Evidence from Sola Scriptura - right from the Bible itself

[Erose]

He has given you an expanded version... beyond that my friend, it's your duty to check the references if you so choose. As Bob said, how much context do you need?

One needs enough context to understand what is being said fully. Look I get the gist of the quote, but someone who doesn't understand orthodox theology won't. But this seems to be what the SDA is about anyway, deception.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

But this seems to be what the SDA is about anyway, deception.

Brother, if you actually had a desire to look into and understood what true Adventism is, you would see light and truth, not deception. I am sorry you cannot see that. The messengers are weak and erring but the message is sure... the three angels message is to be proclaimed with power in these last days and there is coming a time, not long from now, that you will understand the words we have been saying to you. I pray you will not grieve the Spirit at that point and will accept His truth and come out of her that you receive not of her plagues.

Praise God and may He be glorified!!

 

[Erose]

Brother, if you actually had a desire to look into and understood what true Adventism is, you would see light and truth, not deception. I am sorry you cannot see that. The messengers are weak and erring but the message is sure... the three angels message is to be proclaimed with power in these last days and there is coming a time, not long from now, that you will understand the words we have been saying to you. I pray you will not grieve the Spirit at that point and will accept His truth and come out of her that you receive not of her plagues.

Praise God and may He be glorified!!

You know the biggest thing that turns me off when it comes to your denomination, is that you do not have the capacity to stand on your own two feet. For your denomination to justify itself, it requires slandering another group of Christians.

It wouldn't be an issue, if honest debate was offered; but all one gets from the SDA is outright mischaracterizations, bogus quotes or best case quotes taken out of context from some document that most would have a problem finding to factcheck what was quoted. And worse yet when you are corrected, you just ignore the correction and double down on the mischaracterization.

If you feel you need to deceive to get your message out, what does that really say?

Quite frankly I know very little about the SDA. Why? Because you guys hardly ever speak of what you actually believe. The only things I know for sure you believe is Saturday sabbath only, soul sleep, and you keep some of the old covenant laws but not all, and oh yeah you hate Catholics. That's it.

So if you want people to see the good, then show it. Because you aren't.

Don't get me wrong I respect you and Bob, for one thing, you are both committed and willing to fight for what you believe, and that is respectable.

What isn't respectable is the deception.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

So if you want people to see the good, then show it. Because you aren't.

That's why I have two threads in GT at the moment... Daily Devotionals, that shows our understanding of scripture, and The Seer of Patmos, which goes point by point through the book of Revelation to help understand the meaning of the symbols and truths contained.

I can post more information for you but you must be honest with yourself on whether or not you will openly receive it.

For the record, I again state that I do not have anything against the faithful laity of the Catholic Church.... quite the opposite actually, even if I don't always show it. What I am called to expose, what I hate, because it goes against God's truth, are the errors promulgated by the Papacy and by Satan.

 

[Erose]

That's why I have two threads in GT at the moment... Daily Devotionals, that shows our understanding of scripture, and The Seer of Patmos, which goes point by point through the book of Revelation to help understand the meaning of the symbols and truths contained.

I can post more information for you but you must be honest with yourself on whether or not you will openly receive it.

For the record, I again state that I do not have anything against the faithful laity of the Catholic Church.... quite the opposite actually, even if I don't always show it. What I am called to expose, what I hate, because it goes against God's truth, are the errors promulgated by the Papacy and by Satan.

No you don't have to waste time posting anything. You know one thing you need to focus on though is being more positive about your beliefs. If anyone coming from the outside looking at the threads started by SDA members, that person would likely assume that the predominate dogma of the SDA is to hate all things Catholic.

I get that we aren't going to agree on everything, and that we will have some heavy debates on some issue; but you guys have to stop posting deceptive quotes and information. It destroys your integrity.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
The point in contention is that we have examples in Acts 17:11, and in Mark 7:6-13 where it is not "scripture plus tradition" but scripture alone that is testing all tradition, doctrine, practice etc. Those texts "should not exist" if the anti-SS position were correct.

I think that in both those cases, Scripture is being interpreted through Tradition or the Magisterium, not alone.

For example, Sola Scriptura were true, the Bereans would not have needed Paul and Silas to illuminate Scripture with the oral Word.

Moreover, Scripture says to hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether orally or by letter 2 Thessalonians 2:15

That is not possible since the magisterium in both cases was the Jewish Magisterium fully opposed to the teaching given in both cases. Christ could not have been relying on them in Mark 7:6-13 and those in Acts 17:11 certainly could not have been.

Christ said to BEWARE of the traditions and teaching of the magisterium in Matt 16.

 

[BobRyan]

Your post does not change the fact that the bible explicitly says that the pillar and support of the truth is the Church, that we should hold to oral traditions, and that the Church was the ultimate authority for settling doctrinal disputes.

We all know that the bible is profitable for teaching, it is the Word of God!

My argument is not that the church serves no function or does not exist etc. My argument is that the Bible requires sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition.

The nation-church started by God himself at Sinai -- had its traditions "hammered" sola scriptura in Mark 7:6-13.
And they are defied in Acts 17:11.

1 Cor 3:11 "NO OTHER foundation can ANYONE lay other than has been laid - Christ Jesus"

Eph 2:19-20
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

I notice how the oral teaching of the Apostles is rightly called "the Word"

If Sola Scriptura is true, why did the Bereans need the oral Word to understand it?

And why does Paul say to hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter? 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2

And they were. The Scriptures and the oral Word always go together.
Are you assuming that "the Word of God" refers to Scripture alone?

In both cases, the Jewish Magisterium has been superseded by the Christian Magisterium.

No doubt one Magisterium was replaced by another - but the model/pattern/example we have from Christ remains the same - he hammered the traditions of the one true church (nation church in his case) started by God - and he did so "sola scriptura".

Bereans went totally against what their magisterium told them to do - by testing the teaching of Paul "sola scriptura" and then making the switch. This is the only method that works across denominations. "To see IF those things were so" means testing Paul - not blindly swallowing.

And yes in the case of Mark 7:6-13 nothing at all other than written Word of God was appealed to by Christ - so while not denying all the other ways that God speaks other than what had already been written at the time of Christ - He did appeal to scripture alone to hammer the Magisterium.

Traditions, doctrines, practices that pass the test of scripture - are not error.

 

[Thursday]

My argument is not that the church serves no function or does not exist etc. My argument is that the Bible requires sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition.

Wrong. The bible tells us that the ultimate authority on earth is the Church, which is the body of Christ.

It is obvious to any honest person that scripture alone leads to multiple contradictory doctrines and churches. That's not what Jesus gave us.

Jesus wants us to be one as He and the Father are one. They don't disagree about what is true, and neither should we.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Wrong. The bible tells us that the ultimate authority on earth is the Church, which is the body of Christ.

Fine - then just believe whatever the Seventh-day Adventist church tells you to believe - and show us how that works.

Or go with the actual Bible on this as illustrated in the texts above.

Seems like a simple choice.

 

[Thursday]

Fine - then just believe whatever the Seventh-day Adventist church tells you to believe - and show us how that works.

Or go with the actual Bible on this as illustrated in the texts above.

Seems like a simple choice.

What the bible says:

Matt 18:17
And if he fails to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he fails to listen to even to the church, let him be to you as the pagan and the tax collector.

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Acts 15
The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Wrong. The bible tells us that the ultimate authority on earth is the Church, which is the body of Christ.

Fine - then just believe whatever the Seventh-day Adventist church tells you to believe - and show us how that works.

Or go with the actual Bible on this as illustrated in the texts above.

Seems like a simple choice.

What the bible says:

Matt 18:17
And if he fails to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he fails to listen to even to the church, let him be to you as the pagan and the tax collector.

Indeed - inside a single denomination that works fine. But in the Acts 17:11 case we see the solution for cross-denominational discussion. And today we have cross-denominational discussions... as in the case of this thread.

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

1 Cor 3
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Acts 15
The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements

In the NT it was one denomination - today due to the errors that crept into the established church over centuries -- much reform was needed - and many denominations. So now That Acts 15 model works INSIDE the Seventh-day Adventist church (as is the case with all denominations such as the RCC, Methodists, EO, Lutheran...) - but but when it comes to cross-denominational model of Acts 17:11 is used outside a single church structure.

 

[mark46]

In the NT it was one denomination -

Saint John thought otherwise.

And even if there were no divisions at the time os Scripture, there were many, many denominational differences in the next 2-3 centuries before the actions by Constantine and by the councils.

 

[Albion]

Saint John thought otherwise.

And even if there were no divisions at the time os Scripture, there were many, many denominational differences in the next 2-3 centuries before the actions by Constantine and by the councils.

That's a fact, but it's not true that the church that Christ founded is to be identified with a single denomination of later times.

 

[mark46]

That's a fact, but it's not true that the church that Christ founded is to be identified with a single denomination of later times.

Do you believe that the church txt Christ formed is to one Church of early times, the Church that canonized the Scriptures and defended the faith against all comers, consolidating it in the Nicene Creed?

I think it important to accept the early church and the early church fathers. Obviously, there have been many schisms since the councils at Nicea and Constantinople.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Saint John thought otherwise.

And even if there were no divisions at the time os Scripture, there were many, many denominational differences in the next 2-3 centuries before the actions by Constantine and by the councils.

In fact, there was division even when Christ was still with them, see John 6. Christ desired one Church, though, and he got it. John 17.

 

[Albion]

I think it important to accept the early church and the early church fathers. Obviously, there have been many schisms since the councils at Nicea and Constantinople.

One of the problems with saying that one accepts the early church fathers is that it doesn't explain what is "accepted" about them. That they are great figures, and influential, in the history of the church is one thing. Talking, as many people do, as though they were either all of one accord, or formed a continuous consensus of belief, or something like that is something else.

 

[mark46]

One of the problems with saying that one accepts the early church fathers is that it doesn't explain what is "accepted" about them. That they are great figures, and influential, in the history of the church is one thing. Talking, as many people do, as though they were either all of one accord, or formed a continuous consensus of belief, or something like that is something else.

I meant the decisions and teachings of the Early Church as proclaimed in the early councils of the ecumenical Church.

 

[Albion]

I meant the decisions and teachings of the Early Church as proclaimed in the early councils of the ecumenical Church.

I've kind of lost track of what you're seeking. Sure, we value the so-called ecumenical councils and consider the decisions made by them concerning the faith to be standards of orthodoxy.

 

[mark46]

I've kind of lost track of what you're seeking. Sure, we value the so-called ecumenical councils and consider the decisions made by them concerning the faith to be standards of orthodoxy.

We had a poster who asked to ignore the visible Church and consider Scripture alone, and presumably personal understandings of Scripture.

I believe that the first 3-4 centuries of the Church were critical in bringing together both Scripture and the faith. And yes, I am only speaking of the decision made by the Church as a whole, meeting in Council.