) giving up, giving over
1a) the act of giving up
1b) the surrender of cities
2) a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
2a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
2b) of the body of precepts, especially ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence
Part of Speech: noun feminine.

Note, that the last definition, the one that is least used, the least important definition, is the one that you use and that the RCC attach to this word. It is evident (as all of us have been telling you), that definition 2b is not the primary definition of this word.

Most of the time, the way it is used in Scripture, it is simply:
2) a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
--This is what Paul did with Timothy and others. He taught them. He taught them the gospel. He taught them through his epistles, which would become the Scriptures, and thus he was teaching them the Word of God.

Of the word paradosis used in 1Cor.11:2, Greek scholar Vincent, in his word studies, says:
Ordinances - delivered (παραδόσεις - παρέδωκα)
There is a play of two hundred words, both being derived from παραδίδωμι to give over.
He delivers to them what had been delivered to him. Compare 1Ti_1:11; 2Th_2:15.

It is evident that your made-up definition is wrong.
The context determines the definition. The context determines that the definition you give is absolutely wrong. Words have meaning. When the meaning of the word is taken out of context and put into another context all meaning is lost.

 

[The Biblicist]

In short the bible is God, Correct?

No, but it is God-breathed and has its source with God and therefore its authority with God and to disdain it is to disdain God as it represents him and is authorized by Him and has its source in Him.

But you are going back to evasive and diversive tactics. You can't "bind" and "seal" a person but that is what your interpretation implies. You can't bind and seal free flowing conversation. The words "the law" is never used for verbal communication but has its origin in God WRITING his law on stone and then Moses writing five books which are regularly called "the Law" and that is joined with "the testimony" as "this word." You have to close your eyes and ignore the language to fail to see what he is clearly saying. The Law is the written Old Testament and the Testimony is the written New Testament scriptures bound together as "this word."

 

[The Biblicist]

Can I get your input on post #55 concerning reliability when God is involved?

I replied and my reply is found in post #66

 

[utilyan]

No, but it is God-breathed and has its source with God and therefore its authority with God and to disdain it is to disdain God as it represents him and is authorized by Him and has its source in Him.

But you are going back to evasive and diversive tactics. You can't "bind" and "seal" a person but that is what your interpretation implies. You can't bind and seal free flowing conversation. The words "the law" is never used for verbal communication but has its origin in God WRITING his law on stone and then Moses writing five books which are regularly called "the Law" and that is joined with "the testimony" as "this word." You have to close your eyes and ignore the language to fail to see what he is clearly saying. The Law is the written Old Testament and the Testimony is the written New Testament scriptures bound together as "this word."

I am lost. Not sure what your trying to establish.

We look at the beginning of the chapter
:
1Then the LORD said to me, “Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters: Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.

This isn't the only place he's said to write things down.

Scripture is 100% true. Absolutely right, And if that scripture says to you every disciple should know scripture and anyone who is against scripture has "no dawn".

I'd say amen to that.


But as a case for sola scriptura, it doesn't float at all.
Testimony is when a witness testifies.....this is done orally.
Isaiah 8 as promoting sola scriptura.......its like the sound a balloon makes when you let the air out.



Example of scripture that comes close:

1 Corinthians 4
6Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.



2 kings 22

8Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan who read it. 9Shaphan the scribe came to the king and brought back word to the king and said, “Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD.” 10Moreover, Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it in the presence of the king.
11When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. 12Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Micaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant saying, 13“Go, inquire of the LORD for me and the people and all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found, for great is the wrath of the LORD that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”



Those two might stump me..........might.




We need something that states the scripture is the sole and final authority.
If everyone in the world had a bible, I'd say they are materially sufficient, but not formally.
They all read and they all are going to come up with their own thing.

James 2

20But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

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


Suppose everyone has a bible in the world and they read it.

What do you suppose the chances is of someone reading the above and thinking.......gee maybe a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?

Or how many folks do you figure are going to mistakenly think........Faith without works is useless?

 

[Smyth]

That's my experience DHK,

Your experience is Catholics worship marry and statues, practically devil worshippers. Are we going to get a double standard?

Hello Utilyan, so you're a Roman Catholic? What Catholics do appears to Baptists as the worship of statues and of Mary. That's the way it is, and I've seen Catholics defend it, but their defense isn't good enough, not even close. It's no game for someone to object to Catholics using Mary as a mediator. And, if my denomination ever elected a leader as opposed to the Bible as Pope Francis, I'd find a new denomination.

Sola Scriptura elevates scripture to the highest authority. You're playing a shameless game when you argue that Sola Scriptura deprecates the Bible.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am lost. Not sure what your trying to establish.

We look at the beginning of the chapter
:
1Then the LORD said to me, “Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters: Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.

This isn't the only place he's said to write things down.

Writing things down as directed by God is the first step in producing scripture. We both agree that Isaiah was commanded to do this or else we would not have the book called Isaiah today. I think the issue you are having is due to a failure to distinguish between the historical and prophetic application of Isaiah 8. The Messianic application is clear and without doubt as this whole section beginning with Isaiah 7:14 to Isaiah 9:6 which encapsulates chapter 8 is Messianic IN ADDITION to any historical application. Isaiah 8:14-17 is explicitly applied by New Testament writers to Christ when he was on earth with his disciples.

You are viewing this merely from an historical perspective while it has a clear prophetic perspective. In Verse 16-17 the whole Biblical canon ("the law" = Old Testament and "the testimony") is at the prophetic date being "bound" and "sealed."

"The Testimony" is precisely the very same language used by John to describe what he has WRITTEN down in his final work which is the capstone of New Testament scripture (Rev.1:2). So to say as you have that "the testimony" only refers to an oral report is not accurate as John describes his WRITTEN report as "the testimony". So it is not one or the other but both.

I am looking Isaiah 8 from a wholistic view that includes both historical and prophetical and so what I see being done by Isaiah historically which concludes in his finished book of Isaiah bound and sealed, I also see prophetically with then entire Biblical canon consisting of "the Law" and "the testimony" combined bound and sealed thus unified as "this word" which verse 20 clearly states is final authority over anything SPOKEN ("speak").

If you divorce the prophetic from the historic as you are currently doing, then of course you come up with your conclusions. However, those conclusions are based on "half" truth not the full truth as the full truth includes the prophetic as well.

 

[utilyan]

Hello Utilyan, so you're a Roman Catholic? What Catholics do appears to Baptists as the worship of statues and of Mary. That's the way it is, and I've seen Catholics defend it, but their defense isn't good enough, not even close. It's no game for someone to object to Catholics using Mary as a mediator. And, if my denomination ever elected a leader as opposed to the Bible as Pope Francis, I'd find a new denomination.

Sola Scriptura elevates scripture to the highest authority. You're playing a shameless game when you argue that Sola Scriptura deprecates the Bible.

I am a Bible believing Christian. Mediator sounds like it has to do with salvation. Salvation first is not the priority.

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR God commands, first thing on one's mind is.........well is this going to get me salvation? What is this going to do for me?

We do what God says FOR FREE. If one does it for salvation/pay that just makes one a "gold digger" for salvation/pay. Maybe that's a natural beginning based on fear for every Christian starting out.

Fact I'll pay and go to hell just to do what God says, My Christ is alive.....my salvation is DONE.

I got to believe when you do what God says its because you love God.

We differentiate to a degree Justify vs. Saved.
We don't say works justifies us, neither do we say faith justifies us. Because of Christ death on the cross I am justified. Being saved will bank on my acceptance or denial of what Christ commands of me.

We believe = bible says. Bible says = we believe.

We don't have to look for any meaning other then what is presented. We say amen to all scripture.

When we run into two verses that appear contradicting we tend to lean towards BOTH/AND as opposed to EITHER/OR.

James 2
20But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

Bible says = faith without works is useless.

We believe = faith without works is useless.



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.

Bible says = The church of living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

We believe = the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.


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.
Bible says = If you forgive others then God will forgive you
We believe = if you forgive others God will forgive you

Bible says = If you do not forgive others then God won't for give you.
We believe = if you don't forgive others then God won't for give you.



So we run into a line for example that says FAITH another that says WORKS, we say both faith and works. rather then pit them against each other in either/or.

One line says predestination, another shows free will, again both/and.

Mark 9
40“For he who is not against us is for us.
Matthew 12
30“He who is not with Me is against Me

Both/And.



Tradition, Scripture is a both/and for us.

Scripture says the FOUNDATION and PILLAR of truth is church. We say amen.
Scripture says Scripture is GOD BREATHED. We say amen.


Its precisely because of strict adherence to scripture and scripture not flat out stating that it is the final authority we disqualify it as final sole rule of faith.


Every foundational truth of Christianity can be found in the bible.

The bible being the sole rule of faith is not one of them. We are very against adding a rule that simply does not exist inside.

We have preconceived ideas and assumption. I can tell you a majority of Catholics if not all have believed in Sola Scriptura, probably even still do. I assume the bible is a instruction book, one book that fell out the sky never mind authors, when I was little I figure God wrote it, and God's reading material has to be over my head.