Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
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

The problem with your interpretation is that when Jesus uses "Word" He is referring to Himself, not Scripture.

Your confusion appears to be in believing that Jesus and Scripture are the same.

I know many fundamentalists that think that John 1:1 is talking about the Bible. It's not. It's talking about Jesus.

Ron

 

[trying2understand]

DHK, you really have no room to complain about hearing "Thats your interpretation."

Guess what, that is all that it is.

That's the man made system that you bought into. Now you will just have to deal with it.

Sorry. That's just the way that it is.

Unless of course, you are claiming some sort of special knowledge?

Ron

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Briguy:
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 -------

In a Great God!!!!!
Brian

Brian,

I totally see what you are saying, but realize that this whole argument isn't really relevant to proving or disproving anything.

1) Jesus was sinless, and yet experienced pain.
2) Mary was sinless, and yet experienced pain.
3) The Chuch has not said whether or not her childbirth was painful, for that is unimportant.
4) The reasons for the pain, in Revelation, while they were "while in labor," does not mean that they were because of labor. You could argue that they were, but then you'd be acknowledging by necessity that the woman is Mary. Are you saying that?

It's all really irrelevant. Mary was without original sin, but only because God gave her that grace early (before Baptism). She still is utterly dependant on God and Jesus' sacrifice, and thus, being born of sinful parents, is still under the punishment of death (though her body was not allowed decay).

Hope that helps! God bless,

Grant

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

The problem with your interpretation is that when Jesus uses "Word" He is referring to Himself, not Scripture.

Your confusion appears to be in believing that Jesus and Scripture are the same.

I know many fundamentalists that think that John 1:1 is talking about the Bible. It's not. It's talking about Jesus.

You are correct in saying that many fundamentalists take that position. I am not just to avoid confustion. Jesus said Sanctify them through thy Word. The Word of God becomes the "agency" by which the believer is set apart, made holy, made self-sufficient. He uses His Word to accomplish all things through the believer. "Sanctify them THROUGH thy Word." The Word is simply the agency which God works through.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
You are correct in saying that many fundamentalists take that position. I am not just to avoid confustion. Jesus said Sanctify them through thy Word. The Word of God becomes the "agency" by which the believer is set apart, made holy, made self-sufficient. He uses His Word to accomplish all things through the believer. "Sanctify them THROUGH thy Word." The Word is simply the agency which God works through.
DHK

The problem is that Jesus was praying for the Apostles at that time.

You seem to be suggesting that Jesus was praying for the Apostles to be sanctified by the Old Testament instead of through Him, or that Jesus was praying that the Apostles would be sanctified through the New Testament, which they would write at a future time, instead of through Him.

Doesn't make any sense either way.

Ron

 

[DHK]

Let's add to what we have already established.
Heb.4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
--The Word of God is living and powerful. It is a weapon strong enough to pierce even the thoughts and intents of every man's heart. In this day and age most people don't need psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapy, etc. They need the Word of God. It is "sufficient" to solve their problems. Most of those type of problems stem from a spiritual cause. Can there be any more sufficiency than the mind of God working through the sufficiency of the Word of God?

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
--You have no doubt heard this verse many times before. But Jesus is talking about obedience. He is saying that all spiritual sufficiency is bound up in hearing and obeying the Word of God. The word "blessed" simply means "happy." It refers to the individual who will be happy in the hope and fulfilment of hearing and obeying God's Word.

James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
--James refers to the one who obeys, not only the Word of God, but the "perfect" Word of God. The word "perfect" means "complete," and again has the idea of "all-sufficient." There is nothing that is more complete, more sufficient than God's Word for the believer. Is the Bible incomplete; not according to this verse. At the end of Revelation John adds, "If any man shall add anything unto this..."
In James 2, James refers to this book as the Royal Law. Again, our spiritual "sufficiency comes from God, through the Word of God, and is administered by the Spirit of God to the believer.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--If any verse were to demonstrate Sola Scriptura it would be this one. With acceptance, faith, and eagerness, the accepted the Word of God daily, and searched it. They did not take Paul at his own word, but went home and searched the Word of God for themselves to see if what Paul was saying was true. The Word of God was their authority.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

The problem is that Jesus was praying for the Apostles at that time.

You seem to be suggesting that Jesus was praying for the Apostles to be sanctified by the Old Testament instead of through Him, or that Jesus was praying that the Apostles would be sanctified through the New Testament, which they would write at a future time, instead of through Him.

Doesn't make any sense either way.

Not the Old Testament. It was His word that would sanctify them, which became the Word of God. Not just the disciples; but all believers:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
Not the Old Testament. It was His word that would sanctify them, which became the Word of God. Not just the disciples; but all believers:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
DHK

"It was His word that would sanctify them, which became the Word of God."

Huh? So you are sanctified by the "words" of Jesus? Not by Jesus?

We are sanctified by Scripture? Not by Jesus?

DHK, this sounds like you are making an idol of the Bible.

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"

Notice that the verse says "their word" not "the Word". You see no difference?

"Word" has different meanings in the NT. You seem to want to make it all the same.

Ron

[ December 04, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[trying2understand]

[ December 04, 2002, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Netcurtains3]

God said to ADAM that he must not eat the fruit - he did not say anything to Eve.

So unless Eve is also Adam, Eve actually did nothing wrong. She is sinless.

Or is the bible saying, if I do something wrong (like murder) then my wife gets the chop too?

"Eve" via womens groups in the nineteenth century along with Quakers (and 1 famous CofE chap) got rid of Slavery. What did main-stream Christianity do (Baptists, Catholics and Anglicans) - not a great deal.

Netty.

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

I forgive you.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
God said to ADAM that he must not eat the fruit - he did not say anything to Eve.

So unless Eve is also Adam, Eve actually did nothing wrong. She is sinless.

Or is the bible saying, if I do something wrong (like murder) then my wife gets the chop too?

Net,

This argument is completely invalid. For starters, when God made this commandment (Genesis 2:17), Eve had not yet been created. Therefore, you can't say He only told Adam, like He was somehow excluding Eve.

Secondly, Eve was aware of the commandment, for she stated so herself (Genesis 3:2-3): "The woman answered the serpent: 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.''"

Now reread what you wrote above. You didn't bother to read the Scriptures, apparently. Eve knew full well, and even quoted God's commandment.

God bless,

Grant

[ December 04, 2002, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--If any verse were to demonstrate Sola Scriptura it would be this one. With acceptance, faith, and eagerness, the accepted the Word of God daily, and searched it. They did not take Paul at his own word, but went home and searched the Word of God for themselves to see if what Paul was saying was true. The Word of God was their authority.
DHK

That's a brave admission since this verse doesn't demonstrate sola scriptura (except of course by your interpretation).

"The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents to a Protestant-style sola Scriptura for they were willing to accept Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his very oral teaching was) [Endnote 11]. The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it [Endnote 12], examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so; however, it does not say they searched the Scriptures alone. They did so for it was their common ground with the Christian, Paul. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness" [Endnote 13]. Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded¾not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries make it clear they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul better, more civilly than the Thessalonians--with an open mind and generous courtesy [Endnote 14]. They were noble-minded for they were eager and warmly greeted Paul; the Thessalonians were not noble-minded for they abused Paul in an egregious manner [Endnote 15]. The Bereans were open-minded; the Thessalonians were closed-minded. The Bereans were open to receive new revelation; the Thessalonians were closed to the Gospel. The Bereans accepted Scripture and the new tradition; the Thessalonians held to their wrong interpretation of the their authority, the Jewish Bible."

http://www.catholic-convert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=writings/sola.html

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
Grace Saves,
First, I will not be told what to do by the Catholics who come to spread their false doctrine on this board.

I won't honor you with a reply to this.

Originally posted by DHK:
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.

The same thing could be said about you continually questioning my belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, Mary's role in the Church, Apostolic Succession, Infant Baptism, Regenerative Baptism, etc, etc, etc. I pray that God give you patience, DHK.

Originally posted by DHK:
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.

If you are so sure of our answers in advance, why do you ask the questions? This seems to be a problem on your own part. Second, your response to me was hateful, calling my arguments "lame," and that I need "to be a man for once." The day this is Christian becomes proper attitude will be a sad day for Christians. I'm trying to be civil, but I won't respond to talk such as this.

Originally posted by DHK:
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

A typical reply from you, DHK, and a copout one. It'd be so much easier for you for me to just leave, wouldn't it. Let's reexamine the situation, on who is getting heated and who is remaining calm? Perhaps you are the one who cannot handle it? After all, you are "sick of hearing them," "frustrated," "disgusted," referring to our arguments as "whining and complaining" (why don't you reread your own post, which is self-hypocritical).

And if you had explained it well enough, we wouldn't have questions. You think I enjoy reexplaining the same Catholic doctrines over and over again because you don't understand them? IT'S THE SAME THING, DHK. Now, you can be a hypocrite about it, and pretend that you have perfect understanding and we don't, or you can be a Christian about it, apologize, and return to civil dialogue.

Seeing as we have free will, the choice is yours.

God bless you,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

Take notes from Brian. Brian openly disagrees with the same teachings you do in this thread, but look at the difference in the dialogue I can have with him. I'm not here to convert Brian; I'm here to make sure he understands my side so that he can pray about it, and God will lead him where he needs to be. That's all any of us can ask; for God to lead us. Not make our own paths, trust in our own ways and interpretations.

Brian, I commend you for your excellent attitude, even if we disagree for the next 200 years!

There is nothing so heartwarming as civil, Christian discussion.

God bless you all,

Grant

 

[Netcurtains3]

Hi Gracesaves,

What Eve said is not valid. What is valid is what god said.

I did read the story - its only a few lines long.
It is slightly rude (honest) to suggest that the person you disagree with does not read the bible.
Stick to the facts.

God said to ADAM.

If Eve thinks it applies to her then she is an Adam too or she is wrong and it does not apply to her.

Basically I just think men find rediculous reasons from staw why they don't want women clergy; any old stuff and nonsense, the congregation will swallow it.

Netty.

[ December 04, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Net,

What in the world are you talking about? I just quoted where Eve stated that she knew it was wrong to eat of the tree, and that if she did, she would die. Then Satan further tempted her, and she ate the fruit, and gave it to Adam.

Your whole last post...I'm not sure what the point is. Your tangent about women clergy was wholly irrelevant.

You have not shown AT ALL that Eve was exempt from the commandment, when she herself quoted the commandment, thus applying it to herself.

God bless,

Grant

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

That's a brave admission since this verse doesn't demonstrate sola scriptura (except of course by your interpretation).
http://www.catholic-convert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=writings/sola.html

I have been referred to that article before and was not impressed. It is highly biased, and makes inferences that are not valid. As scholarly as it puports to be it isn't, for it reads into the Scripture things that are not there.

"The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents to a Protestant-style sola Scriptura for they were willing to accept Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his very oral teaching was) [Endnote 11].

As politely as I can say it: "Hogwash!" Paul claimed that his "teaching" was direct revelation was from God alone.
Gal.1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
--This may have been new to the Thessalonians, but the Gospel was not a new message. Paul had been preaching this message for some years now. They may have heard it orally. That is what preaching is all about. But it certainly wasn't tradition. It was the Word of God, that Word which was communicated to Paul by direct revelation from God.

The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it [Endnote 12], examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so; however, it does not say they searched the Scriptures alone. They did so for it was their common ground with the Christian, Paul.

Let's get this straight. Preaching is done orally. It was the Word of God that was preached not tradition. To insert tradition in there is completely bogus on your part and the author of the link that you referred to. What did Paul himself say:
1Cor.1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
--Paul's purpose, wherever he went, was to preach the gospel, never tradition. To believe otherwise is foolishness and contrary to Scripture.

They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness" [Endnote 13]. Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded¾not that they searched the Scriptures.

They were noble-minded in "that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
1. "They received the Word.
2. "They were open minded about it."
3. "They searched the Scriptures daily
4. "In order to see whether those things were so."

A perusal of grammars and commentaries make it clear they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul better, more civilly than the Thessalonians--with an open mind and generous courtesy [Endnote 14]. They were noble-minded for they were eager and warmly greeted Paul; the Thessalonians were not noble-minded for they abused Paul in an egregious manner [Endnote 15]. The Bereans were open-minded; the Thessalonians were closed-minded. The Bereans were open to receive new revelation; the Thessalonians were closed to the Gospel. The Bereans accepted Scripture and the new tradition; the Thessalonians held to their wrong interpretation of the their authority, the Jewish Bible."

I listed the four reasons given from the Scripture for you: no interpretation involved. Yet you read into the Scripture something that is not there: "They treated them better." That is not what the Bible says.
"with an open mind and civil courtesy." Not what the Bible says!
"for they were eager and warmly greeted Paul." Not what the Bible says!"
"They accepted the Scripture and tradition." Wrong again. It is not what the Bible says. There is no hint anywhere of tradition being taught or preached.
"Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God."
"The Thessalonians held to their wrong interpretation of Scripture." Wrong again. It doesn't say that. You are reading something into Scripture that doesn't exist. It says they searched the Scriptures. After they searched the Scriptures and saw that it agreed with Paul's doctrine they believed it. It is a pattern for everyone to take.
That link you gave is a farce. It is better to believe what the Bible says instead. I am not talking about interpretation. I am talking about what the Bible says. The Bible interprets itself. Stop reading into it things that are not there.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

I thought I'd answer piece by piece...

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
What Eve said is not valid. What is valid is what god said.

God said, and I quote, "The Lord God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees in the garden, except the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

He never addressed Adam; he addressed man.

According to your logic, the devil should have come back with what Eve said, saying, "Oh, but God never said that YOU, Eve, could not eat from the tree!" And then Eve would have eaten it, and shared it with her husband. But it didn't happen that way; Satan lied to her saying that what God said was false, and God merely didn't want man to be like Him.

You have not proven at all how what Eve said was invalid. That doesn't even make any sense.

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:

I did read the story - its only a few lines long.
It is slightly rude (honest) to suggest that the person you disagree with does not read the bible.
Stick to the facts.

1) I never once said you don't read the Bible. I questioned if you read these Scriptures, because your argument is not making any sense based on what the words clearly say, that Eve was under the commandment. If you'll notice, "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they realized that they were naked." They both ate; they both fell into the sin.

2) Sticking to the facts? You haven't at all validated your claim that what Eve said was invalid with facts.

GQUOTE]Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
God said to ADAM.[/quote]

I just showed you that he was speaking to "man," not Adam by name.

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
If Eve thinks it applies to her then she is an Adam too or she is wrong and it does not apply to her.

This is ludicrous. I've never once heard of claiming that Eve WAS Adam.

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
Basically I just think men find rediculous reasons from staw why they don't want women clergy; any old stuff and nonsense, the congregation will swallow it.

Netty.

Nice try at changing the topic to something COMPLETELY unrelated.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

When a Catholic is speaking of Tradition, as in "Scripture and Tradition," they are speaking about the oral Word of God, not a "tradition" in the sense that, for instance, the priest kisses the Scriptures after reading the Gospel. This is a "tradition," while "Tradition" refers to the oral preaching (Word of God) of the Apostles.

Your whole post here confuses that.

God bless,

Grant