A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But which examples the misconception of SS as meaning something must be spelled out in order for it to be a valid example of SS, but which is simply not the case. Acts 15 was a solidly Scriptural judgement. Amos was a Messianic prophecy; Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision; and beyond that the New Covenant was prophesied; the death of Christ instituted it; the kingdom was not longer physical but spiritual; Scripture promised the Holy spirit being poured out on all flesh; the Lord had manifested this in the conversion of the Gentiles; and thus without any actual contradiction we have the Scriptural conclusion that salvation was not as under the Old Covenant, but by grace thru faith (as with Abraham as Paul explained in Rm. 4, circumcision not being required).

The basis and meaning of Scripture as regards what was promised and its fulfillment and what this entailed was revealed by the Holy Spirit, but the decision was not be revelation that was apart from Scripture, with some indirect verses cited for support.

That said, unlike Catholic popes and councils, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby, in conflation with what had been written.

Amen it was not by scripture alone that they came to their decision because Amos 9:11-12 was useless in the debate without the revelation of the meaning from the Holy Spirit. I would also conclude that Paul’s quote in Romans 4 concerning circumcision was a result of the decision made in Jerusalem at the council meeting because if I’m not mistaken Paul had not been to Rome before the meeting took place.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Once again you have a false concept of SS and are speaking like Catholics who seek support for their magisterium autocratically decreeing doctrine.

It was evident to Peter and James (and Paul and Barnabas) that the salvation of the Gentiles was not according the Old Covenant, and which meant that the kingdom believers are placed in is no longer physical, (John 18:36) thus the physical sign was not required, nor the rest of the yoke.

Do you really think Peter did not perceive a change in covenant when he was told the Gentiles were not unclean, and which perception is indicated by him speaking against placing the new believers under the burdensome yoke neither they nor their fathers could bear. Rather than James getting a revelation and using some Scripture verses to justify it by, by the Spirit he saw what Scripture prophesied had come to pass, and the meaning this meant.

Yet they still baptized everyone which is a physical sign.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Once again you have a false concept of SS and are speaking like Catholics who seek support for their magisterium autocratically decreeing doctrine.

It was evident to Peter and James (and Paul and Barnabas) that the salvation of the Gentiles was not according the Old Covenant, and which meant that the kingdom believers are placed in is no longer physical, (John 18:36) thus the physical sign was not required, nor the rest of the yoke.

Do you really think Peter did not perceive a change in covenant when he was told the Gentiles were not unclean, and which perception is indicated by him speaking against placing the new believers under the burdensome yoke neither they nor their fathers could bear. Rather than James getting a revelation and using some Scripture verses to justify it by, by the Spirit he saw what Scripture prophesied had come to pass, and the meaning this meant.

Where did ecumenical council go wrong in its decisions?
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Amen it was not by scripture alone that they came to their decision because Amos 9:11-12 was useless in the debate without the revelation of the meaning from the Holy Spirit. I would also conclude that Paul’s quote in Romans 4 concerning circumcision was a result of the decision made in Jerusalem at the council meeting because if I’m not mistaken Paul had not been to Rome before the meeting took place.
Will you please cease from imposing your misconception of SS upon it, as if nothing else at all is needed to be able to know how to be saved and grow in grace, but the Bible? Not reason, not reading/hearing, not the Holy Spirit's conviction and illumination by the Spirit, not study helps, not the church?
As Westminster states , knowing what is from God requires the "inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts," and states that as for what it means it holds "the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word," as is doing His will, in which "there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do of His good pleasure."

Since the Holy Spirit showing James that what they saw was fulfillment of prophecy is not contrary to SS, therefore you are continually engaging in a false either/or fallacy.

However, SS is not usually understood as fully applicable to men who had personal visitations of the Lord in providing new public revelation, and could speak as wholly inspired of God - neither of which Cath. popes and councils do not do - yet even the veracity of such was subject to testing by the Scriptures. (Acts 17:11)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yet they still baptized everyone which is a physical sign.
Indeed, after the washing of regeneration, versus being the means of it, and saving faith is only that which effects obedience by the Spirit. (Hebrews 6:9,10; Romans 8:14) The kingdom being spiritual, the Holy Spirit baptizes every convert into the body of Christ, the one true church seeing as it only and always consists of believers, and whose "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:29)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Where did ecumenical council go wrong in its decisions?
Non-sequitur. I did not even infer Acts 15 did wrong and thus the question makes no sense. It is the basis for their decision that is at issue. That of an autocratic decree that needs no Scriptural basis or one that is the result of seeing Scriptural prophecy fulfilled.

Every souls needs God to open their hearts to what Scripture to what it means. "But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." (2 Corinthians 3:15-16)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

However, the details of the full ramifications of the manifest fulfillment of prophecy of the coming of Christ and institution of the New Covenant were supernaturally revealed by the Lord showing Peter in a vision that the Gentiles were no linger akin to unclean foods, which also meant he could eat pork, and most extensively to Paul via supernatural personal teaching by the risen Lord, all in conflation and complimentation with what had been written prior to this, and subject to testing by it, and which revelation was itself then written by the inspiration of God, whereby we know it is of God.

Which is not the same thing as Rome declaring something like prayer to created beings in Heaven, or the Assumption, in which the veracity is assured on the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
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
However, the details of the full ramifications of the manifest fulfillment of prophecy of the coming of Christ and institution of the New Covenant were supernaturally revealed by the Lord showing Peter in a vision that the Gentiles were no linger akin to unclean foods, which also meant he could eat pork, and most extensively to Paul via supernatural personal teaching by the risen Lord, all in conflation and complimentation with what had been written prior to this, and subject to testing by it, and which revelation was itself then written by the inspiration of God, whereby we know it is of God.
And notice Peter did not call for the circumcision of Cornelius and household.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, after the washing of regeneration, versus being the means of it, and saving faith is only that which effects obedience by the Spirit. (Hebrews 6:9,10; Romans 8:14) The kingdom being spiritual, the Holy Spirit baptizes every convert into the body of Christ, the one true church seeing as it only and always consists of believers, and whose "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:29)

I think another thing to consider is that Jesus Himself felt it was necessary to be baptized in order to fulfill God’s requirements. He had no sins to be forgiven of but it was a physical sign of the new covenant. So I don’t think the apostles determined that physical signs of salvation were no longer necessary my friend.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Non-sequitur. I did not even infer Acts 15 did wrong and thus the question makes no sense. It is the basis for their decision that is at issue. That of an autocratic decree that needs no Scriptural basis or one that is the result of seeing Scriptural prophecy fulfilled.

Every souls needs God to open their hearts to what Scripture to what it means. "But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." (2 Corinthians 3:15-16)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

However, the details of the full ramifications of the manifest fulfillment of prophecy of the coming of Christ and institution of the New Covenant were supernaturally revealed by the Lord showing Peter in a vision that the Gentiles were no linger akin to unclean foods, which also meant he could eat pork, and most extensively to Paul via supernatural personal teaching by the risen Lord, all in conflation and complimentation with what had been written prior to this, and subject to testing by it, and which revelation was itself then written by the inspiration of God, whereby we know it is of God.

Which is not the same thing as Rome declaring something like prayer to created beings in Heaven, or the Assumption, in which the veracity is assured on the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

I wasn’t referring to the council in Acts 15 my friend but the other councils of the Catholic Church. I think I see where the problem is in your understanding. Your confusing councils of Rome with the councils of the apostolic Catholic Church. Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD and no longer represents the apostolic Catholic Church. What is the difference between the decision made in Acts 15 concerning circumcision and the decisions concerning prayers to the saints and Mary’s assumption? There was no direct reference in the scriptures that circumcision would be abolished but there were texts that could be interpreted in such a way that it was a possibility and they relied on the revelation of the Holy Spirit to determine the message of Amos 9:11-12. Without such a revelation the abolishment of circumcision could not have been reached by simply reading the scriptures. People accept the abolishment of circumcision because it is written in the scriptures. The decisions pertaining to prayers to the saints and Mary’s assumption were reached in the same way yet because the council meetings were not recorded in the scriptures many people refute them. Just because something isn’t recorded in the scriptures doesn’t make it false. So my question is why can’t we trust the church to make these decisions in the same way the apostles came to their decision in Acts 15?
 
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

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think another thing to consider is that Jesus Himself felt it was necessary to be baptized in order to fulfill God’s requirements. He had no sins to be forgiven of but it was a physical sign of the new covenant. So I don’t think the apostles determined that physical signs of salvation were no longer necessary my friend.
It is circumcision as a sign of the covenant that baptism was the anti-type of, with a physical kingdom being replaces by a spiritual one, and with baptism signifying spiritual birth which made one a member it, with circumcision of the heart, whereas circumcision of the flesh signified membership in a earthly kingdom of Jews.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I wasn’t referring to the council in Acts 15 my friend but the other councils of the Catholic Church. I think I see where the problem is in your understanding. Your confusing councils of Rome with the councils of the apostolic Catholic Church. Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD and no longer represents the apostolic Catholic Church.
Then your stated "Non-Denom" is misleading, resulting in people not knowing your basic theology is that of the EOs or the like.
What is the difference between the decision made in Acts 15 concerning circumcision and the decisions concerning prayers to the saints and Mary’s assumption? There was no direct reference in the scriptures that circumcision would be abolished but there were texts that could be interpreted in such a way that it was a possibility and they relied on the revelation of the Holy Spirit to determine the message of Amos 9:11-12.
Again, the revelation that indicated the New Covenant was in force and thus the ceremonial purity laws of uncleaness no longer applied was that of Peter being told to eat unclean foods, and thus to eat with Gentiles. James recognized this as a fulfillment of prophecy.
Without such a revelation the abolishment of circumcision could not have been reached by simply reading the scriptures.
Without Scripture there would be no validation of it. Meanwhile, "simply reading the scriptures" is not what SS means by sufficiency, but affirms the necessity of the holy Spirit revealing/illuminating Scripture. But it holds that something like the vision of Peter communicating the word of God as public revelation ceased with the apostles, and that popes and councils (nor Mormons) do not receive this.
People accept the abolishment of circumcision because it is written in the scriptures. The decisions pertaining to prayers to the saints and Mary’s assumption were reached in the same way
Dead Wrong.As explained, the added (Gn. 17) requirement of circumcision being abrogated easily corresponded to what was both prophesied in Scripture and which was clearly witnessed and testified to.

Unlike the promised coming of Christ, and the New Covenant, and acceptance of the Gentiles by faith, and of circumcision being a sign that was added for signification of membership in a earthly kingdom, and of Peter being shown ceremonial purity laws were abrogated, and thus the manifest conversion of Gentiles, there no prophecy of Mary being bodily assumed into Heaven apart from the "first resurrection" (and after which the crowning of believers takes place), and early Cath. church history is so lacking in valid testimony to the Assumption that chief Catholic scholars opposed it being declared apostolic doctrine .

Thus in the face of such dire dearth of substantiation, the argument is that whatever the church pulls from "oral tradition" as being the word of God must be true, since it cannot err. At least RCs actually state this.
yet because the council meetings were not recorded in the scriptures many people refute them. Just because something isn’t recorded in the scriptures doesn’t make it false.
Whether it could be true is not the issue, but the basis for assurance of it. Just because something could have happened doesn’t make it true, or warrant making it required belief. The Mormons like your hermeneutic since they also argue just because something isn’t recorded in the scriptures doesn’t make it false.
So my question is why can’t we trust the church to make these decisions in the same way the apostles came to their decision in Acts 15?
The answer is already given, that besides your leaders (nor me) not being as the apostles in purity, power and Scriptural probity, and in receiving visions from God in communicating the word of God as public revelation, something like the Assumption of Mary etc. simply is not that of something what was prophesied and clearly manifest and recorded in Scripture, nor its meanings being deduced as being a manifestation of what was prophesied. And confirmed subsequently in Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,129
7,245
Dallas
✟874,301.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then your stated "Non-Denom" is misleading, resulting in people not knowing your basic theology is that of the EOs or the like.

Again, the revelation that indicated the New Covenant was in force and thus the ceremonial purity laws of uncleaness no longer applied was that of Peter being told to eat unclean foods, and thus to eat with Gentiles. James recognized this as a fulfillment of prophecy.

Without Scripture there would be no validation of it. Meanwhile, "simply reading the scriptures" is not what SS means by sufficiency, but affirms the necessity of the holy Spirit revealing/illuminating Scripture. But it holds that something like the vision of Peter communicating the word of God as public revelation ceased with the apostles, and that popes and councils (nor Mormons) do not receive this.

Dead Wrong.As explained, the added (Gn. 17) requirement of circumcision being abrogated easily corresponded to what was both prophesied in Scripture and which was clearly witnessed and testified to.

Unlike the promised coming of Christ, and the New Covenant, and acceptance of the Gentiles by faith, and of circumcision being a sign that was added for signification of membership in a earthly kingdom, and of Peter being shown ceremonial purity laws were abrogated, and thus the manifest conversion of Gentiles, there no prophecy of Mary being bodily assumed into Heaven apart from the "first resurrection" (and after which the crowning of believers takes place), and early Cath. church history is so lacking in valid testimony to the Assumption that chief Catholic scholars opposed it being declared apostolic doctrine .

Thus in the face of such dire dearth of substantiation, the argument is that whatever the church pulls from "oral tradition" as being the word of God must be true, since it cannot err. At least RCs actually state this.

Whether it could be true is not the issue, but the basis for assurance of it. Just because something could have happened doesn’t make it true, or warrant making it required belief. The Mormons like your hermeneutic since they also argue just because something isn’t recorded in the scriptures doesn’t make it false.

The answer is already given, that besides your leaders (nor me) not being as the apostles in purity, power and Scriptural probity, and in receiving visions from God in communicating the word of God as public revelation, something like the Assumption of Mary etc. simply is not that of something what was prophesied and clearly manifest and recorded in Scripture, nor its meanings being deduced as being a manifestation of what was prophesied. And confirmed subsequently in Scripture.

You keep saying that the abolishment of circumcision is clear in Amos 9:11-12 but it isn’t. Amos 9 makes no mention of circumcision. The only way we even know that Amos 9 was referring to circumcision is because it was revealed by the Holy Spirit to the apostles. No one could make that connection because the verse is too vague and could’ve been referring to almost anything. Which is why they had to meet together to reach a decision instead of just quoting Amos 9 to begin with. I believe Jesus’ church of God still exists today and has always existed since the day it was established in Jerusalem. I don’t believe that it was silenced for 1500 years by evil. I also believe that His Church will receive revelations from the Holy Spirit. The debates between Orthodox and Protestants reminds me of debates between Christians and atheists. Christians say God exists atheists say prove it. If you can’t prove it He doesn’t exist. Much the same with Protestants and Orthodox. If you can’t prove it with the scriptures it isn’t true. So the problem is where is Jesus’ church for the first 1500 years of Christianity? If it wasn’t the Catholic Church was it hiding silently producing no fruit or was it silenced by evil?
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You keep saying that the abolishment of circumcision is clear in Amos 9:11-12 but it isn’t. No one could make that connection because the verse is too vague and could’ve been referring to almost anything. Which is why they had to meet together to reach a decision instead of just quoting Amos 9 to begin with.
You are both misrepresenting me and Scripture. If you keep it up you will further marginalize yourself. I did not say the abolishment of circumcision is clear in Amos 9:11-12 but that "James would hardly be thinking of Amos 9:11-12 in isolation, while revelation of what [prophecy of] Scripture is being fulfilled and its meaning is different than a revelation apart from Scripture." And that the revelation or illumination that "conversion of the Gentiles and Amos 9:11,12 signified was that this was a result of the institution of of the new covenant with its justification by grace thru faith, like as Abraham had appropriated before circumcision."

And as just said, "the revelation that indicated the New Covenant was in force and thus the ceremonial purity laws of uncleaness no longer applied was that of Peter being told to eat unclean foods, and thus to eat with Gentiles. James recognized this as a fulfillment of prophecy."

But which you ignored. Now while Amos 9:11,12 did not actually mention circumcision as it was confirming the coming of Christ, which thus instituted the new cov., yet the revelation of James did not begin with Amos, but with Peter being told to eat unclean animals. Which meant he thus could eat with Gentles who were also not circumcised, and which was what upset his brethren who charged, "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." (Acts 11:3) That was a very Big Deal.

Thus we see a connection btwn the abrogation against eating unclean foods and thus communion with uncircumcised regenerated Gentiles, which made it rather obvious that circumcision was not necessary for either conversion or Christian fellowship. Therefore while Peter had them baptized, he did not have them circumcised, as he understood that that a covenantal change was taking place.

Therefore we next have the exhortation of Peter, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:10-11)

It is rather obvious that Peter was not referring to a little change being allowed, but instead he is referring to the new covenant of grace, which the conversion and inclusion of uncircumcised regenerated Gentiles signified.

Next comes James, who invokes Messianic prophecy as being fulfilled by what Peter described, and whose judgment as to what should be done, as I said, was "confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and his testimony and that of Paul and Barnabas." Meaning James also recognized that the yoke of the Law, which included circumcision, was not to be imposed upon converts whom God had already confirmed as members of the body of Christ.

So if you to major on revelation, look to that which was given to Peter first of all, and then realize that it was revelation of what Scripture prophesied, with the ramifications being explained by men (Paul above all) speaking and writings by wholly inspired of God, versus your non-apostles making doctrines out of the traditions of men that are not fulfillments of Scripture or taught therein as beliefs of the NT churc h.
I believe Jesus’ church of God still exists today and has always existed since the day it was established in Jerusalem.
Believing that will not make it true, and it is very manifest that it is not.
I don’t believe that it was silenced for 1500 years by evil.
It was not, and which is another example of your tendency to argue using either/or fallacies.
So the problem is where is Jesus’ church for the first 1500 years of Christianity? If it wasn’t the Catholic Church was it hiding silently producing no fruit or was it silenced by evil?
True believers existed as a remnant within Israel despite is overall apostasy, and thus the faith persevered, and likewise in the history of Christianity. Thanks be to God. The organized structured OT church (as a called-out assembly) as well those in the history of Christianity are not the one true church, but it is the Lord's body, to which He is marriefor it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
I also believe that His Church will receive revelations from the Holy Spirit.
We are speaking not of private revelations (like pastors may hope for during the offering:) but public revelations like as Paul received, and speaking or writing them as wholly inspired of God. And which your church is not as, and manifestly does not, but seeing as unlike Paul, Catholic distinctive are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation, then I can understand the weight you must place upon your church speaking as men such as apostles could.
The debates between Orthodox and Protestants reminds me of debates between Christians and atheists. Christians say God exists atheists say prove it. If you can’t prove it He doesn’t exist. Much the same with Protestants and Orthodox. If you can’t prove it with the scriptures it isn’t true.
And requiring evidence, if not 100% laboratory proof, is valid, as God did not require blind unwarranted faith, but provides evidential warrant sufficient to take a step of faith, which results in proof.

And as we provide evidence to atheists that the universe and Scripture have a supernatural origin, so we also provide evidence as to what the NT church manifestly believed.. By which your church, and more so Rome, is disqualified as uniquely being the one true church.

In contrast to which is making the church itself an object of faith, so that in any conflict, including that of the future, Scripture, tradition and history only surely consist of and mean whatever she says. Which is cultic, not Christian.

Ensured infallibility was never required or promised to the people of God, but God raised up men who spoke by the Spirit the word of God, and God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And thus as abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
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
Christians say God exists atheists say prove it. If you can’t prove it He doesn’t exist. Much the same with Protestants and Orthodox.
So the Orthodox are equivalent to atheists in your example?

I see you are showing “non denominational” for your faith group? Why? The mods can change that for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceByJesus
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

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scripture is good. Sticking to Scriptural standards, commands, prohibitions, admonitions, and Truth in one's Christian life is good. God will bless those who deny self, obey Scripture, and walk as we all should. I can see why many stick to Sola Scriptura, and can see why it feels right, just, and safe. And if we obey the New Testament Scriptures, with God's help and grace, we'll be on a good, safe, solid road. Just wanted to throw that out there. My heart goes out to those souls who know what Scripture says, and worship on their own just to stay safe. I can understand that, too. Please pray for me, a sinner who struggles with impatience, anger, and discontent. I have way more than what I deserve as it is. So shouldn't complain. God bless you guys.
 
Upvote 0

2tim_215

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 9, 2017
1,441
452
New York
✟105,637.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The word is the only sure way we can validate the Holy Spirit. There are many false spirits in the world today and the only way we can be sure that we're hearing the Holy Spirit is that what they are telling us lines up with scripture. It's the only way we can tell with a surety that we're hearing from God and not some false spirit who's attempting to disguise himself as the Holy Spirit.
Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
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 (if properly understood) give us the ability to answer any question we have in this life and discern all things, even if not specifically stated in scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tomm

Christian
Supporter
Jan 30, 2007
1,788
895
WS
✟278,556.00
Country
Brazil
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
He is actually and factually correct. See Luke 24:44-50

Don't be ridiculous, the Bible Canon was not established until 4th century. How could the New Testament be written already before the Church was born? The Gospels were written after Lord Jesus died.

Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Perhaps, but first listen to what the Bible has to say about traditions:
  • "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
  • "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

Would Sola Scriptura have worked in history? Perhaps, but first think of these facts:
- paper was not invented until the third century;
- the printing press was not invented until ~AD1450;
- the Bible Canon was not established until 4th century;
- most the people in the old days were illiterate.
Therefore, how could the faithful during the period AD33 - AD1450 read the Bible by themselves???

Does Sola Scriptura work in the present? It might, but how come so many, many Bible-alone Christians had to ask their pastors on different issues. The pastors: "The Bible is the SOLE infallible authority, we don't need the Pope ...but in case you don't understand anything, ask ME."

Ask.jpg



Dr Scott Hahn: "Sola scriptura is not biblical".
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: anna ~ grace
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

Geralt

Unsurpassed Сasual Dating - Verified Women
Supporter
Apr 9, 2016
793
258
GB
Visit site
✟67,802.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
you are actually correct in your definition. SOLA Scriptura is NOT SOLO Scriptura -which you seem to assume. the reformers never excluded secondary authorities, and the apostle taught the importance of church authority, parental authority or govt authorities.

Only scripture is prime, absolute, infallible.
all others are beneath it, but sanctioned by and derived from it.


I’m more prone to believe in scriptura suprema than sola scriptura. Scriptura suprema means that the Bible is the supreme authority not the only authority. The church is also deemed worthy of expressing the messages and interpretations of the Bible in the scriptures. I think one example would be Acts 15 where the church met together to determine whether or not the circumcision of Gentile is necessary for salvation. They didn’t have scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision. They did know that there would be changes from the old covenant to the new covenant but they were not specifically detailed in the scriptures. In my personal opinion the scriptures give us all the knowledge we need to determine what is necessary for salvation and to serve and honor God. I think the church has gone into a lot of specifics in both doctrine and traditions that aren’t really necessary for serving God and receiving salvation but I also believe in most cases they are meant with good intentions to further honoring God beyond what is mentioned in the scriptures. I can’t say that about all church doctrines and traditions but I think the majority are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0