The Final Authority of Scripture

[DHK]

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.

If you believed in every word of the Bible you wouldn't be a "bad Catholic," in fact you wouldn't be a Catholic at all.

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

Yes he does. Jesus said "You must be born again." If you believe him (His Word), then you have been born again. How? Where? When?

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

And you have pointed wrongly showing you don't believe in the Scriptures; you believe in the RCC who during their history condemned the Bible, kept it out of the hands of the common person, burned the Bible, and in general showed a very great contempt for the Bible, and especially for "Bible-believing Christians." Study your history.

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.

A good example of those unlearned people who wrote the Catechism of the RCC and don't know what it means to be "born again." That is a shame, isn't it.
But there are many that are unlearned--J.W.'s, Mormons, etc. Their concept of Christ is not what the Bible teaches. It will lead to their own destruction. This is what Peter is talking about.

But for the person who has the Spirit of God:
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
--The above demonstrates how a spiritual person practices sola scriptura. I agree. Those that are carnal or unsaved cannot. Madeleine O'hare demonstrated that. She said that the Bible was a very dangerous book. It taught people to cut off their hands and poke out their eyes, using a perverted application of Mark 9:43-47. But that is not what Christ is talking about.

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

Not everyone needs guidance. I don't.
But I do believe that every person should be a member of a local church where they can be fed the Word of God on a weekly basis.

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

I use other resources to help me. We lean on the education of the ones who have gone one before us. Have you ever used a concordance. It is a valuable book. A.H. Strong composed the most extensive concordance that we have today. We use it because of his work.

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

Of course not. All the Bible teaches in favor of sola scriptura, not against it.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

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.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
2Tim.3:16,17; 2Pet.1:21; Acts 17:11; and much more.

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

Isaiah was written 700 B.C. and the Israelites practiced it before him. Thus you are wrong.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[Adonia]

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.

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.


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.

Yes, St. Paul established 100 churches (parishes) and they all looked to him and the other Apostles for authoritative rulings on things. That is what the letters of the New Testament are all about, a man who has authority and is giving instruction to all Christians. Let us take the Book of Acts when the subject of circumcision came up, did they open up the Scriptures to find the answer? No! They themselves, after much discussion and with the help of the Holy Spirit came up with the correct teaching and thus all those "churches" (parishes) then were obliged to follow this ruling .

No, a solely Sola Scriptura concept is a false gospel, one that was never proclaimed until some 1500 years went by in the history of Christianity. There is but one Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Christian Church.

 

[The Biblicist]

All of which I would agree with as well.



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?

Yes

 

[DHK]

Yes, St. Paul established 100 churches (parishes) and they all looked to him and the other Apostles for authoritative rulings on things. That is what the letters of the New Testament are all about, a man who has authority and is giving instruction to all Christians. Let us take the Book of Acts when the subject of circumcision came up, did they open up the Scriptures to find the answer? No! They themselves, after much discussion and with the help of the Holy Spirit came up with the correct teaching and thus all those "churches" (parishes) then were obliged to follow this ruling .

First, there is no such thing as a "parish" in the Bible. That is a man-made (RCC) invention. Just one more addition or unbiblical addition to the Bible.
Second, they looked to Paul only when necessary. Otherwise they conducted their affairs quite independently of each other and of the apostles. The apostles contacted them when necessary.
How do we know this?
In Corinth when problems arose a letter was sent to Paul. Paul immediately responded by letter:
1Cor.7:1, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:
--He had received their letter and now he is writing them back.

In another instance there was a controversial issue set forth by the legalistic Judaizers who were as a thorn in Paul's side following him wherever he went, and perverting the gospel of grace.
The apostles knew this had to stop, and it had to be done publically. This is what happened in Acts 15. Then look at the result.
Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
--This time Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas were sent to the churches with the decision that was made and they were to take it to the churches known to them.

Generally Paul stood apart from the matters of the church. His advice, even in matters of great importance, was that the church itself decide things independently apart from anyone else.
For example:
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
--What greater sin could there be among the Corinthians! Surely it would involve Paul's intervention!

He gives them advice but they are the ones that had to take action according to sola scriptura:
1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
--There were biblical guidelines they had to follow.
Jesus set forth some of them in Matthew 18:15-20.
Going through that process they would ultimately end up in delivering an unrepentant sinner (though still a brother in Christ) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. This was all part of the process of church discipline that Jesus first spoke of in Matthew 18. It was to bring him back to repentance.
They were to purge out the old leaven, that is, to keep the church pure.
All of these instructions the Corinthians had to do without the assistance of Paul. And the next time they would have to do it without any further instruction from Paul. He wouldn't be there.
The key phrase: when ye come together.

No, a solely Sola Scriptura concept is a false gospel, one that was never proclaimed until some 1500 years went by in the history of Christianity. There is but one Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Christian Church.

The false gospel is noted in Gal.1:8 which Paul says is accursed--both the message and the messenger. It is anyone that brings any other gospel but the one that Paul preaches (let him be accursed).
The gospel that Paul preached is: Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and not by works.

 

[utilyan]

First, there is no such thing as a "parish" in the Bible. That is a man-made (RCC) invention. Just one more addition or unbiblical addition to the Bible.
Second, they looked to Paul only when necessary. Otherwise they conducted their affairs quite independently of each other and of the apostles. The apostles contacted them when necessary.
How do we know this?
In Corinth when problems arose a letter was sent to Paul. Paul immediately responded by letter:
1Cor.7:1, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:
--He had received their letter and now he is writing them back.

In another instance there was a controversial issue set forth by the legalistic Judaizers who were as a thorn in Paul's side following him wherever he went, and perverting the gospel of grace.
The apostles knew this had to stop, and it had to be done publically. This is what happened in Acts 15. Then look at the result.
Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
--This time Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas were sent to the churches with the decision that was made and they were to take it to the churches known to them.

Generally Paul stood apart from the matters of the church. His advice, even in matters of great importance, was that the church itself decide things independently apart from anyone else.
For example:
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
--What greater sin could there be among the Corinthians! Surely it would involve Paul's intervention!

He gives them advice but they are the ones that had to take action according to sola scriptura:
1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
--There were biblical guidelines they had to follow.
Jesus set forth some of them in Matthew 18:15-20.
Going through that process they would ultimately end up in delivering an unrepentant sinner (though still a brother in Christ) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. This was all part of the process of church discipline that Jesus first spoke of in Matthew 18. It was to bring him back to repentance.
They were to purge out the old leaven, that is, to keep the church pure.
All of these instructions the Corinthians had to do without the assistance of Paul. And the next time they would have to do it without any further instruction from Paul. He wouldn't be there.
The key phrase: when ye come together.


The false gospel is noted in Gal.1:8 which Paul says is accursed--both the message and the messenger. It is anyone that brings any other gospel but the one that Paul preaches (let him be accursed).
The gospel that Paul preached is: Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and not by works.

Yet when they challenged the Judaisers They resolved it by CHURCH RULING.

It would have been impossible to win Scripturally being that all scripture, OLD TESTAMENT in their existence supported the Judaisers position. You don't see them quote any new testament.......because there is No new testament!

They exercised their CHURCH AUTHORITY of binding and losing.

Makes even more sense when Paul had Timothy circumcised the next chapter.

Wait wait what about the rules?......

HAD you been there...... You would have been arguing on the side of the judaisers.

ALL scripture backed them up. There is NOTHING to be derived from the old testament that would exclude a gentile convert to Judaism from the law.

 

[Adonia]

First, there is no such thing as a "parish" in the Bible. That is a man-made (RCC) invention. Just one more addition or unbiblical addition to the Bible.
Second, they looked to Paul only when necessary. Otherwise they conducted their affairs quite independently of each other and of the apostles. The apostles contacted them when necessary.
How do we know this?
In Corinth when problems arose a letter was sent to Paul. Paul immediately responded by letter:
1Cor.7:1, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:
--He had received their letter and now he is writing them back.

In another instance there was a controversial issue set forth by the legalistic Judaizers who were as a thorn in Paul's side following him wherever he went, and perverting the gospel of grace.
The apostles knew this had to stop, and it had to be done publically. This is what happened in Acts 15. Then look at the result.
Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
--This time Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas were sent to the churches with the decision that was made and they were to take it to the churches known to them.

Generally Paul stood apart from the matters of the church. His advice, even in matters of great importance, was that the church itself decide things independently apart from anyone else.
For example:
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
--What greater sin could there be among the Corinthians! Surely it would involve Paul's intervention!

He gives them advice but they are the ones that had to take action according to sola scriptura:
1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
--There were biblical guidelines they had to follow.
Jesus set forth some of them in Matthew 18:15-20.
Going through that process they would ultimately end up in delivering an unrepentant sinner (though still a brother in Christ) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. This was all part of the process of church discipline that Jesus first spoke of in Matthew 18. It was to bring him back to repentance.
They were to purge out the old leaven, that is, to keep the church pure.
All of these instructions the Corinthians had to do without the assistance of Paul. And the next time they would have to do it without any further instruction from Paul. He wouldn't be there.
The key phrase: when ye come together.


The false gospel is noted in Gal.1:8 which Paul says is accursed--both the message and the messenger. It is anyone that brings any other gospel but the one that Paul preaches (let him be accursed).
The gospel that Paul preached is: Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and not by works.

Churches or parishes, just different words but the reality is they are same one Church of the whole with satellite entities in different places. There was but one Christian Church and they all listened to the leaders of the day who made the decisions regarding doctrines. Like Utilayn said, it is part and parcel of the "binding and losing" power given to those leaders by Jesus himself. You maintain that this power ended with them, others maintain that this power continued on with the succeeding leaders of the Christian Church right up to this very day.

 

[DHK]

Yet when they challenged the Judaisers They resolved it by CHURCH RULING.

What "Church Ruling"? There was none. Read your Bible please.
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
--These Judaizers had been following Paul wherever he went. He had rebuked them thoroughly in Galatia and then wrote a letter to the Galatians after that. The Judaizers would not stop. They were determined to have their way (kind of like infant-baptizers). They press the matter by going to a prominent local church, "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem," where James, the half brother of Jesus, is the pastor.
Now, go back to Acts 8, and you will find that there was a great persecution wherein many members of this church were scattered, and they all went, preaching the gospel as they went. But the Bible clearly says "the apostles remained in Jerusalem." They came to Jerusalem to have the stamp of apostolic approval on the doctrine that they knew was already declared true. They didn't have to debate about it. They already knew the truth. Not one apostle disagreed with what Paul had to say. They all agreed with him. This was in one way a decision that had to have apostolic authority, so the apostles were involved; thus their testimonies.
Note: In verse one the heresy is stated.
In verse two, They determined that Paul and Barnabas ...should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this matter.
The matter was discussed. The apostles were listened to.
Who made the decision?

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
James said: "My sentence (my judgment or decision) is...
It was the decision of James, the pastor of this Baptist Church that made the decision. There was no parish, no denomination, no universal church--just one local "Baptist" church with one pastor as the head.

It would have been impossible to win Scripturally being that all scripture, OLD TESTAMENT in their existence supported the Judaisers position. You don't see them quote any new testament.......because there is No new testament![/quote]
This is NT:
Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
--The letters containing the decisions that were made that day are recorded in Acts 15, and were carried by Paul and Barnabas to other churches. They are right there in the NT, Acts 15 for you to read! How much more NT is that?? It was scripture being written as the decision was being made.

Sola scriptura was based on the Old Testament as well, and that OT was quoted time and time again. To deny that is to accept one's own blindness and rejection of the Scripture.
What does the Bible say about it?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This is the teaching of sola scriptura--both for the OT and for the NT. Accept it!

They exercised their CHURCH AUTHORITY of binding and losing.

Binding and loosing refers to "church discipline." There was no one here to be disciplined so you are wrong. There is no "Church," only a local church where one man, James, is the pastor. He listened to the others and then made the final decision.

Makes even more sense when Paul had Timothy circumcised the next chapter.

Paul had Timothy circumcised for these reasons.
1. His mother was a Jew, and his father was a Greek, therefore he had Jewish ancestry and every right to be circumcised as a Jew.
2. His circumcision would allow him to go into the Temple. In that way he would be more profitable to Paul, and more profitable in general in the ministry.
3. This was not required. It was voluntary. It had nothing to do with salvation. It was a practical voluntary step so Timothy could be of more service among the Jews.

Wait wait what about the rules?......

Keep them.

HAD you been there...... You would have been arguing on the side of the judaisers.

Had?????????????
There is no conjecture here! I don't go to synagogues. Neither do you! Therefore your point is irrelevant.

ALL scripture backed them up. There is NOTHING to be derived from the old testament that would exclude a gentile convert to Judaism from the law.

Taking scripture out of context is not backing your opinion up.
Opinion is not worth two cents unless you can properly back it up.
For example the Bible does not teach infant baptism, but the RCC does it.
Where in the Bible do you find any infant being baptized? You don't. And you can't back it up with scripture because there isn't any.

 

[DHK]

Churches or parishes, just different words but the reality is they are same one Church of the whole with satellite entities in different places.

"Parish" is a Catholic word not found in the Bible, neither by word nor by concept or definition.
It is an unbiblical concept.
Do you think Peter or even John would be acquainted with the word "satellite"? You pray to the dead saints. Why don't you ask Peter and see?
There is no such thing as the "One Church." The word for "Church" is ekklesia" and always means assembly or congregation. You have it wrong.

There was but one Christian Church and they all listened to the leaders of the day who made the decisions regarding doctrines.

1. If there was only one Church why did Paul start over one hundred churches on three missionary journeys. It is one or the other. Both can't be true.
2. If we believe your statement, who is the pastor: who are the deacons; who takes up the offering; where does this church meet; and what practical purpose does it serve? Please answer the questions.

Like Utilayn said, it is part and parcel of the "binding and losing" power given to those leaders by Jesus himself.

You so glibly use this expression "binding and loosing" you ought to be ashamed.
Do you know where it is found in the Bible. Where?
Do you know what the context is? What? Explain?
For one to use this expression "binding and loosing" so thoughtlessly is profane.

You maintain that this power ended with them, others maintain that this power continued on with the succeeding leaders of the Christian Church right up to this very day.

You don't have power. Power comes from God. What power do you think you have and why?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes

Then we do not differ on that point either.

 

[BobRyan]

Yet when they challenged the Judaisers They resolved it by CHURCH RULING.

It would have been impossible to win Scripturally being that all scripture, OLD TESTAMENT in their existence supported the Judaisers position. You don't see them quote any new testament.......because there is No new testament!

They exercised their CHURCH AUTHORITY of binding and losing. .

I love this point. Because though you are wrong in your use of the text - the argument you make most clearly exposes the underlying principle that drives the RCC.

It is your argument above that the Judaizers are being faithful to scripture - and that the Acts 15 church is flying in the face of the Word of God - boldly contradicting it and proving that church-tradition is far superior to the teaching of actual scripture. That is HOW we got the Dark Ages!!!

(What you fail to realize is that the Judaizers in Acts 15 are not quoting a word of scripture for their case - because there is NO text of scripture OT or NT that said that the gentiles had to be circumcised - or had to be circumcised to be saved. Rather that was an "extreme" tradition-only doctrine that was made-up by the Judaizers. So then the exact opposite of your point. hint Acts 18:4 gentiles in the synagogues EVERY SABBATH and yet not circumcised. So the made-up rule in Acts 15 is not even being used by the non-Christ Jews!!!)

But I like it because when we look carefully at your argument for how you suppose that things work - this perfectly illulstrates the "Bible to-be-ignored and tradition-to-be-held" theology. In your view you just relax and sit back and let the RCC tell you each time you should deny the Bible and choose the RCC instead - they are in the drivers seat and if they are wrong -- well got will "get them"' and not you for that error.

Sadly - 2Cor 5:10 says God will "get you" for it no matter if He gets them as well or not. You need to re-think that whole "dark ages is best" wide-road.

 

[utilyan]

What "Church Ruling"? There was none. Read your Bible please.
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
--These Judaizers had been following Paul wherever he went. He had rebuked them thoroughly in Galatia and then wrote a letter to the Galatians after that. The Judaizers would not stop. They were determined to have their way (kind of like infant-baptizers). They press the matter by going to a prominent local church, "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem," where James, the half brother of Jesus, is the pastor.
Now, go back to Acts 8, and you will find that there was a great persecution wherein many members of this church were scattered, and they all went, preaching the gospel as they went. But the Bible clearly says "the apostles remained in Jerusalem." They came to Jerusalem to have the stamp of apostolic approval on the doctrine that they knew was already declared true. They didn't have to debate about it. They already knew the truth. Not one apostle disagreed with what Paul had to say. They all agreed with him. This was in one way a decision that had to have apostolic authority, so the apostles were involved; thus their testimonies.
Note: In verse one the heresy is stated.
In verse two, They determined that Paul and Barnabas ...should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this matter.
The matter was discussed. The apostles were listened to.
Who made the decision?

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
James said: "My sentence (my judgment or decision) is...
It was the decision of James, the pastor of this Baptist Church that made the decision. There was no parish, no denomination, no universal church--just one local "Baptist" church with one pastor as the head.

It would have been impossible to win Scripturally being that all scripture, OLD TESTAMENT in their existence supported the Judaisers position. You don't see them quote any new testament.......because there is No new testament!

This is NT:
Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
--The letters containing the decisions that were made that day are recorded in Acts 15, and were carried by Paul and Barnabas to other churches. They are right there in the NT, Acts 15 for you to read! How much more NT is that?? It was scripture being written as the decision was being made.

Sola scriptura was based on the Old Testament as well, and that OT was quoted time and time again. To deny that is to accept one's own blindness and rejection of the Scripture.
What does the Bible say about it?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This is the teaching of sola scriptura--both for the OT and for the NT. Accept it!


Binding and loosing refers to "church discipline." There was no one here to be disciplined so you are wrong. There is no "Church," only a local church where one man, James, is the pastor. He listened to the others and then made the final decision.


Paul had Timothy circumcised for these reasons.
1. His mother was a Jew, and his father was a Greek, therefore he had Jewish ancestry and every right to be circumcised as a Jew.
2. His circumcision would allow him to go into the Temple. In that way he would be more profitable to Paul, and more profitable in general in the ministry.
3. This was not required. It was voluntary. It had nothing to do with salvation. It was a practical voluntary step so Timothy could be of more service among the Jews.


Keep them.


Had?????????????
There is no conjecture here! I don't go to synagogues. Neither do you! Therefore your point is irrelevant.


Taking scripture out of context is not backing your opinion up.
Opinion is not worth two cents unless you can properly back it up.
For example the Bible does not teach infant baptism, but the RCC does it.
Where in the Bible do you find any infant being baptized? You don't. And you can't back it up with scripture because there isn't any.[/QUOTE]

Scripture says:
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.


And we can stop right here. Why? There is no going to Jerusalem, There is no asking apostles and elders about this question Because THEY ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY. There is only going to scripture to resolve this.

The Judaisers win they are bringing up THE LAW. The Apostles and Elders KNOW this is overrided by FAITH in CHRIST.

But there is NO SCRIPTURE around to say it.

 

[The Biblicist]

All of which I would agree with as well.



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?

Isaiah 8:16-17 required that

 

[DHK]

Scripture says:
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

And we can stop right here. Why? There is no going to Jerusalem, There is no asking apostles and elders about this question Because THEY ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY. There is only going to scripture to resolve this.

God's Word is Scripture. Since we have a record of what happened we look into that record, which is God's Word and see what happened--recorded by the Holy Spirit of God.
First, it was God that sent Paul; God that called Paul; God that appointed Paul to be an apostle and gave him the authority of an apostle. It is evident that he had authority, authority to write 13 books of the Bible, all of which are inspired of God.

To Timothy Paul wrote:
1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

To the Romans he wrote:
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
--He was ordained to be an apostle; called to be an apostle;
and:
2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
--Paul, as an apostle, had the signs of an apostle, that is, he could work miracles and signs and did so in the presence of the Corinthians.

He met the basic qualification of an apostle--being a witness of the resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

His testimony as an Apostle:
1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
--He shows his humility here. Nevertheless he is called to be an apostle.
As for Scripture he wrote 13 books of the NT. Isn't that enough for you?

The Judaisers win they are bringing up THE LAW. The Apostles and Elders KNOW this is overrided by FAITH in CHRIST.

But there is NO SCRIPTURE around to say it.

The Judaizers did not present much of anything but a well-known heresy.
They did not present any logical scriptural argument. If you can find it, then present it.
As for Scripture, the Apostles presented much of it, scripture that you have avoided.
The law is a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ. Salvation is by faith in Christ--sola fide.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

 

[The Biblicist]

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

Pleeease! You cannot use a text to illlustrate the very exact opposite thing it is approving. It is approving validating oral tradition by written scripture, it is not approving validating written scripture by oral tradition. So you are not being just like the Bereans but you are trying to discredit the very thing the Bereans illustrate. What kind of spirit would lead a person into this kind of twisted logic?????

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

Again, your logic is so twisted and unreasonable! You think God Almighty is the highest authority but you continue to insist what God Almighty breathed out word is not, so how in the world can you prove your point?????? Since you refuse to accept his breathed out word as final authority, then what basis do you have to even speak about this subject?

I have provided you with three indisputably clear examples that repudiate your whole position and you are still unable to overthrow them by any kind of sound reasoning:

1. Paul's response to the Bereans prove oral teaching is subjective to the written word as the higher authority.

2. Jesus correction of oral tradition by the written word proves the written word is not only the higher authority but is a "more sure word of prophecy."

3. Isaiah 8:20 demands the written word is the higher authority than the oral ("speak") and that "this word" cannot be the oral testimony as an oral testimony cannot be something "bound" or "sealed" other than when it is put into written form.

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.

Do you not read what I have said or are you not able to retain what you read?!? I hate repeating over and over again the same thing which you can never answer, but just repeat the same error over and over again.

His disciples were explicity told by Christ that what he had said the Holy Spirit would not only bring to their remembrance but preserve it for future generations so that Christ speaks through their oral testimony to contemporary Christians which was preserved as scripture for all generations of Christians to come. This is precisely what Isaiah prophesied (which you have not been able to overthrow) in Isaiah 8:16-17 as "this word" as final authority which John the last living apostolic writer of scripture explicitly claims to be fulfilling in a book that according to its own content covers the whole period of history from A.D. 97 to eternity and closes out every single thing begun in Genesis the first book.

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.

Why do you keep on intentionally perverting my position? I have told you repeatedly that God's word is both oral and written and the Scriptures consistently teach the oral is subjective to the written when it comes to final authority and is the "more sure word of prophecy" over the oral. So this is not my "personal rule" but is plainly and clearly and repeatedly taught by the scriptures.

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

I have provided three clear explicit indisputable scriptures that you have not been able to answer and you have provided NOTHING that the scriptural norm does not demonstrate is consistent with these indisputable texts.

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

You have done no such thing! I don't think there is any point in discussing this issue with you any more. It is obvious to me you are not willing to admit the truth even if the evidence demands it and I have placed three indisputable evidences before you and all you can do is repeat disproven assertions. So why should I spend my valuable time on someone who simply will not be objective or consistent with what we have covered in this debate, but just keeps repeating disproven arguments???? You made a very shallow attempt to dispute the OP which was easily exposed as irrational arguments. No one can "bind" and "seal" free flowing language? The historical use of "bind" and "seal" refers to written documents, but here I go again repeating evidences you did not answer and cannot answer.

I will drop out of the debate until you can provide something with substance.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Reconcile your "do' with "always":

John 6
28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”


You don't suppose Belief is implied somewhat in "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”?


Justification and Salvation aside. I love God and neighbor for free.

There is no weighing the command of God. If loving God came with a penalty of hell, then hell it is with a glad heart.

I didn't feel it appropriate to stop and ask what is in it for me.



"I don't know about you, but my resume contains around 10 years of formal institutional training in the Bible with a graduate and four post graduate degrees."

Well I'm glad one of us is taught, happy you are here to hold my hand and provide authoritive guidance, else who knows what crazy stuff I'm going to cook up next with Scripture Alone.


Here let me show you where I got that crazy idea Jesus is one flesh with the church.

Ephesians 5
28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

My understanding is the two are one flesh is a great mystery......he's talking about Christ and the Church.



"You are demonstrating that you need to be taught the Scriptures. Timothy is also told "to study" in order to "rightly divide the Word of God" so he would be a workman not to be ashamed. You can't just jerk a text out context and establish a doctrine that is clearly contradictive to the overall teaching of Paul to Timothy? Have you read 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and noticed who that was written unto??? Guess not!"

Of course I haven't read this stuff, only because I haven't gotten to a verse commanding that I had to read this stuff.......


2 timothy 3
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

theopneustos God breathed. Very important AMEN.

Profitable for teaching, profitable for training in righteousness. Profitable for doctrine.


Having eyeballs is profitable for teaching, That doesn't make eyeballs the teaching itself.

We would be dealing with something entirely different if he had said, scripture IS doctrine, scripture IS training in righteousness.

The teaching , training, doctrine helps a person be adequate for every good work. AMEN.

Those things are what they are, scripture HELPS, Profitable.



James 1
2Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

I want to start a new denomination, the motto will be "PATIENCE ALONE"


According to scripture I just need that patience and endurance......I'll be perfect lacking in nothing.
That's a lot more then your case for scripture.

You do surprize me, Utilyan! I say it again, I cannot believe you are Roman Catholic. I can only understand it to some extent in view of your animosity towards the Scriptures.

You are one case that puzzles me. WHY DO YOU FIGHT THE SCRIPTURES? TO BE A ROMAN CATHOLIC?! MUST BE... You're caught brother; may God have mercy on your soul.

...RC devils, God will get you!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sorry, your right.

Hypocrisy is the cloak covering the dagger of murderous religious harlotry. Sleeping with the mother of harlots means certain death.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Look, if you want to find some Sunday School children to practice on, then by all means go ahead and I will wait around until you feel you have had enough practice.

You are too well educated for me, and I'm too far behind and below your elevated status to be honest. I think if I had to I would vote for Utilyan rather. Just a pity he's RC. I don't like RC or their ilk.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are too well educated for me, and I'm too far behind and below your elevated status to be honest. I think if I had to I would vote for Utilyan rather. Just a pity he's RC. I don't like RC or their ilk.

That was not addressed to you, and so I don't know why your taking umbrage to it?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

--These Judaizers had been following Paul wherever he went. He had rebuked them thoroughly in Galatia and then wrote a letter to the Galatians after that. The Judaizers would not stop. They were determined to have their way (kind of like infant-baptizers). They press the matter by going to a prominent local church, "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem," where James, the half brother of Jesus, is the pastor.

DHK, to me you more than ever look like the RC you used to be before you joined "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem".
Intimidating stuff this ...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That was not addressed to you, and so I don't know why your taking umbrage to it?

Because you and what you vend offend me; especially the haughty way in which you peddle your cart.

If your stuff isn't meant for me, or for everyone else, then what do you bring it here to a public forum for? Why don't you leave it in your books at home on the shelves?