St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

Rick Otto said:

Except that tradition had to rely on scripture in the first place before that.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect, because Torah itself was orated before it was read.

ivebeenshown said:

This is incorrect, because Torah itself was orated before it was read.

Click to expand...

That's right. Tradition is just unwritten revelation. All revelation begins that way.

fhansen said:

That's right. Tradition is just unwritten revelation. All revelation begins that way.

Click to expand...

With the possible exception of the ten commandments written by the finger of God in/on stone. But I suspect that the voice from the cloud (which the Israelites were afraid to hear lest they die) spoke the commandments before they were written by God's finger.

ivebeenshown said:

I didn't say it was, but whether or not a certain writing is in fact Scripture or not, as with the writings I was discussing in the post you quoted, is something that Scripture alone cannot determine, and it is not something that can be tested against Scripture itself.

Click to expand...

It can be tested "sola scriptura" to see if it is disqualified - if it is error. But as to whether that which is found to be "truth" is also to be accepted as "Scripture" -- well in the NT writers themselves say that their writings were being accepted as "scripture" right then and there in the first century.

As for how someone comes along in the days of Christ and notices that the OT was canonized 400 years prior to that - well I agree as stated in my prior post - that such a fact as "what books were included" is not listed in scripture - but the sola scriptura "testing" doctrine is not dependent on every fact of history being included in scripture. So I am not arguing against such tradition.

My argument has never been that "all tradition is shown to be error according to the sola scriptura test".

However the need for and demonstrated use of "Sola Scriptura testing" can easily be seen in these examples.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


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.

sculleywr said:

You ignore the Bible when it commands you to follow Tradition:

Click to expand...

Is that merely a factless false accusation you are "trying out" or did you have some actual fact to back it up?

Hold Fast to the Traditions which we have taught you, whether by our word, or by our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15)

A great example of the Bible NOT speaking out against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.

2 Cor 11
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.


in Christ,

Bob

MoreCoffee said:

Okay, I will restate my view.

It is always discouraging to encounter a post that is thick with blue, red, bold, and underlined text a

Click to expand...

Red letter Bibles -- notes with highlighted text are common reading material - as we all know.

A focus on style over substance.... form over function appears more diversionary than substantive. But all have free will - you are welcome to that level of contribution if you so choose.

In the mean time - what about the substance of the actual text you are quoting in your post? The text of Christ's teaching in Mark 7 and how it pertains to the sola scriptura doctrine as it is demonstrated for us by Christ. Is this something you are still mulling over - or do you have a view on it you would like to share?

MoreCoffee said:

He said to them, 'Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines." You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.' Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, "Honour your father and your mother"; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die." But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, "Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban" (that is, an offering to God)-- then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.'
(Mark 7:6-13)​

One could add a comment and a little underlining to make one's point easier to locate in the passage

Click to expand...

On this thread the focus is not so much on how to highlight a few points in the text - but rather how the text demonstrates the subject topic - sola scriptura.

In the example Christ is demonstrating how to do it.

Some have responded that as Christians we should not listen to what Christ is doing there - because all His teaching in the gospels are before the cross.

That idea was countered by the fact of Matt 28 which shows that Christ "commandment" His followers to teach others "all that I have commanded you" and in this case not only is He commanding - but also demonstrating how it is done.

And of course the book of Mark is written in obedience to the Matt 28 command to tell others what Christ taught.

The entire substance of the whole discussion is ignore in a post focused on nothing more than how to highlight the text. I think you would also agree on this last point.

in Christ,

Bob

thecolorsblend said:

The Pharisees scrupulously obeyed every single part of the Mosaic Law. Then they invented new rules to prevent themselves from even breaking the God-ordained rules. Then they insisted that everybody had to obey their rules. Through every step of the process, they were not allowing their hearts to be transformed. They were simply creating rules which everybody had to follow to the letter but they never allowed themselves to see the intent behind the Mosaic Law.

These were not doctrines that they were teaching. They were more similar to liturgical practices and/or devotional exercises. They were not even remotely close to Sacred Tradition.

Click to expand...

Yet in the case of the CORBAN practice Christ DOES declare it to be their tradition and in Mark 7 regarding the ceremonial baptizing of fingers and pots to cleanse from sin - they themselves admit that this is part of their tradition.

I think we have to stick with the text on those points.

BobRyan said:

Yet in the case of the CORBAN practice Christ DOES declare it to be their tradition and in Mark 7 regarding the ceremonial baptizing of fingers and pots to cleanse from sin - they themselves admit that this is part of their tradition.

I think we have to stick with the text on those points.

Click to expand...

Again, those were liturgical practices and religious observances; they were not specifically doctrinal in nature.

BobRyan said:

It can be tested "sola scriptura" to see if it is disqualified - if it is error.

Click to expand...

What is the 'baseline' Scripture against which we can build the canon of Scripture by means of Sola Scriptura, and then what do we have to test that baseline against?

But as to whether that which is found to be "truth" is also to be accepted as "Scripture" -- well in the NT writers themselves say that their writings were being accepted as "scripture" right then and there in the first century.

Click to expand...

And that they accept that writing as Scripture was their tradition. No Scripture said that "such and such writing by Paul to Philemon is Scripture." It is Tradition which says that.

As for how someone comes along in the days of Christ and notices that the OT was canonized 400 years prior to that - well I agree as stated in my prior post - that such a fact as "what books were included" is not listed in scripture - but the sola scriptura "testing" doctrine is not dependent on every fact of history being included in scripture. So I am not arguing against such tradition.

Click to expand...

Alright, then am I correct to say that we agree that the canon of Scripture is itself Tradition?

My argument has never been that "all tradition is shown to be error according to the sola scriptura test".

Click to expand...

Nor have I said that it was.

However the need for and demonstrated use of "Sola Scriptura testing" can easily be seen in these examples.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up


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.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of where Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets. One must note that he did not say "read and decide for yourself if I am wrong", but rather he proclaimed the Truth in authority to shine His Light on the Word, much how Peter and Paul and the other bishops and presbyters were charged with the ministry of preaching the Word and bring Truth to mankind while guarding against false doctrines.

If you were not approved by them, you did not have the Truth. They had Scripture then. We have Scripture now. I believe we still have bishops and presbyters to this day that proclaim the properly interpreted Truth from within and without (for example, canon) the Scriptures for the sake of His Church.

fhansen said: ↑
And who will deem themselves the authentic interpreter of Scripture, since the doctrine of SS is obviously useless without such an authority seeing as it's adherents, such as yourselves and others, can't agree on many other doctrines which are said to stem from Scripture?

Click to expand...

on the contrary - we agree that the RCC doctrinal errors that contradict scripture include these errors:

1. prayers to the dead
2. Purgatory
3. The system of Indulgences
4. The "Doctrine of Discovery"
5. The infallabiliy of Papal and RCC church council statements on doctrine, and law governing Christians.
6. Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"
7. Rejection of Sola Scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine
8. "powers" of the priests
9. Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture

...

And we agree that no Bible doctrine supports burning Protestants (or Catholics) alive at the stake.

We agree that there is no Bible support for Papal armies going to war against each other.

No Bible support for Christians to torture themselves.

No Bible support for the assumption of Mary, Mary being sinless, Mary being called "Mother of God" by even one Apostle or by all NT Christian before she died.

We agree that salvation is "by grace through faith" and even the RCC seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

thecolorsblend said:

Based on what Scripture?

Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
How do you know those books aren't legitimate Sacred Scripture?

Um, back in 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation issued the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification where both sides agreed that justification is by grace through faith in Our Lord. If you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, you'll notice the tell-tale absence of "faith alone" anywhere in there.

The Church has never wavered on the proposition that justification is by grace through faith and even the Lutheran World Federation seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

Click to expand...

The initial question above was about the issue of non-Catholic churches following the Bible yet having no agreement. I simply show that they do have a great deal of agreement. And of course all of them based on the "sola scriptura" test. As for which scriptures show a given error to be -- error... well that would take up a lot of this thread. But we could take them one-by-one on their own dedicate thread if you like.

fhansen said:

yes, we believe in the living communion of saints, any of whom, physically dead or alive, can be asked to intercede for us.

some Protestant groups, not many, believe in purgatory or an afterlife state of purification.

Click to expand...

1. Any Protestant arguing for purgatory - for payment of the debt of venial sin after one dies - is accepting a doctrine that is taught by the RCC but not found in scripture. Even the RCC admits that this is a doctrine via tradition.

2. Appealing to physically dead saints -- "Communion with the Dead" as it is called in CCC is another great example of a doctrine not approved of in the Bible. If there is some protestant church praying to the dead asking them for blessings/favors etc - or that prays that the dead will be released from Purgatory.. or claiming indulgences for the departed loved ones in purgatory ... then I don't see how they can claim that on any other basis then some ideas surfacing in the dark ages.

Protestants divide on the relevance of the early councils, some believing they’re valid while others could care less. Either way they divide with the church, both east and west, on many points, the church that actually called and held these councils.

Click to expand...

I don't know of any Protestant group that claims that the Bible shows that every doctrine taught by the christian church councils of history were in error according to the Bible. No doubt some doctrines were in error but I have never found a Protestant group claiming that all of their traditions and doctrines were error.

Doctrines held WITHIN a denomination tend to be more consistent than those held BETWEEN or ACROSS denominations. It does not matter if you include the RCC in that comparison or not. The result is the same.

My point was that - even so -- there is an amazing degree of agreement EVEN across denominations on the subjects I listed.

Reformers changed the canon, not the church

Click to expand...

I disagree - the Hebrew OT canon was completed 400 years before Christ, by the Jews themselves -- long before the Reformers, long before the RCC even came into existence. The dispute between Protestants and the RCC is not over the New Testament - but rather the Old Testament.

I thought I’d address #4, doctrine of discovery, and the other issues above together, as none of these involve articles of faith; they do not constitute Catholic teachings on the faith, IOW. So, since they have nothing to do with beliefs that one needs to hold in order to be Catholic,

Click to expand...

then do you join Protestants in declaring them to be error? If so - are you certain this does not violate the position of the RCC on those points of Canon LAW held by the RCC for centuries and voted in ecumenical councils??

although I’m not sure about the extremism of self-flagellation, etc even as that’s been practiced by various individuals and groups within the church.

Click to expand...

then do you join Protestants in declaring them to be error? If so - are you certain this does not violate the position of the RCC. Is this a point of Canon LAW held by the RCC for centuries and voted in ecumenical councils??

In any case I’ll agree that those directives were not made in the light of the gospel, but rather, for the most part, were influenced or motivated by human weakness and nationalistic desire for gain. Rather than loving one’s neighbor, let alone their enemy, these various pronouncements supported the opposite. While the integrity and continued existence of the Christian faith itself were feared to be in jeopardy due to heresy at that time, by both sides, Protestant and Catholic, who both supported or committed atrocities along the same lines as you probably know, none of it can be condoned.

Click to expand...

1. That is a significant point in your post - not to be ignored.
2. My view is that both sides should be willing to say as you have said "mistakes in the past - we learned our lesson - we were wrong to torture, torment, burn people alive etc. Let's move on and never do it again". The problem is that when I bring this up to those "in the know" - for example EWTN church history representatives - I am told that the church had not admitted to any specific decree to exterminate heretics to be a case of "error".

By contrast I don't know of any Protestant group holding to a doctrine of "infallibility" regarding past protestant actions involving burning catholics alive or torturing them or stealing Catholic homes etc.

IMO it's mainly the light of the gospel that has in more recent centuries challenged and drawn humankind into a place where at least some parts of the world would no longer even countenance committing such evils.

Click to expand...

The Christian church STARTS with the Gospel in the first century - we did not discover it in the 18th or 19th century, as I am sure we both agree. So then by your statement above - that "Gospel was lost" -- and then re-found.

Food for thought.



in Christ,

Bob

fhansen said:

Now SS adherents disagree on many things that the older church- east and west- agree on. Even justification is not so pristine or unified a doctrine as some think once we begin to look closer at Protestant variants. Some believe we must be baptized in order to be saved while other believe this position directly opposes justification by faith alone. A few teach a virtual antinomianism while others acknowledge that true faith alone is never alone; works and obedience will always accompany it. Some teach that man’s will can resist the grace of justification while others reject this belief. Some teach that man must be regenerated and justified before any faith in God is possible while others believe God first draws us by grace, and, by an act of faith, we’re then made just and regenerated by Him.

Click to expand...

Yes when looking "across" denominations rather within a single denomination one can always find differences. Like most Baptists, and other evangelicals , SDAs believe in believer's baptism and that baptism is an outward sign - of a decision already made previous to baptism - where the person is saved/born-again/justified at the moment they believe and then as a Christian the choose an act of obedience in following the command to be baptized.

Most evangelicals and some others believe in OSAS while most, including SDA, reject this teaching.

Click to expand...

That is true - Methodists and SDAs and some other groups do not believe that OSAS passes the test of scripture.

As noted before : you can always find more consistency and agreement WITHIN a single denomination like the RCC or the SDA church than if you do a comparison ACROSS denominations.

thecolorsblend said:

Again, those were liturgical practices and religious observances; they were not specifically doctrinal in nature.

Click to expand...

Mark 7 condemns both doctrine and tradition that is found to be contrary to the Bible. The "Sola Scriptura" claim is that all must be tested -- it is not the claim that all will be shown to be in conflict with the Bible.

BobRyan said:

on the contrary - we agree that the RCC doctrinal errors that contradict scripture include these errors:

prayers to the dead
Purgatory
The system of Indulgences
The "Doctrine of Discovery"
The infallabiliy of Papal and RCC church council statements on doctrine, and law governing Christians.
Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"
Rejection of Sola Scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine
"powers" of the priests
Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture

Click to expand...

And...

BobRyan said:

The initial question above was about the issue of non-Catholic churches following the Bible yet having no agreement. I simply show that they do have a great deal of agreement. And of course all of them based on the "sola scriptura" test. As for which scriptures show a given error to be -- error... well that would take up a lot of this thread. But we could take them one-by-one on their own dedicate thread if you like.

Click to expand...

No. You just reiterated the very same claims for which I requested documentation from Sacred Scripture. Had you not done so, I probably would've not even bothered replying. But since you've posted the same exact post twice now in this thread, I reassert my request for documentation. For convencience's sake...

thecolorsblend said:

Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
How do you know those books aren't legitimate Sacred Scripture?

Um, back in 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation issued the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification where both sides agreed that justification is by grace through faith in Our Lord. If you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, you'll notice the tell-tale absence of "faith alone" anywhere in there.

The Church has never wavered on the proposition that justification is by grace through faith and even the Lutheran World Federation seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.

Click to expand...

I look forward to your reply.

BobRyan said:

Mark 7 condemns both doctrine and tradition that is found to be contrary to the Bible. The "Sola Scriptura" claim is that all must be tested -- it is not the claim that all will be shown to be in conflict with the Bible.

Click to expand...

I'm running out of ways to express this so I'll try to simplify it further.

Pharisaical tradition and Sacred Tradition are apples and oranges; they're in no way similar to each other and have nothing whatsoever in common.

BobRyan said:

*snip*

1. That is a significant point in your post - not to be ignored.
2. My view is that both sides should be willing to say as you have said "mistakes in the past - we learned our lesson - we were wrong to torture, torment, burn people alive etc. Let's move on and never do it again". The problem is that when I bring this up to those "in the know" - for example EWTN church history representatives - I am told that the church had not admitted to any specific decree to exterminate heretics to be a case of "error".

By contrast I don't know of any Protestant group holding to a doctrine of "infallibility" regarding past protestant actions involving burning catholics alive or torturing them or stealing Catholic homes etc.............................

Bob

Click to expand...

According to this article, if Protestants did kill Catholics, it could be because of Luther and other Reformers' viewing the RCC Papacy as the "antichrist", which to me is simple a ludicrous and unfounded accusation. IMHO
[The SDA sect also believes that nonsense.]

http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/thirty-years-war-and-protestants.html

The main events in which Protestants killed Catholics is mainly European history. A lot of killing, back and forth, went on for CENTURIES in England and all of Europe. The Protestants for their part, were convinced that the Pope was the Antichrist, which Luther taught, and as such, the Pope was caricatured as a Devil in Protestant picture-tracts.
In fact, Luther also taught and believed that with the "Peasant Revolt" and the increase in lawlessnes it brought, that the end of the world was nigh. Both Catholics and Protestants played up each other as "the devil."
And of course it was Luther, to whom the church had granted a vocation as Monk and scholar, who first threw down the theological gauntlet, and would not compromise, and whose inflamed speeches to "kill the revolting peasants," and to "burn down the Jew's homes and synagoges and books and as they flee, grant them no safe passage," and, who taught that "the Papacy is the Antichrist and must be defeated at all costs!"

Both Catholics and Protestants played up each other as "the devil." And of course it was Luther, to whom the church had granted a vocation as Monk and scholar, who first threw down the theological gauntlet, and would not compromise, and whose inflamed speeches to "kill the revolting peasants," and to "burn down the Jew's homes and synagoges and books and as they flee, grant them no safe passage," and, who taught that "the Papacy is the Antichrist and must be defeated at all costs!"


.

ivebeenshown said:

What is the 'baseline' Scripture against which we can build the canon of Scripture by means of Sola Scriptura, and then what do we have to test that baseline against?

And that they accept that writing as Scripture was their tradition. No Scripture said that "such and such writing by Paul to Philemon is Scripture." It is Tradition which says that.

Click to expand...

Paul says his work was being accepted as "The Word of God"
and Peter says that the writings of Paul were being accepted "along with the rest of scripture".

Alright, then am I correct to say that we agree that the canon of Scripture is itself Tradition?

Click to expand...

True - my position is not that all tradition is found to be in error when applying the Bible's "sola scriptura test".

My claim is that even as far back as Isaiah 8:19 you have the "sola scriptura test" being applied.

I am well aware of where Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets. One must note that he did not say "read and decide for yourself if I am wrong", but rather he proclaimed the Truth in authority to shine His Light on the Word,

Click to expand...

Luke 24 is in conflict with your statement. In that example Christ specifically hides his identity - his authority - presenting himself only as 'a stranger' and then going through all of scripture to show the correctness of a certain teaching on the Messiah's mission. He is deliberately forcing them to not simply put their Bible on the shelf and accept whatever is being taught. With "only a stranger" as the authority of the teaching - they had to listen to his "proof" which was scripture - and see if it actually worked.

Same is true in Gal 1:6-9 - Paul says Apostles and angels are to be "accursed" if they teaching anything contrary to what has been established - so then no such thing as "I don't test this by the Bible - because an Apostle or an Angel said it" according to Paul in Gal 1:6-9

LittleLambofJesus said:

According to this article, if Protestants did kill Catholics, it could be the results of Luther and other Reformers viewing the RCC Papacy as the "antichrist", which to me is simple a ludicrous and unfounded accusation. IMHO

http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/thirty-years-war-and-protestants.html

Click to expand...

In 1 John 2 John say "antichrist is coming" and he also says "many antichrists have come" - so then -- look for all the examples in the NT where Christians were burning people alive, exterminating them, torturing them -- because they thought they were among the "antichrists".

It simply is not there at all for NT gospel Christians. If Luther or the RCC (which by the way used the term "antichrist" against its own popes before Luther did - Papal armies at war with Papal armies) were burning people alive - they did not have a Bible basis for it.

BobRyan said:

In 1 John 2 John say "antichrist is coming" and he also says "many antichrists have come" - so then -- look for all the examples in the NT where Christians were burning people alive, exterminating them, torturing them -- because they thought they were among the "antichrists".

Click to expand...

That was said before the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and the coming destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple in ad 70.
I think Jesus was referring to corrupt murderouls Judean Priests, Pharisees and Scribes and were the true "antichrists". IMHO
The RCC is not the harlot in Revelation......

Notice who came to arrest Jesus in the garden in John 14:?

John 14:30
"Not still much I shall be talking with ye, for is coming the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world, and in Me not he is having anything.
[John 18:3 Judas, therefore, having taken the band and officers out of the Chief-priests/arc-ierewn <749> and Pharisees, doth-come thither with torches and lamps, and weapons;]
John 16:11
"About yet judging, that the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world, has been judged
John 12:31
"Now is the judging is of this world. Now the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world shall be being cast out.
Mark 14:43
And immediately, while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs, is coming from the Chief-Priests/arcierewn <749> and the Scribes and the Elders.

I would love to discuss that on this thread I created on that:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/john-14-and-the-ruler-chief-of-world.7328728/
John 14 and the "ruler/chief" of World







.

BobRyan said: ↑
In 1 John 2 John says "antichrist is coming" and he also says "many antichrists have come" - so then -- look for all the examples in the NT where Christians were burning people alive, exterminating them, torturing them -- because they thought they were among the "antichrists".

It simply is not there at all for NT gospel Christians. If Luther or the RCC (which by the way used the term "antichrist" against its own popes before Luther did - Papal armies at war with Papal armies) were burning people alive - they did not have a Bible basis for it.

Click to expand...

LittleLambofJesus said:

That was said before the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and the coming destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple in ad 70.
I think Jesus was referring to corrupt murderouls Judean Priests, Pharisees and Scribes and were the true "antichrists". IMHO
The RCC is not the harlot in Revelation......

Click to expand...

??? 1 John 2 - before the crucifixion of Jesus ???

1 John 2 is written many decades after the ascension and is not a case of John quoting Christ at all. The point that they admit to having many antichrists - and yet still are not burning anyone alive - remains as point that refutes the idea that you can burn someone if they are thought to be working with some antichrist group.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Notice who came to arrest Jesus in the garden in John 14:?

John 14:30
"Not still much I shall be talking with ye, for is coming the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world, and in Me not he is having anything.
[John 18:3 Judas, therefore, having taken the band and officers out of the Chief-priests/arc-ierewn <749> and Pharisees, doth-come thither with torches and lamps, and weapons;]
John 16:11
"About yet judging, that the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world, has been judged
John 12:31
"Now is the judging is of this world. Now the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world shall be being cast out.
Mark 14:43
And immediately, while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs, is coming from the Chief-Priests/arcierewn <749> and the Scribes and the Elders.

I would love to discuss that on this thread I created on that:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/john-14-and-the-ruler-chief-of-world.7328728/
John 14 and the "ruler/chief" of World

Click to expand...

I will take a look at that thread.

Christ's battle was with the devil in Matt 4, and it is the devil in John 14:30 that Christ is talking about as the god of this world -- so also in 2Cor 4:4 the "god of this world' blinds all mankind that chooses not to accept the Gospel.

Even so - neither Christ nor his disciples burn any humans alive - does not matter how mixed up one may get the reading of John 14:43 about Judas and a mob coming to capture Christ -- with the reading about the devil who controls the wicked according to Eph 2:1-4