• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

Originally posted by DHK:
Perhaps not, but the Assumption of Mary decared by Pope Pius XII in 1950 is. And if this is the Biblical evidence that you have to support for it, then you are standing on very weak ground. In fact it is no evidence at all.
No, DHK, my Biblical basis comes from the authority that Jesus vested to the Church.

As I pointed out before, sola scriptura is your man made tradition, not mine.

I wait in vain for Scriptural proof of sola scriptura.

Ron
 

GraceSaves

New Member
Originally posted by Briguy:
Logan, I know this is off topic but I can't let this go. (moderators please forgive me).
You said that Mary was the woman in Rev. 12, right?

RCC belief is that Mary was without sin when she gave birth to Jesus right? Actually, maybe the position is that she was made sinless, without original Sin, before the conceiving of Jesus. Either way, and its probably the second, she had NO SIN when she gave birth, according to the RCC. Read now the first two verses of Rev. 12

Rev.12
[1] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
[2] And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

What do we see here? A woman having pain in child birth. Pain in child birth is only for those woman "under the curse", which we know from Genesis. ( I don't think I need to post the verse). Mary, according to the RCC is without original sin and would therefore not be subject to the "curse".

Logan, you can't have it both ways. She cannot be the woman in Rev. 12 or is not sinless. Which belief are you going to throw out the window here??


Take care and God bless,
Brian
Brian,

Catholics also generally believe that Mary died before she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. Death is a result of sin, and yet Mary was without sin.

Surely you don't think that the Catholic Church doesn't have an explanation? I would hope not.

I was typing out a response that would be long and complicated, but I thought I might as well make this simple...

First off, it never said that childbirth wasn't painless. God the Father said that he would instensify the pains of child birth, meaning that previous to that, child birth would have still been painful, only not as much.

Second, I ask that you read Isaiah 66:7-14.

Lemme know how that goes! God bless,

Grant
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by trying2understand:
As I pointed out before, sola scriptura is your man made tradition, not mine.
I wait in vain for Scriptural proof of sola scriptura.
This is just a simple admission you cannot prove from Scripture the Assumption of Mary. However:

Writings of Moses
We know that a collection of inspired writings termed "holy scriptures" were known and accepted by New Testament writers—2 Timothy 3:15; Romans 1:2. There can be no doubt that Jesus himself as well as the apostles regarded part of these holy scriptures as being from the pen of Moses even though being God's word. For example, the commandment to honour father and mother is said to be "the commandment of God" in Matt. 15:6, yet in Mark 7:10 the saying is attributed to the word to Moses. The writings of Moses are clearly identified by Jesus several times, as for example in John 5:46-47. It is clear from these references that Jesus himself recognized the Jewish scriptures as including those writings of Moses.
In Luke 24:44 Jesus says; "...all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." John then adds (verse 45) "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."

The apostle John also includes "Moses and all the prophets" in the Scriptures—Luke 24:27.
Stephen, in his speech (Acts 7), makes the interesting statement that Moses was "with the angel which spoke to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us" (verses 37, 38). Also, in Romans 3:2 Paul says "unto them were committed the oracles of God".
Now in considering such references it is difficult to avoid the obvious conclusion that whilst the New Testament was as yet unwritten—or whilst it was in process of being written—a collection of sacred books was generally recognized by both the Jews and early Christians as "holy scripture". It is also clear that this canon of scripture was understood to include the writings of Moses and the prophets (and many of these prophets are named by New Testament writers) as well as the Psalms.

Recognition of God's Word
There is ample evidence in the Old Testament that when God gave His word to the nation, it was instantly recognized as such. Certainly this was the case in the dramatic circumstances recorded in Exodus 19:9 and verses 16-19.
There were three discernable steps by which the nation of Israel received the oracles of God. First, God put His words into the mouth of His prophet—as is described in Deut 18:18. This would be subject to some form of verification at the time—as outlined for example in verses 21,22.

Secondly, and as described in Deuteronomy 31:9 an autograph copy was made by Moses and then delivered to the priests for safe keeping—see also verses 24-26. Thirdly, copies were made from the standard autograph held in the custody of the priests (Deut. 17:18).
This was the process whereby the writings of Moses were received by Israel. The same principle can be seen in the giving of other scriptures where the same procedure was followed. 1. God speaks through the prophet. 2. It was verified and given to the priests. 3. The priests give it to the King and nation.
Taking the "book of the law" (Joshua 1:8) as a pattern, we see that its initial recognition continued. It was re-affirmed by Joshua (1:8 and 23:6) and at other times in Israel's history (1 Kings 2:3 and 2 Kings 22:8 and 16 are examples). Even in captivity we find Daniel expressing the conviction that "thy (God's) law" is identifiable as "the law of Moses" (Daniel 9:11-13). It is God's word.
The custodians of this word of God were the priests whose responsibility it was to pass it on to the people. The priest was "the messenger of the Lord of hosts" (Mal 2:7) and it was his duty to "keep knowledge" and explain and give the sense of it to the nation—Nehemiah 8:8 (see R.V. marginal note).

Endorsement
We have already seen that Jesus and the New Testament writers recognized holy scripture (i.e. The Old Testament). This is important, for it establishes beyond doubt that at the dawn of the Christian religion there was a recognized Holy Bible. From Luke 24:44,45 we see that these scriptures consisted of the Law of Moses, the Prophets as well as Psalms. In fact it is possible for us to comb the New Testament for quotations from these Scriptures and to thus determine what was recognized and endorsed. It is also relevant to note how the New Testament writers understood the origin of these Scriptures.
In a reference to the Psalms, the apostle Peter says: "this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the holy spirit by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas..." (Acts 1:16). This view of the inspiration of Scripture harmonizes with what we saw earlier from Deuteronomy 18:18 "I will...put my words in his mouth." It is the same process exactly and shows how the apostles themselves understood it. The process is explained again by Peter in 2 Peter 1:21.

A Period of Silence
As the Old Testament neared completion, the prophets foretold that there would come a period of silence when no revelation would be given. In Amos 8:11-12 we read.
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it."
Again in Micah 3:6-7 it was written:
"Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision, and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God."

This period of silence is confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote in the first century A.D. It is particularly interesting that this writer was himself a priest and would have been conscious of Moses' words recorded in Deuteronomy 4:2, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." Had there been recognized Scriptures in existence after the prophets—such as the apocryphal books which some accept today—Josephus would not have been ignorant of them nor would he have excluded them.
The fact that the prophets themselves require a period of silence and that there is contemporary evidence commenting on it, shows the believer today that Old Testament Scripture closed with the prophets. Accepting the Apocryphal books which bridge this period between the prophets and the New Testament era would contradict the very requirements of Amos and Micah. That neither Jesus or the apostles ever refer to these apocryphal books is also highly significant. They do not have apostolic endorsement in the New Testament.

The New Testament
The pattern seen in the formation of the Old Testament is seen again when we come to the New. It was a very similar process. The apostles either penned or dictated the original autographs and they were given to the ecclesia where they were instantly recognized as Scripture.
In a typical assembly of believers there would be brethren who had a special gift, termed in 1 Cor. 12:10 the "discerning of spirits". These brethren would be able to "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21) and "try the spirits" of teachers for the benefit of all—1 John 4:1; Rev. 2:2. Thus Paul could write in 1 Cor. 14:37.
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the command-ments of the Lord."
Thus would an ecclesia acknowledge certain writings as being scripture. As Paul comments to the assembly at Thessalonica:
"...ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God..."

There was endorsement from other apostles also. Peter acknowledges Paul's epistles as being in the category of "other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Jude endorses Peter's epistle by a clear reference to it in his 17th and 18th verses (c/p 2 Peter 3:3). Thus, as with the Old Testament we find instant recognition of the New Testament Scriptures as soon as they were written. It required no Church councils and no gradual evolutionary process—it was recognized immediately.
The Gospels themselves would have been subject to a like process. They were accepted and in circulation very early as we can see from Luke 1:1-4 (and possibly Acts 10:37).

Another Period of Silence
Just as the completion of the Old Testament had been foreseen by the prophets, so also we see that spirit gifts would cease after the time of the apostles (1 Cor. 13:8-10). This fact, together with the warning from Jesus himself in Rev. 22:18-19, not to add anything further to this final prophecy, is reason enough to discount later writings such as the Koran.
Even during the lifetime of the apostles there were attempts to produce counterfeit letters in their name (2 Thess. 2:1-2). In those days believers were protected from these "false apostles" who were "transformed as the ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor. 11:15) by those who were gifted in the discernment of spirits. The attempts to mimic Scripture in after ages comes as no surprise therefore—yet we have the assurance that the eyes of the Lord are always upon His truth (Jer. 5:3) and that "The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor (Prov. 22:12).

The Word Preserved
Through His own providential care therefore, the God of heaven has seen to it that His word of truth has been preserved right down to these latter times. Isaiah the prophet was told:
"Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever"—Isa. 30:8.
Notice the marginal note to this verse in the K.J.V., it reads "...that it may be for the latter days". Not only have those very words been kept in circulation all down the ages, but they were also discovered in an ancient manuscript preserved in a cave near the Dead Sea in "the latter days"!
The Power that is able to preserve His word all down the long centuries surely has the power to keep it intact also. This we believe He has done—and partly by a built-in system of verification which believers in every age have been able to use for themselves. These principles involve the harmony of God's word—that it does not in fact contain contradictions in its teaching. This test, which any believer may apply to teachings in either spoken or written form is expressed as follows by 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."

The same principle is given in the New Testament. The apostle writes: "We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God heareth not us . Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."—1 John 4:6. So any writing or statement claiming to be of equal authority with scripture must be in complete harmony with apostolic teaching. By applying this principle in testing claims to authority, believers have been able to discern the counterfeit and preserve intact the canon of holy scripture.

http://www.biblemagazine.com/magazine/vol-8/issue-4/canon.html

Believers throughout the centuries, have, as the believers did in Acts 17:11, appealed to Scripture for their final authority. This is Sola Scriptura, soundly taught in the Word of God. If you do not accept it you do not accept the Word of God, and that becomes your problem
DHK
 

GraceSaves

New Member
DHK,

Your last statement was not a logical conclusion based on the previous statements, and I wholly reject it, for it makes no sense. Now, if you don't accept Sola Scriptura, you don't believe in the Word of God.

I pray for you.

God bless,

Grant
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

Your last statement was not a logical conclusion based on the previous statements, and I wholly reject it, for it makes no sense. Now, if you don't accept Sola Scriptura, you don't believe in the Word of God.
Then you didn't carefully read what was posted, did you?
DHK
 
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
As I pointed out before, sola scriptura is your man made tradition, not mine.
I wait in vain for Scriptural proof of sola scriptura.
This is just a simple admission you cannot prove from Scripture the Assumption of Mary. </font>
DHK, I wrote three very short sentences in reponse to you.

You chose to delete the one sentence that answered your question.

You then bore false witness against me by claiming that I could not answer your question.

I forgive you anyway, DHK.


[ December 03, 2002, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
 

GraceSaves

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

Your last statement was not a logical conclusion based on the previous statements, and I wholly reject it, for it makes no sense. Now, if you don't accept Sola Scriptura, you don't believe in the Word of God.
Then you didn't carefully read what was posted, did you?
DHK
</font>[/QUOTE]I read it just fine. It does not in any way show without doubt that the Scirptures are our final authority. I do fully agree that all doctrine must be in agreement with Scriptures, and not contrary, which is faithfully kept in the Catholic Church. But something does not have to be explicitly stated in Scripture to be an article of Truth, and you have not proven otherwise.

God bless,

Grant
 
Originally posted by DHK:
The New Testament
The pattern seen in the formation of the Old Testament is seen again when we come to the New. It was a very similar process. The apostles either penned or dictated the original autographs and they were given to the ecclesia where they were instantly recognized as Scripture.
Why were some writings of the Apostles not recognized as Scripture?

If it was so "instanly recognized" why is there recorded history of disagreement?

Thus Paul could write in 1 Cor. 14:37.
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the command-ments of the Lord."
This is Paul saying that his writings are authoratative, not that some other person can pick what is and what is not Scripture.
As Paul comments to the assembly at Thessalonica:
"...ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God..."
So what about the other writings of the Apostles?

There was endorsement from other apostles also. Peter acknowledges Paul's epistles as being in the category of "other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Jude endorses Peter's epistle by a clear reference to it in his 17th and 18th verses (c/p 2 Peter 3:3). Thus, as with the Old Testament we find instant recognition of the New Testament Scriptures as soon as they were written.
But you reject this "referencing" standard when it comes to the Deutroconanicals. Why is that?
It required no Church councils and no gradual evolutionary process—it was recognized immediately.
Then why does recorded history tell us different?
 

Logan

New Member
Greetings Brian:

Originally posted by Briguy:
You said that Mary was the woman in Rev. 12, right?
I believe it refers to Mary...yes. But understand, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary does not come from this verse.

What do we see here? A woman having pain in child birth. Pain in child birth is only for those woman "under the curse", which we know from Genesis.( I don't think I need to post the verse).
For sake of the discussion I will post it as I think it will shed some light. Genesis 3:16; "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain shall you bring forth children;..."

Now being a sola scripturist you must admit there has to be a measure of pain to begin with in order for something to be "multiplied" right? So the woman in Revealtion 12 having some pain at childbirth does not contradict this as you implied.

Next using your logic, would you also say that Jesus had the curse of original sin since He died?

Mary, according to the RCC is without original sin and would therefore not be subject to the "curse".
Logan, you can't have it both ways. She cannot be the woman in Rev. 12 or is not sinless. Which belief are you going to throw out the window here??
I will throw out neither, and even if I did, it would not change the truth of either of them. My point is that if you do a careful study of Revelation 12, it would be hard to come out against the woman being Mary.

The main part of who the 'woman' is, is the part that gives birth to the son. The Son, who she does give birth to in verse 5, is the one who rules the earth, with a rod of iron. This is a clear reference to Psalm 2:9 where it says that this son will rule them with a rod of iron. In revelation 19:13-15, this phrase of ruling with a rod of iron is specifically applied to the Word of God. This is a direct reference to Jesus. Now the woman in revelation 12 is one who gives birth to Jesus and the only one in Scripture who gives birth to Jesus is Mary. A look at the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament will not find a single reference to Israel either being a woman or giving birth to the Messiah.
Whats your opionion?

[ December 03, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]
 

Briguy

<img src =/briguy.gif>
Grant, You made a very good point and so I looked at the NASB version of the Genesis verse. Here it is: 16 To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will (17) bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And (18) he will rule over you."

Do you see the line, "In Pain you will bring forth children". To fit the first part of verse 16 with the second part it is more logical to say that the multiplying is saying it will be very painful. Unlike math we don't have to have pain first to multiply. The second part is totally unneeded if there was pain first. If there was pain right off the bat before the curse then you must believe that a perfect world included pain. It was a interesting thought but it doesn't hold the true test of interpretation. Woman after the curse had pain, that is directly what the second part of the verse says. If pain exsisited before that, that part would not be included. Verse 16 is saying not only will you now have pain, you will have a lot of it. Thanks for reading this, take care,

In Love and Truth,
Brian

Also, as a side note. Did Joseph rule over Mary as he was supposed to, considering her sinless state?

[ December 03, 2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Briguy ]
 
N

Netcurtains3

Guest
Hi,
Someone posted (not sure which thread) that if Mary was sinless how come she "cried out in pain" at the birth of Jesus? Surely pain in birth is a result of sin?

The answer is simple: Surely Jesus "dying" is sin too?

No - Jesus's death was a special death and Mary's pregnancy was special too.

Who was Enoch? Who was Elijah? Was Mary the Third one? God likes threes.

Mary was clothed in the Sun and had 12 stars on her head and the moon at her feet BEFORE Jesus was born (Rev Ch 12:v6)

The Holy Spirit is often associated with female aspects of God. Mary is totally covered by the Holy Spirit - This is not Flame above our heads or a wind - this is COVERED.

Someone here posted about Joe. I go to St Joe's. From what I know about guys in charge they are not more holy or less holy then anyone else. Joe seemed to have been a good father - Jesus could read well and he was bought up to be religious.

NEt

[ December 03, 2002, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
GraceSaves, and T2U,
What I have posted, and what you seem to agree with for the most part, is how the canon of Scripture was formed, and then how it was preserved for us today. If we have the Bible, as the article says we do, then it becomes our final authority. It was the final authority in the days of the Old Testament prophets. It was the final authority in the days of Christ. It was the final authority in the days of the early believers. This doctrine runs like a thread through every book of Scripture, and through all true believers throughout all generations. Only the unsaved would deny such a doctrine. I have pointed out some of these things before, but for your sakes I will do it again.

415 times in 413 verses is there an appeal to God's Word as the final authority in the phrase "Thus saith the Lord," alone. That is sola scriptura 413 times over.

2Cor.3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
--Our sufficiency is of God. We need nothing outside of God. Our sufficiency is of God.

2Cor.9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
--Again God is our sufficiency. He is able to make all things abound to every good work, for He is our sufficiency. We have all sufficiency in all things.

2Cor.9:11 Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.
--We are enriched in all things or in everything which then causes us to give thanksgiving.

John 17:17, Jesus said about His disciples, "Sanctify them through thy truth, they Word is truth."
Sanctify means to set apart from sin, and to be separated unto God. It gives the idea of spiritual maturity or completion.
Thus the work of the full holiness of the believer is done through the operation of the Word of God, not through the Word of God plus something else. It is not the Word of God plus tradition that a person is sanctified or made holy. This is a work of God. God is our sufficiency. It is God that sanctifies us. He says sanctify them through thy Word. The Word of God becomes the "sufficiency" of the believer. He needs no other. He needs nothing else to rely upon. You can have your Book of Mormon, your Oral Tradition, your Key to the Scriptures by Mary Eddy Baker, etc. The Word of God is the believer's sufficiency and always has been.

Micah 2:7 O thou that art named the house of Jacob, is the spirit of the LORD straitened? are these his doings? do not my words do good to him that walketh uprightly?
— "Do not my words do good to him that walks uprightly?" God speaks through the prophet Micah and says, "Is it not true that when you live an obedient life, it is my Word that produces good in your life?"
The Word of God is the source of the goodness of life.

1Cor.2:13 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 teaching of God that comes to us comes by the Holy Spirit. Our sufficiency is of God. He teaches us through the Word of God. No where can it be proven that we are taught by tradition using the Catholic's own definition of tradition. Our sufficiency is of God. We have no need to be taught of anything else. Sola Scriptura is just that: that the Scriptures are all sufficient in matters of faith and pracitice.
DHK

[ December 03, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
 

GraceSaves

New Member
Originally posted by Briguy:
Grant, You made a very good point and so I looked at the NASB version of the Genesis verse. Here it is: 16 To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will (17) bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And (18) he will rule over you."

Do you see the line, "In Pain you will bring forth children". To fit the first part of verse 16 with the second part it is more logical to say that the multiplying is saying it will be very painful. Unlike math we don't have to have pain first to multiply. The second part is totally unneeded if there was pain first. If there was pain right off the bat before the curse then you must believe that a perfect world included pain. It was a interesting thought but it doesn't hold the true test of interpretation. Woman after the curse had pain, that is directly what the second part of the verse says. If pain exsisited before that, that part would not be included. Verse 16 is saying not only will you now have pain, you will have a lot of it. Thanks for reading this, take care,

In Love and Truth,
Brian

Also, as a side note. Did Joseph rule over Mary as he was supposed to, considering her sinless state?
Brian,

Countless passages in the Bible, especially in things like the psalms, have endless repetition. It's not that uncommon in the Bible to have something repeated, such as in this instance, where the first sentence is in active voice, and the second in passive.

Also, if something is not there, it cannot be multiplies. Adam and Eve could not be fruitful and multiply, if, in fact, Adam and Eve weren't already there.

Also, because there was no birth before the fall, we can't say that childbirth before the fall would have had pain.

Anyway, it's illogical to think that because Mary was free from the stains of sin that she would not experience pain. If she cut herself, she would bleed, and she would be in pain. Being a human, with skin and nerve endings, bringing forth a child would thus produce pain. Jesus, the man, was sinless, and yet he SUFFERED on the cross. Humanity is not exempt from pain and death, not even Jesus.

Therefore, your argument against this isn't as good as you thought. ;)

God bless,

Grant
 

GraceSaves

New Member
DHK,

Scriptures still need correct interpretation. The Magesterium is the servant of the Scriptures. Nothing in the Catholic Church is contrary to Scriptures. Your argument is futile.

God bless,

Grant
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by GraceSaves:

Scriptures still need correct interpretation. The Magesterium is the servant of the Scriptures. Nothing in the Catholic Church is contrary to Scriptures. Your argument is futile.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

You challenged me to show you through Scriptures the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And this is your lame excuse! This is the only thing you can come up with!! It needs correct interpretation? It is not according to the magesterium.
Then please--Scripture by Scripture give the Magesterium's view of those Scriptures which I quoted to you and refute them. Tell me how they do not teach Sola Scriptura. Don't back out of thiis one so quickly. Don't hide beneath your Magesterium cloak, and "that's your interpretation excuse." Be a man for once in your life, and explain what the Scriptures mean. If you don't know then admit it.
DHK
 

Briguy

<img src =/briguy.gif>
Grant, I was thinking in bed last night about this. Before the fall God had said that creation was "Good". Could it have been good to God if his children could go around getting hurt all the time. What if Adam fell out of a tall tree and landed on his head. Could he have broken his neck and died? Seriously, think of that, before the "fall of mankind" Adam could not have died for there was no death. What you are arguing is that there was pain but not death. What I am saying is that "good" to God should mean more then that. Yes, I agree if Adam fell it seemed he could skin his knee but in God's good world he would not have let that happen. Have you ever seen a woman give birth? I have seen it first hand 3 times, with my own chidren, and the pain is horrible. God would have to directly intervene to keep the pain away. There is no way that a birth could be only a little painful.Do you see that God's plan would have been to intervene at childbirth and take the pain away, they same he would if Adam fell down. "Good" to God would be painless if God really is Love, especially in the "world" he created that was without Sin and the "curse".

Brian with a hard return down the line to Grant, Grant stretches to hit the ball and ------- ;) :D

In a Great God!!!!!
Brian
 
Originally posted by DHK:
What I have posted, and what you seem to agree with for the most part, is how the canon of Scripture was formed, and then how it was preserved for us today.
I did not agree with you. I asked several questions which you have ignored. How is that agreement?
If we have the Bible, as the article says we do, then it becomes our final authority.
A big if.
It was the final authority in the days of the Old Testament prophets. It was the final authority in the days of Christ. It was the final authority in the days of the early believers. This doctrine runs like a thread through every book of Scripture, and through all true believers throughout all generations. Only the unsaved would deny such a doctrine. I have pointed out some of these things before, but for your sakes I will do it again.
"Only the unsaved" DHK, you have a tendency to judge others as "unsaved" when they disagree with what is merely your interpretation.

415 times in 413 verses is there an appeal to God's Word as the final authority in the phrase "Thus saith the Lord," alone. That is sola scriptura 413 times over.
"Thus saith the Lord" demonstrates authority of Scripture but it does not say that it is the "only" authority or source of revelation of God. You are reading your man made tradition into Scripture again.

2Cor.3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
--Our sufficiency is of God. We need nothing outside of God. Our sufficiency is of God.

2Cor.9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
--Again God is our sufficiency. He is able to make all things abound to every good work, for He is our sufficiency. We have all sufficiency in all things.

Sola Scriptura is just that: that the Scriptures are all sufficient in matters of faith and pracitice.
DHK
"God is our sufficiency", yes, then you twist it into "Scripture is all sufficient".

Too bad for your beliefs that Scriptures themselves don't make that claim.

Ron

[ December 04, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
 

GraceSaves

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:

Scriptures still need correct interpretation. The Magesterium is the servant of the Scriptures. Nothing in the Catholic Church is contrary to Scriptures. Your argument is futile.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

You challenged me to show you through Scriptures the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And this is your lame excuse! This is the only thing you can come up with!! It needs correct interpretation? It is not according to the magesterium.
Then please--Scripture by Scripture give the Magesterium's view of those Scriptures which I quoted to you and refute them. Tell me how they do not teach Sola Scriptura. Don't back out of thiis one so quickly. Don't hide beneath your Magesterium cloak, and "that's your interpretation excuse." Be a man for once in your life, and explain what the Scriptures mean. If you don't know then admit it.
DHK
</font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

You WILL rephrase this post, or no, I will not respond. I'm not going to be bullied by you, nor will I lower myself to a bully's level. Ask in a Christian manner, or get no response.

God bless,

Grant
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by trying2understand:
"God is our sufficiency", yes, then you twist it into "Scripture is all sufficient".

Too bad for your beliefs that Scriptures themselves don't make that claim.
Not twisting Scripture here Ron; you have read on and connect the dots so to speak. The next verse, Jesus, praying for His disciples, says "Sanctify them through thy Word, thy Word is truth." God is our sufficiency. We have come that far. But then Jesus asks for the Father to set his disciples (and all believers to follow) apart from the world, and set them apart unto God through His Word. The Way that We know God (who is our sufficiency) is through the Word (the source of all truth). God (the truth) is the means of our sufficiency. God (the Word) is our suffiency. The only way that we can become spiritually mature or spiritually sufficient in God is through the Word of God. It is impossible through any other agent such as Oral Tradition. Jesus never mentioned any other agent except the Word.
DHK
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by GraceSaves:
You WILL rephrase this post, or no, I will not respond. I'm not going to be bullied by you, nor will I lower myself to a bully's level. Ask in a Christian manner, or get no response.
Grace Saves,
First, I will not be told what to do by the Catholics who come to spread their false doctrine on this board.

Second, I am frustrated and disgusted by the whining and complaining of those who say they are waiting for a doctrine such as Sola Scriptura to be explained to them when I have already explained it more than once, Clint has explained, I remember Pastor Larry explaining it, others have explained it; it has been expained numerous times. To say that no one has ever explained it to me is a false accusation. It has been posted here many, many times.

Third, as many times as it has been posted, instead of politely replying to it, the typical response is to hide under a curtain and say that's your interpretation; that is not what the magesterium. Gee, I already knew that; he already knew that before he posted the question. Why did he even ask if he knew that we disagreed with magesterium? If there is going to be no constructive discussion don't even ask. Don't offer me: "that's your interpretation," responses. Don't give me, "that's not what the magesterium says," excuses. Quite frankly, I am sick of hearing of them. Read the front page before you enter this board and remember that it is a Baptist Board. If you can't take the heat, get out.
DHK

[ December 04, 2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
 
Top