The Final Authority of Scripture

[utilyan]

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.

John wasn't handed a bible.

Revelation 1

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

John says he witnessed it.

He witnessed the word of God , witnessed Jesus Christ, witness all that he saw.


"heed the things which are written" <--- that means something is being written down.


You want to contend every time testimony is used it is a writing.


1 Corinthians 2
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.


1 timothy 6
13I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,


Jesus write a bible to Pontius Pilate?


I did a search, google, for testimony meaning written. No. Can you point me in the direction of a website perhaps of any living person who teaches testimony means writing.

Is there any living person I could look up on the internet that has scripture correct other than yourself?

 

[The Biblicist]

John wasn't handed a bible.

Revelation 1

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Did he not say "blessed is he who READS" as well as those who "HEAR" the words of this prophecy. The "hearing" was not John orally transmitting this to anyone as he was imprisoned on an isle. The "hearing" was those members in those congregations when assembled who heard the pastor READ it to them. Therefore, "HEAR" has no reference to oral tradition but to listening to someone READ the written word.

Every argument you have made against my exposition has failed because it failed to properly consider context.

All the following texts you provide do not contradict my position that oral preceding written and that is the historical fact. None of these texts demonstrate that persons other than the prophet relating orally what they claim to have heard is either equal or superior to written. In fact, the Bible teaches the very reverse and does so clearly in the case of Isaiah 8:20 where "SPEAK" is regarded inferior to "THIS WORD" and in 2 Pet 1:17 where the written word is said to be "more sure" than apostolic oral witness and in Matthew 15 where ORAL TRADITION is wrong and is submitted to the WRITTEN word for correction proving that ORAL TRADITION is inferior to the WRITTEN word as both had their origin with the prophets.

 

[The Biblicist]

1 timothy 6
13I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,


Jesus write a bible to Pontius Pilate?


I did a search, google, for testimony meaning written. No. Can you point me in the direction of a website perhaps of any living person who teaches testimony means writing.

Is there any living person I could look up on the internet that has scripture correct other than yourself?

The term "testimony" can be used for both oral and written. I have proven Revelation 1:2 refers to something that can be "READ" and it is this READING that the members "HEAR" in the congregations.

 

[DHK]

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

At least be honest when you post here.
A bible--believe Christian does not deny sola scriptura.
Your profile indicates that you are not a bible-believing Christian.

Here is what your profile says:

Denomination(Baptist, Methodist, Catholic...):
Bad Catholic

No Bible-believing Christian would identify with such a description. Thus your posted words are simply idle and hypocritical.

 

[BobRyan]

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. - Isa. 8:20

INTRODUCTION:

I have found by experience that every time I have entered into a debate with those who either deny scriptures as final authority, or who believe in continuing revelation beyond the scriptures, or who believe in more sources of authority than the completed Biblical canon, that although at first, they claim to respect the Bible as God's inspired Word, ultimately they attack the Bible in order to defend their position of on going revelation or their position of final authority goes beyond the Bible. In doing so they reveal their true colors.

It is my position, which I will defend in this thread, (1) That God's Word is final authority over the word of men; (2) That all Scripture is God's Word and it is delivered through prophets. (3) that prophets can be objectively tested to determine if what they write or teach is God's inspired Word and thus pseudography can be identified; (4) that all true Scripture is final authority when it comes to non-scripture sources (great men or traditions); (5) that inspired scripture predicts the completion of the Biblical canon within the first century.

My presuppositions behind all of these points is that one believes in the existence of the God revealed in the Bible and one accepts at minimum the Old Testament Hebrew canon and at minimum the 27 books of the New Testament. This is not an debate on the existence of God or the number of books in the Biblical canon.

A. God's Word is final authority over the word of men:

This should be a no brainer. If there is any conflict between what can be verified as God's Word versus the word of men, God's word is the final authority simply because the source is God in whom there can be no darkness but Who is the Spirit of Truth.

B. That All Scripture is God's Word and is delivered by God through prophets:

Jesus repeatedly used the phrase "the law and the prophets" when describing what he recognized as scriptures in his day. The "law" he attributed to Moses who claimed to be God's prophet (Deut. 18:18). In the story of the rich man and Lazerus when the rich man asked that someone from the dead be sent back to his brethren, Abraham responded that "they have Moses and the prophets" (Lk. 16:29) a phrase which is synonymous with "the scriptures" as clearly demonstrated in the following text:

Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

He did not say they had "Moses and the prophets and sacred traditions." This is not to say that Jesus condemned all the sacred traditions of the Jews, but it is to say that he considered prophetic scripture as final authority between the two. Jesus condemned all traditions that violated the scriptures (Mt. 15) thus demonstrating the scriptures act as final authority when traditions are being considered.

Paul considered the scriptures as the product of prophets:

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

The writer of Hebrews attributed God's word coming through prophets (Heb. 1:1).

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Jer 29:19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.

SUMMARY: In summarizing the first two points of my proposition, (1) God's word takes precedence as final authority over the words of men; (2) Scriptures are God's Word through prophets and take precedence as final authority over unwritten sources.

(Continued)

1 First of all that is a great set of texts affirming the value of scripture is declaring and testing doctrine.

A keeper.

2. But then you turn around and embrace man-made-tradition against Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12? Why do that??

you said

I have found by experience that every time I have entered into a debate with those who either deny scriptures as final authority, or who believe in continuing revelation beyond the scriptures, or who believe in more sources of authority than the completed Biblical canon, that although at first, they claim to respect the Bible as God's inspired Word, ultimately they attack the Bible in order to defend their position of on going revelation or their position of final authority goes beyond the Bible. In doing so they reveal their true colors.

I prefer the Bible "instead" - as I have often said "give me the Bible - AND the Words IN the Bible". 1 Corinthians 12 -- in included in the Bible.
Ephesians 4 is included in the Bible.
1 John 4 is included in the Bible.
1 Corinthians 14 is included in the Bible.

We can't just toss those chapters out the window because man-made-tradition opposes them.

 

[BobRyan]

The term "testimony" can be used for both oral and written. I have proven Revelation 1:2 refers to something that can be "READ" and it is this READING that the members "HEAR" in the congregations.

You are backing yourself into a corner that would deny all of the NT for the saints at the time of Christ. Notice that in 1 Thess 2 Paul affirms the fact that even his preaching was accepted by the saints as the "Word of God" -

Yet in Acts 17:11 and in Galatians 1:6-9 that preaching was always "tested" by the then existing - Word of God... scripture - even if it came from a so-called Apostle.

 

[The Biblicist]

1 First of all that is a great set of texts affirming the value of scripture is declaring and testing doctrine.

A keeper.

2. But then you turn around and embrace man-made-tradition against Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12? Why do that??

you said



I prefer the Bible "instead" - as I have often said "give me the Bible - AND the Words IN the Bible". 1 Corinthians 12 -- in included in the Bible.
Ephesians 4 is included in the Bible.
1 John 4 is included in the Bible.
1 Corinthians 14 is included in the Bible.

We can't just toss those chapters out the window because man-made-tradition opposes them.

Sorry Bob, but I have no clue what point you are trying to make. I read your post a couple of times but it still makes no sense to me. What am I missing?

 

[The Biblicist]

You are backing yourself into a corner that would deny all of the NT for the saints at the time of Christ. Notice that in 1 Thess 2 Paul affirms the fact that even his preaching was accepted by the saints as the "Word of God" -

Yet in Acts 17:11 and in Galatians 1:6-9 that preaching was always "tested" by the then existing - Word of God... scripture - even if it came from a so-called Apostle.

Again, I don't get your point. I have already made the point that the scriptures were used to authenticate apostolic oral teaching as in Acts 17. The "testimony" of Jesus can be both oral and written concurrent with the NT prophet, but it is the written testimony that stands as the validation of that prophet's oral teaching (Isa. 8:20).

I don't see how saying the "testimony of Jesus" can be first oral and then finalized in written form prohibits first century saints from applying New Testament Scriptures according to the Isaiah 8:20 principle?

 

[BobRyan]

I agree with your positions - but if the NT saints thought that they could not accept any teaching that had not already existed in writing before they lived - then then could never have accepted new testament preaching or writing.

If on the other hand they tested all doctrine (whether spoken or written) by the already written scripture - "Sola Scriptura" then they would indeed have accepted all the NT text as inspired by God - after testing it and finding it to be scripture-approved.

Gal 1:6-9 Paul says "though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven" should come to you with a different Gospel - a doctrine contradictory to what you have already received - let him be accursed!

Paul could say this even though more scripture would be written after Gal 1:6-9.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Adonia]

At least be honest when you post here.
A bible--believe Christian does not deny sola scriptura.
Your profile indicates that you are not a bible-believing Christian.

Here is what your profile says:


No Bible-believing Christian would identify with such a description. Thus your posted words are simply idle and hypocritical.

I disagree. A person can believe in the Holy Scriptures yet not believe in Sola Scriptura. Many people on this earth believe that the Universal Church has a great part in helping to figure out things. Some people believe in a literal interpretation of them, and others do not, but in the end both still believe in them.

For the believing Christian, they are indeed the source of spiritual knowledge, but not everything concering faith matters exists in them. They need to be explained and Jesus set up his Church to do that very thing. And yes we know, not everyone can accept that reality.

Sola Scriptura? No, it was never the way of the One Universal Christian Church for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It was the Holy Scriptures AND the Universal Christian Church, together as one.

 

[DHK]

I disagree. A person can believe in the Holy Scriptures yet not believe in Sola Scriptura. Many people on this earth believe that the Universal Church has a great part in helping to figure out things. Some people believe in a literal interpretation of them, and others do not, but in the end both still believe in them.

There is no such thing as a universal church. Your very suggestion is ridiculous.
Who are the pastors of this metaphysical, mystical, mysterious, invisible, universal church, that never meets, has no responsibilities, is accountable to no one, has no deacons, no pastors, no place to meet, and in fact cannot meet--defying the very definition of the word "church" itself (assembly).
But if you mean you can go to your pastor of the elders of your local church who can direct you through the scriptures (via sola scriptura), then the same thing is accomplished. However the Bible is still the final authority which is the basic meaning of sola scriptural.
Every Bible believing Christian will have the Bible as their authority. Otherwise they wouldn't be a "bible-believing" Christian. This truth is just self-evident.

For the believing Christian, they are indeed the source of spiritual knowledge, but not everything concering faith matters exists in them. They need to be explained and Jesus set up his Church to do that very thing. And yes we know, not everyone can accept that reality.

His Church is not the RCC. He set up local churches, as the Bible describes. Paul taught Timothy, who was appointed to be the pastor of the local church of Ephesus this:

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sola Scriptura? No, it was never the way of the One Universal Christian Church for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It was the Holy Scriptures AND the Universal Christian Church, together as one.

Of course, if there is no such thing as a universal church, then what??
If your premise is wrong all else will be wrong.
Paul established over 100 churches on 3 missionary churches. No "universal church" was ever established.
Instead of accepting someone else's spoon-fed doctrine, get into the Word yourself. Practice sola scriptura and see what truths you can find.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with your positions - but if the NT saints thought that they could not accept any teaching that had not already existed in writing before they lived - then then could never have accepted new testament preaching or writing.

If on the other hand they tested all doctrine (whether spoken or written) by the already written scripture - "Sola Scriptura" then they would indeed have accepted all the NT text as inspired by God - after testing it and finding it to be scripture-approved.

Gal 1:6-9 Paul says "though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven" should come to you with a different Gospel - a doctrine contradictory to what you have already received - let him be accursed!

Paul could say this even though more scripture would be written after Gal 1:6-9.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with your positions - but if the NT saints thought that they could not accept any teaching that had not already existed in writing before they lived - then then could never have accepted new testament preaching or writing.

What have I said that you would lead you to believe that is my position? I have been saying that they were commanded by the apostles to put prophets to the test before believing what they say or write is authentic. I have said that Paul commended the Bereans for using that very means to authenticate Paul's oral teaching. If I have conveyed the idea that Old or New Testament saints could not accept current prophets, their oral teachings and writings, I am not aware of it.

If on the other hand they tested all doctrine (whether spoken or written) by the already written scripture - "Sola Scriptura" then they would indeed have accepted all the NT text as inspired by God - after testing it and finding it to be scripture-approved.

Gal 1:6-9 Paul says "though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven" should come to you with a different Gospel - a doctrine contradictory to what you have already received - let him be accursed!

Paul could say this even though more scripture would be written after Gal 1:6-9.

in Christ,

Bob

I agree but I am unaware of any statement I have made that would lead you to think I believe otherwise. Perhaps you can point out a statement I have made that would lead you to believe I have taught otherwise.

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree. A person can believe in the Holy Scriptures yet not believe in Sola Scriptura.

When you say "believe in" what are they believing? That it is an historical document? That it merely claims to be God's word? That it is one among many other religious books recognized as "scriptures" among world religions? That parts of it might contain God's Word?

DHK is right when he says if they are a "bible believing" Christian they believe it is God's Word and they will treat it as breathed out by God and therefore different from any other book.

For example, for the sake argument, let's suppose God appeared to you right now and began to audibly speak to you. How would you treat what you were hearing? Would you treat what you heard as final in authority with regard to what is being breathed out of God's mouth? Biblical writers claim the Scriptures are breathed out of God's own mouth, now either you believe that or you do not - there is no middle ground. If you believe that, then would you not treat it precisely the same way as if God actually appeared and spoke to you? If not, why not?

If the Scriptures provide tests to authenticate anyone claiming new revelation from God should not bible believing Christians apply those tests before accepting such supposed revelations as authentic? Does not those very tests declare that authenticated scriptures are final authority over any supposed new revelations (Isa. 8:20).

If the Word of God claims that scriptures will be bound up and sealed by Christ among his JEWISH disciples, thus ceasing the prophetic ministry along with its authenticating signs and wonders then why should Bible believing Christians accept any post-first century writings as God's Word?

If Jesus corrected oral traditions of his day by the scriptures but never corrected scriptures by oral traditions does not that demonstrate that scriptures are final authority with regard to oral tradition? If Paul praised the Bereans for authenticating his oral teaching by the Scriptures does not that demonstrate scriptures are final in authority when it comes to any new revelations whether delivered orally or in writing (Isa. 8:20)?

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that Jesus and the apostles knew they were completing the Biblical cannon. In the upper room discourse Jesus told the apostles that when the Holy Spirit came to replace him as the new parcelete that He would lead them "into ALL truth." The manner in which he would do this is that he would bring to their remembrance those things which he had taught:

Jn. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

What the Holy Spirit will do is "testify" of Christ and thus produce through them the "testimony" of Christ (Isa. 8:16 "the testimony"):

26 ¶ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

The apostle John who penned these words by the direction of the Holy Spirit went on later to say that the "spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus" - Rev. 19:10 and that his final apostolic writing was such a "prophecy" of "the testimony" of Jesus (Rev. 1:2) which should be "READ" in the churches (Rev. 1:3).

Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev. 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 ¶ Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


Moreover, those things of Christ which the Holy Spirit shall shew them include not only what Christ said in his personal ministry but what he has to say about the future (and we find that the final book of the New Testament is completely dedicated to future things:

Jn. 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The New Testament canon is closed by the last living apostle concerning this very subject of things to come shown to him by the Spirit of Christ. Revelation 1:2 have a strong resemblance to Isaiah 8:16 by the words "The testimony and the Law" compared to "the word of God and the testimony." After the law and the testimony are bound and sealed together as "this word" (Isa. 8:20) the next revelation Isaiah expects is the Lord's coming from heaven. Moreover, after John, the last living apostle and disciple who walked with Jesus seals this prophecy (Rev. 22:18-19) the next revelation John expects is the Lord's coming from heaven (Rev. 22:20-21).

However, back to the upper room prediction that his disciples would be led into "all truth" through the Spirit bringing to remembrance what he had said to them, thus producing a testimony of Jesus, then Jesus claims that this testimony of Christ through them would be preserved unto future generations which shall come to faith "through their word."

Jn. 17:17 ¶ Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

He did not say through their "words" (plural) but through the singular "word" as one unified source. This ministry of the Holy Spirit through "my disciples" (Isa. 8:16) to produce "the testimony" of Jesus is what the writer of Hebrews refers to when he says:

Heb. 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

The Son's words are provided for us and preserved for us through "the word" (Jn. 17:20) of his disciples as the "testimony of Jesus." They are first orally transmitted to the churches (Acts 2:41; 14:4-5) and then perserved in written form for the churches and for future generations. The transition from oral to written form are both equally called "the traditions" recognized by the apostles and New Testament churches as "scriptures" or the Word of God:

2 Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

For our Catholic friends, note the term "traditions" equally apply to both the oral and written record and especially note that the command to keep the oral tradition is contemporary with the churches actually receiving it from the prophetic source within the actual time frame of the apostles who can still authenticate their oral teaching rather than in some future generations. It is the written form that preserves it for future generations which they realized they were producing and affirmed what they were writing was to be the final authority:

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

2 Pet. 1:16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.....
19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2 Pet. 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The apostles understood they were producing the testimony of Jesus in written form as scripture. They were fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah that the law and the testimony would be bound and sealed "among my disciples" and the last living apostle realized his final writing was the completion of "the word of God and the testimony" (Rev. 1:2) that completed the Biblical canon by the revelation of future things from his own time concluded by a new heaven and earth thus sealed "the word of God and the testimony expecting the next revelation from heaven to be the personal visible coming of Jesus Christ:

Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Isa. 8:16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[utilyan]

The term "testimony" can be used for both oral and written. I have proven Revelation 1:2 refers to something that can be "READ" and it is this READING that the members "HEAR" in the congregations.

Revelation may show that a testimony MAY BE written down. That doesn't say Testimonies are ONLY written.

I am more willing then anyone here to crack the bible as saying the bible is "sole rule of faith".

In my experience It has not been done.

 

[utilyan]

At least be honest when you post here.
A bible--believe Christian does not deny sola scriptura.
Your profile indicates that you are not a bible-believing Christian.

Here is what your profile says:


No Bible-believing Christian would identify with such a description. Thus your posted words are simply idle and hypocritical.

No sir,

I actually believe every word of the bible without having to rewrite any passages BACKWARDS and without adding the man-made false doctrine of sola scriptura.

A bible believer actually BELIEVES the bible in what it claims and what it does not claim.


I have provided scripture pointing to the authority of the church, even scripture that condemns sola scriptura.

Here is scripture condemning sola scriptura:

2 peter 3

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

People without proper guidance will take scripture to their own destruction.

If you want to say "Sola Scriptura" means SCRIPTURE with Proper Guidance. I will whole heartily agree.

But if you says "sola scriptura" means scripture without anything else as in "Scripture Alone" forget it.


This is not the only verse against sola scriptura. I got more. You cannot produce ONE verse that says otherwise.

This whole squabble instantly GONE, if you could provide scripture that says scripture alone is the sole rule of faith. and Sir, you have FAILED.

Sola Scriptura is BRAND NEW idea 500 years old, started by a CATHOLIC.

 

[The Biblicist]

Revelation may show that a testimony MAY BE written down. That doesn't say Testimonies are ONLY written.

I am more willing then anyone here to crack the bible as saying the bible is "sole rule of faith".

In my experience It has not been done.

I don't get your point as my position has been from the beginning that generally the oral precedes the written and both are equally called a "testimony."

Where we differ is that I state and have proven that the oral is always subject to the final authority of the written and that the written supersedes and preserves the oral.

And yes, I have proven that with the case of Jesus correcting the oral by the written. I have proven that with the Bereans validating the oral by the written and being praised for that very act. I have proven that contextually in Isaiah 8:20 that the oral ("speak") is to be subjected to written "word" as final authority. And Yes, I have proven that "this word" is contexually what can be "bound" and "sealed" and people and free flowing dialogue cannot be bound and sealed.

 

[utilyan]

I don't get your point as my position has been from the beginning that generally the oral precedes the written and both are equally called a "testimony."

Where we differ is that I state and have proven that the oral is always subject to the final authority of the written and that the written supersedes and preserves the oral.

And yes, I have proven that with the case of Jesus correcting the oral by the written. I have proven that with the Bereans validating the oral by the written and being praised for that very act. I have proven that contextually in Isaiah 8:20 that the oral ("speak") is to be subjected to written "word" as final authority. And Yes, I have proven that "this word" is contexually what can be "bound" and "sealed" and people and free flowing dialogue cannot be bound and sealed.

Just like the Bereans I'm looking at scripture and there is no validation for scripture being the sole rule of faith.


God almighty is the highest authority. When he proclaims something it already carries authority. His tools of communication are his prerogative.

Jesus Christ wrote nothing down, sermon of the mount for example. Yet disciples recognize it had authority. To say everything Jesus taught had no weight till it was written down is absurd.


Your personal rule that something must be written to count as authoritative CANNOT be found in scripture. It is a made up and UNBIBLICAL rule.

If it wasn't you could have easily found a verse that says "hear ye, hear ye for something to be the final authority the sole rule of faith it must be written down."

You have not provided such verse. Your practice is simply unbiblical.

I have provided verses contrary to Sola Scriptura. You have only provided scripture that says scripture exists and is true, no kidding.


If we were debating the method by travelling, you would argue that bicycle is the only method of travel.
I say well you can walk and take a car.
Your response is well look here is a bike, it has two wheels, see I rode it around the block.
That's despite the bike itself says you can walk or take a car.

God is not limited to one form of communication. His preference of communication is a human being we see that in Jesus Christ.


God is not the author of confusion, which is why he didn't write sola scriptura anywhere.

Had Sola Scriptura plainly stated in scripture as you believe it. We would have thousands on thousands of denominations since 33 a.d.

The majority of Christians on earth 1.2 billion who are catholic would all splinter up as everyone becomes independent authorities in interpretation of scripture.

A bigger mess then we already have.

Among those who DO believe in sola scriptura, You guys can't even get your "thoughts" together.

I couldn't even get you to point to a website or source of one living individual who has a clear understanding of scripture.

Its like phantom and illusions of churches that don't even exist.

I can find out what a Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Seventh-day Adventist, Anglican, Lutheran ect. believes.

With you I might as well flip a coin on every issue cause even Gnostics have more information available and those guys are secret.

You are my only pope/magisterium I will NEVER get scripture right without your required guidance.

 

[BobRyan]

] I have been saying that they were commanded by the apostles to put prophets to the test before believing what they say or write is authentic. I have said that Paul commended the Bereans for using that very means to authenticate Paul's oral teaching.

All of which I would agree with as well.

or who believe in continuing revelation beyond the scriptures, or who believe in more sources of authority than the completed Biblical canon, that although at first, they claim to respect the Bible as God's inspired Word, ultimately they attack the Bible in order to defend their position of on going revelation

All the NT saints beginning with John the baptizer believed in continuing revelation and authority (beyond the Hebrew Bible that had been canonized 400 years before Christ). Wouldn't you agree?