The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining the obvious meaning of these passages to you. I think you realise you are wrong but rather than being humble and admitting your mistakes you are arrogantly running around in circles trying to twist scripture to get it to fit with your erroneous theories. I think everyone can see for themselves the fallacious techniques you employ to come up with interpretations which no other respected commentators agree with.

1 Tim 1:5-8 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully;
I see your words here as an admission that you are unable to resist the wisdom of the truth in this matter and all the scriptures that have been used to correct your errors. Your errors are so magnified for all to see that almost every post needed correction and almost every word.

The religious men could not resist the Spirit of God working in his children of the past as many today cannot either. To God be the glory praise Him!

It is God which workers in us who hear His voice to will and to do and He gives us a mouth and wisdom that none can resist.

Luke 21:15. For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.”

Acts 6:10,12,13 “And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake....12. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, 13. And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:”
 
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining the obvious meaning of these passages to you.
I don’t consider scriptural expounding, teaching, correction, reproof, rebuke and instruction in righteousness a waste of time. But sadly some do. My Lord says

Isaiah 55:10, 11 “For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

And spiritual things are not “obvious”. No natural man can understand or know the things of God. Only in the Spirit can we know.

1 Corinthians 2:11,14 “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 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. 14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
 
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No that is wrong. The word has 2 meanings. It can mean offspring (descendents). Or it can mean plant seeds.

Strong's Concordance

sperma: that which is sown, i.e. seed
Original Word: σπέρμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: sperma
Phonetic Spelling: (sper'-mah)
Definition: that which is sown, seed
Usage: (a) seed, commonly of cereals, (b) offspring, descendents.


In the parable of the sower Jesus likened plant seeds to God's word planted in people's hearts:

"Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God. Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart," (Luke 8:11-12)
No, you are wrong here.

(I will post this even if you are unable to answer these clear truths so that all who read on may have clarity and understand.)

1 John 3:9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

Notice the seed is “in” them. And notice this seed is called “his seed”.

Also

Galatians 3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed...And to thy seed, which is Christ... 29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed,...”

Spoken to Gentiles as well, not referring to physical descendants but the spiritual life in Christ Jesus of all who are Christ seed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is absolutely no indication that God is doing the preaching. Paul is talking about gospel preaching from human to human
No, wrong again.

God is the divine preacher we read that the word of the Lord came to the prophets and God spoke through them in the first person, It was God speaking spiritually through them to other humans.

Some verses to consider (or those who read on)

Isaiah 45:22, 33 “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”

This was God speaking through the prophet. God is the divine preacher. If some heard Isaiah speaking and saying “look unto me...I am God”, obviously they must not say that Isaiah is God, but rather that God was speaking in him and preaching through Him.

Judges 6:10. And I said unto you, I am the LORD your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but ye have not obeyed my voice.”
 
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In the absence of scripture, the early church were given revelatory gifts which have since ceased.
You are clearly in error here, they had scriptures and Paul said the scriptures they had were able to to help the man in Christ to be perfected and furnished unto all good works through faith (and Christ dwells in the heart through faith God works in us to make us perfect unto every good work Hebrews 13:20,21 KJV)

They didn’t need to wait for the future far off to have this

2 Timothy 3:15,17 “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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.”

And read my post again about the three main ways saints are perfected.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That was the same perverted method you used to arrive at your conclusion that "the truth" in Rom 1:18 is Christ.

Again corrected...

John 14:6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

1 John 2:27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

John 8:32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free...36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”

1 John 2:4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

2 Corinthians 11 - 10. As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.”

3 John 1:3, 4 “For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. 4. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.”
 
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Something I read recently, interesting

“The principal rule of Christians under the Gospel is not an outward letter, nor law outwardly written and delivered, but an inward spiritual law, engraven in the heart, the law of the Spirit of life, the Word that is nigh in the heart and in the mouth”
 
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Indeed. God told Cornelius that it was the gospel message that would save him and his household.

Acts 11:14 "and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household."
Luther, Calvin and other well known writers of the past believed that Cornelius was saved before he met Peter.

I don’t need to use men of the past to prove this point but since you seem to only listen to other commentators I can use them for you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
To all: some have quoted this verse to me as if it shows that men only need scripture to have faith

Romans 10:17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

And yet wecread in Hebrews 11 many Old Testament saints that had faith and no scripture yet. We read of men like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sara, etc having faith and no scripture yet. But they did have the Seed, Christ, the Word in them.

Also read my comments in this thread about Romans 10.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yet you quoted Scripture to provide evidence for you OP.

Sola Scriptura according to the Reformers meant Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule to test truth claims.
Interesting. I believe you and I have engaged one another about "sola scriptura" in the past. My longstanding critique of this doctrine is how it's defined differently by virtually everybody who believes in it.

However, in your post there you raise a great point in defining how the people who created "sola scriptura" define it.

Is that definition of the term also your understanding and application of "sola scriptura"?

Also, what are the contours of that? Does a given doctrine have to be explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture? Or must a given doctrine simply not flagrantly conflict with Sacred Scripture?

The above are just questions. They're not intended to lead into something else. I just found your post genuinely helpful and want some more information, that's all.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Interesting. I believe you and I have engaged one another about "sola scriptura" in the past. My longstanding critique of this doctrine is how it's defined differently by virtually everybody who believes in it.

However, in your post there you raise a great point in defining how the people who created "sola scriptura" define it.

Is that definition of the term also your understanding and application of "sola scriptura"?

Also, what are the contours of that? Does a given doctrine have to be explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture? Or must a given doctrine simply not flagrantly conflict with Sacred Scripture?

The above are just questions. They're not intended to lead into something else. I just found your post genuinely helpful and want some more information, that's all.
I do believe I provided the Reformation definition of Sola Scriptura several times in this older thread. I’ll do it again:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scripturahas often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scripturato mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

There are other extremes against which the doctrine of sola Scriptura protects us. While we certainly want to avoid the individualistic and ahistorical posture of many churches today, sola Scriptura also protects us from overcorrecting and raising creeds and confessions or other human documents (or ideas) to the level of Scripture. We must always be on guard against making the same mistake as Rome and embracing what we might call “traditionalism,” which attempts to bind the consciences of Christians in areas that the Bible does not. In this sense, sola Scriptura is a guardian of Christian liberty. But the biggest danger we face when it comes to sola Scriptura is not misunderstanding it. The biggest danger is forgetting it. We are prone to think of this doctrine purely in terms of sixteenth-century debates—just a vestige of the age-old Catholic-Protestant battles and irrelevant for the modern day. But the Protestant church in the modern day needs this doctrine now more than ever. The lessons of the Reformation have been largely forgotten, and the church, once again, has begun to rely on ultimate authorities outside of Scripture.

More at link:
Understanding Sola Scriptura
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,884
3,525
✟320,712.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I did quote scripture. But I was wondering if you really read all of it slowly and considered what I said.

The reformers were right about some things but not all things.

And unless a person has the the new birth and is spiritual and has the Spirit of God teaching him and guiding him he cannot know the scriptures, read what i wrote again.
And yet people who make such claims often disagree with each other on relevant matters. We need Scripture, we need the Church that originally received the gospel, and we need the Holy Spirit. We need to hear the Word, understood and taught correctly. Then the Spirit within can affirm what is being heard.

If there's to be a wildcard it will be ourselves, not willing to heed God's voice, coming from without and confirming and assenting from within. Either way, yes, Scripture alone is insufficient.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And yet people who make such claims often disagree with each other on relevant matters.
I don't "get" why this is your main issue--that Christians disagree with each other.

They do that in every denomination, whether it's yours, mine, or someone else's. Of course we all believe it would be best if there were no disagreements, at least on matters of doctrine. But in any case, this fact does not tell us that there is one genuine church and all the others are phony or heretical.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,884
3,525
✟320,712.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't "get" why this is your main issue--that Christians disagree with each other.

They do that in every denomination, whether it's yours, mine, or someone else's. Of course we all believe it would be best if there were no disagreements, at least on matters of doctrine. But in any case, this fact does not tell us that there is one genuine church and all the others are phony or heretical.
That's not the issue though. The problem is that Scripture simply cannot produce or arrive at a unified body of beliefs among believers-because the nature of interpreting Scripture necessarily means that the believers, themselves, must produce those beliefs from the material at hand. When we acknowledge that human interpretation is necessarily part and parcel of the process, then we must next determine whose interpretation is correct, and how we can know that.

So, for example, when a Baptist says that only a believer's baptism is valid vs a Lutheran who affirms infant baptism, and both believe in baptismal regeneration whereas a modern evangelical may reject that altogether, all can argue reasonably well, on a matter of soteriology, from a strictly Scriptural perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That's not the issue though. The problem is that Scripture simply cannot produce or arrive at a unified body of beliefs among believers-because the nature of interpreting Scripture necessarily means that the believers, themselves, must produce those beliefs from the material at hand.

Well, that's just not true. Almost every Protestant denomination takes a stand on what its doctrines are, what they are based on, and etc. They cite chapter and verse.

The Catholic churches not only don't do much explaining or justifying (by reference to the sources) the doctrines held by them. Normally, it's just the authority of the institution that the members accept as "proof."

When we acknowledge that human interpretation is necessarily part and parcel of the process, then we must next determine whose interpretation is correct.
First, it is necessary to identify what it is that needs interpretation. Do you disagree with that?

So, for example, when a Baptist says that only a believer's baptism is valid vs a Lutheran who affirms infant baptism, and both believe in baptismal regeneration whereas a modern evangelical may reject that altogether, all can argue reasonably well, on a matter of soteriology, from a strictly Scriptural perspective.
What's the point here? The Baptist churches have a stated belief about this matter, and its based upon an understanding of Scripture. The Lutheran churches have another, and its based on an understanding of Scripture.

Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church has a belief about Papal Supremacy, which is based on tradition and the church's understanding of Scripture. The Eastern Orthodox churches, which also follow the same guidance, do NOT accept the idea of Papal Supremacy.

In sum, it makes no difference whether we are talking about disagreements among Protestants or we are talking about disagreements among Catholics. The situation is the same.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,884
3,525
✟320,712.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Well, that's just not true. Almost every Protestant denomination takes a stand on what its doctrines are, what they are based on, and etc. They cite chapter and verse.

The Catholic churches not only don't do much explaining or justifying (by reference to the sources) the doctrines held by them. Normally, it's just the authority of the institution that the members accept as "proof."


First, it is necessary to identify what it is that needs interpretation. Do you disagree with that?


What's the point here? The Baptist churches have a stated belief about this matter, and its based upon an understanding of Scripture. The Lutheran churches have another, and its based on an understanding of Scripture.

Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church has a belief about Papal Supremacy, which is based on tradition and the church's understanding of Scripture. The Eastern Orthodox churches, which also follow the same guidance, do NOT accept the idea of Papal Supremacy.

In sum, it makes no difference whether we are talking about disagreements among Protestants or we are talking about disagreements among Catholics. The situation is the same.
Ok, when the Lutheran church claims that baptism is necessary for salvation, they appeal to Scripture as having the final say or authority. When the Baptist church claims that baptism is necessary for salvation but for believers only, they appeal to Scripture as having the final say or authority. When another church or individual reader claims that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation, they appeal to Scripture as having the final say or authority. But when the RCC claims that Baptism is necessary for salvation, she appeals to the church as having the final say or authority. Now, in truth, the other three are also claiming authority for themselves, since they have interpreted God’s revelation in a particular way and assert it to be true. So the question remains, who has the correct understanding, and why?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums