Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I'm not arguing this Albion.
Well that was a wise decision!

Yeah sometimes it seems as though some folks just state a slew of opinions out with no support whatsoever. There is not much to interact with when people are just spewing unsubstantiated opinions. Its best to avoid and just try to bring the discussion back to a specific issue or Scripture verse, etc.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Whatever. It does need to be said, on this thread, that there was no ONE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH established in the first century, even if you want to think there was. Indeed, historians say there were at least 80.

Perhaps also, the claim you made that history verifies your thinking was part of the reason I felt a reply was worth making, since I DO know about this history, all the other theology we chat about here aside.


I'm not debating it. There was no unified church in the first century and THAT is the verdict of history.
Albion,,,,I'd have to ask you the name of the 80 churches.

I'd have to ask you about the 5 principle areas of Christianity and who controlled them.

We would have to do something I don't care to do and go back to about the 6th century when the first Pope was named and to what took place before that.

You feel like doing this? I don't.

I don't remember what I said about history verifying my belief...sorry 'bout that.

For any reading along that may be interested....
Very simple history:

Christian Church - Wikipedia

History of Christianity - Wikipedia

Early church | Christianity
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well that was a wise decision!

Yeah sometimes it seems as though some folks just state a slew of opinions out with no support whatsoever. There is not much to interact with when people are just spewing unsubstantiated opinions. Its best to avoid and just try to bring the discussion back to a specific issue or Scripture verse, etc.
I agree.
But there are some reading along and they could get confused.

I just posted some articles by Wikipedia.
Of course, studying history will include much more than this an different information is acquired from different sources,,,however, it's a beginning for those interested.

Some doctrine is worth debating...
and some subjects are not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Swag365
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
10 POINT REBUTTAL NON SOLA SCRIPTURA CLAIMS
Let's get something straight. Prior to your involvement, I initiated the discussion on a thread summarized in a 16-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura. You then claimed to rebut MY 16 points but what you actually did was copy/paste copious amounts of verses unjustifiably presumed to support Sola Scriptura. In all the verses that mention "The Word", you indiscriminately conflate the written Word with the divine Word of Direct Revelation (see Isa 55:11), for example the revelatory vision at Gen 15:1 (you even went so far as to conflate the divine Word of John 1 with the (written?) Word of Sola Scriptura):
Not really dear friend. We examined each one of your 16 points section by section to examine if your claims were true or not true based on the truth and standard of what is. My standard for determining what was true and what was error was the scriptures from the bible which is simply God's MAXIM that he gives to mankind as the standard of right and wrong; truth and error. The results of this did indeed show your 16 points were not based on any standard of right and wrong; truth and error but simply your own opinion that is not based on any fact or any scriptures. Having no standard for your MAXIM did show that your 16 points were not based on any truth but what felt right to you. This is where your claims fell over. To date you have not been able to clearly address the 16 point rebuttal that was provided to you linked here.
"The Word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]" (Gen 15:1). By equating the Voice of the Lord with Sola Scriptura whenever it suits you, you thereby claim that all biblical data points to Sola Scriptura. How convenient for you - but that is not a real rebuttal. It just makes you a moving target (read this as self-contradictory). Your posts also indiscriminately refer to "praying to God for understanding" without clarifying how such is materially different than I myself asking for divine illumination of the written Word (Direct Revelation). I'll say it again: I don't see much of anything in your posts that is either clear or worth responding to.
No not at all dear friend. As posted to you more than once now. According to the scriptures there is the "spoken word of God" by divine revelation to His prophets and messengers. There was no prophets before the "written Word". What was shared with you from the scriptures earlier was that according to the scriptures God communicates to us today by both the "spoken word" divine revelation" and the "written Word of God" given already through his prophets, apostles and JESUS. Where your posts fall over and disagree with JESUS, the prophets and Apostles is that today JESUS tells us that there will be many false prophets and teachers who will seek to deceive if possible God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24 and the scriptures teach that we are to test the Spirits through the Word of God to see if they are from God or not from God. (e.g. 1 JOHN 4:1; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; ISAIAH 8:20 etc). The scriptures tell us that today claims of divine revelation (spoken Words of God) are to be tested to see if they are of God or not. This makes the written Word of God the final test of todays "divine revelations" (spoken Word of God) that determine if they are from God or not from God. Your claims seek to do away with the very standard of God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) that determines if todays spoken word is from God or from the devil. This is both not biblical and a dangerous false teaching that can lead those who follow it away from God and into false teachings that are not from God. Your claims and teachings is like sending a soldier into battles without his SWORD (the Word) and Shield (Faith) and leaving them to be attacked by the enemy of souls.
So let's try this again. I'm going to post here a summary of my 16-point summary, as it were, consisting of approximately 10 salient points. And then I'm going to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves whether your responses directly address the full force of my 10 arguments.
I said no earlier as I am still waiting for you to address or answer my 16 point rebuttal to your first set of claims starting here linked. Anyhow lets have a look at your new ones.
(Point 1) How do we test a voice? From Genesis to Revelation, the biblical test is everywhere IMPLIED to be the Spirit convicting us. Meaning, if the Spirit - during the Direct Revelation - leaves us feeling 100% certain/persuaded of the message/Voice, we are morally obligated to it. In this way His Voice is self-authenticating. That's the only reasonable explanation as to why:

(A) Adam and Eve were obligated to obey the Voice (with no Scripture to test the voice or distinguish it from satan's voice).
(B) Noah obeyed the Voice (with no Scripture to test the voice).
(C) Abraham tried to kill his son in response to a voice (with no Scripture to test the voice)
(D) Moses and Joshua slaughtered nations in response to a voice (with no Scripture to test the voice)
(E) Saul and Samuel slaughtered the Amalekites per the Voice
(F) David slaughtered Philistines per the Voice
(G) Paul instantly forsook 20 years of Sola-Scriptura-conclusions when he heard the Voice on the Road to Damascus (previously he already HAD tested Jesus by Scripture, unsuccessfully).
(H) Peter shunned the Gentiles, for exegetical reasons, until a vision persuaded him to go preach to them (Acts 10). In a word, the vision told him to REJECT what he had learned from Scripture.
(I) The prophets sucessfully wrote the Scriptures per the Voice (even when the voice said something non-testable such as a foretelling)
When I point out such examples, for example at post 530, you move the goalposts. You claim that all these examples of a self-authenticating Voice are actually examples of Sola Scripura. You put it like this - here's your exact words:"Already answered see previous post. Before the written word was the spoken Word of God."Huh? At what point in human history did Sola-Voice (Direct Revelation) suddenly become the same thing as Sola Scriptura? This makes you a moving target.
As posted earlier of course we cannot understand God's Word without His Spirit. The Spirit of God however works through the word of God not outside of it. God's Spirit is the Spirit of the Word of truth and is the Word of truth *JOHN 6:63; JOHN 17:17. We do not need to worry about GENESIS to REVELATION as they are the written Word of God that we are to test all todays claims to the "spoken Word of God" (divine revelation).
*BOOM Point 1 falls down
(Point 2) It's absurd to claim that all voices can be tested by exegesis. For example if someone gives you a word of encouragement, "You will receive a new job offer within 7 days", or an exhortation, "The Lord says to pack up your bags and move to Africa to preach the gospel", there's no verse of Scripture that could prove that statement true or false.

Nowhere does Scripture claim that exegesis is the test of a voice. The appeal to the Bereans proves nothing because the Bereans pesumably examined Scripture under the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation), not by exegesis (human reasoning). Likewise the appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves nothing because Timothy was almost certainly a prophet (Paul mentored him after all) who, as such, definitely relied on divine illumination.

Rather, the biblical references to "testing" typically allude to the Anointing (1Jn 2:20-23;26-27;compare 1Jn 3:24 with 4:1). The clear implication is that the test is to ask the spirit whether it agrees, or disagrees with, those things already learned from the Anointing's self-authenticating Voice. Jesus said:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Because His Voice is self-authenticating, the above passage nowhere mentions the need to first put the Voice to the test of exegesis, whenever you seem to hear it.
Where your posts fall over and disagree with JESUS, the prophets and Apostles is that today JESUS tells us that there will be many false prophets and teachers who will seek to deceive if possible God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24 and the scriptures teach that we are to test the Spirits through the Word of God to see if they are from God or not from God. (e.g. 1 JOHN 4:1; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; ISAIAH 8:20 etc). The scriptures tell us that today claims of divine revelation (spoken Words of God) are to be tested to see if they are of God or not. This makes the written Word of God the final test of todays "divine revelations" (spoken Word of God) that determine if they are from God or not from God. Your claims seek to do away with the very standard of God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) that determines if todays spoken word is from God or from the devil.
*BOOM Point 2 falls down
(Point 3) As suggested in point 1 of my original 16-point rebuttal, the following "rule of conscience" properly governs us in all scenarios and thus overrides any (fallible) conclusion drawn from biblical exegesis:
"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".
You can complain about the unreliability of conscience all you want, but the fact is that neither you nor anyone else has risen to my challenge of postulating even one single scenario that warrants deliberate departure from the above maxim. And I went further than that:
(A) I noted that the above maxim finds support in Paul's discussion of conscience at 1Cor 8:1-13 and the parallel chapter Romans 14.
(B) I showed, at post 539, that the above maxim is tautological because it defines justice. I showed that if God were to dishonor the maxim, it would classify Him as an evil, unjust judge.

Direct Revelation ALWAYS operates via the above maxim - that's how it self-authenticates. Direct Revelation works like this:
(1) The Spirit conveys a message to us.
(2) He convicts our conscience, causing us to feel certain that the message is true.
(3) Feelings of certainty must be heeded, per the maxim (per the rule of conscience
Where point three falls down and can be dismissed right away is that there is only one standard for right and wrong; truth and error and that is the Word of God *JOHN 17:17. Outside of God's Word we do not know what right or wrong or truth and error is. The written Word of God is therefore God's MAXIM and the standard of all truth and error. Today JESUS tells us that there will be many false prophets and teachers who will seek to deceive if possible God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24 and the scriptures teach that we are to test the Spirits through the Word of God to see if they are from God or not from God. (e.g. 1 JOHN 4:1; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; ISAIAH 8:20 etc). The scriptures tell us that todays claims of divine revelation (spoken Words of God) are to be tested to see if they are of God or not. This makes the written Word of God the final test of todays "divine revelations" (spoken Word of God) that determine if they are from God or not from God. Your claims seek to do away with the very standard of God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) that determines if todays spoken word is from God or from the devil. This is both not biblical and a dangerous false teaching that can lead those who follow it away from God and into false teachings that are not from God. Your claims and teachings is like sending a soldier into battles without his SWORD (the Word) and Shield (Faith) and leaving them to be attacked by the enemy of souls.
*BOOM Point 3 falls down

To be continued...
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
10 POINT REBUTTAL NON SOLA SCRIPTURA CLAIMS

(Point 4) Points 1 to 3 laid out a system defining how Direct Revelation operates. In the 3,000 years since Moses wrote, no theologian has provided an alternative system that arguably always "works" - a theory of divine-human communication fully viable in all possible scenarios. This is the only known system of divine-human communication that actually makes sense. By way of contrast, advocates of Sola Scriptura have, for at least 500 years, utterly failed to provide a clear, coherent theory on divine illumination. Supposedly God is supposed to teach me about Scripture - the problem is that Sola Scriptura presses me to test His voice exegetically. But if I already understand Scripture well enough to test His voice exegetically, why do I need His voice? There is nothing clear about the Sola Scriptura position. This is a real problem. As I recall, one theologian "solved" it by claiming that God no longer illuminates the mind, since we have the written Scriptures today.
Oh goodness your first three points have already been shown to be in error and ignores God's MAXIM and standard of what is truth and error *JOHN 17:17; JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13 which is the written Word of God. According to the scriptures it is God alone that illuminates the mind through the Spirit of the Word of God whos is our guide and teacher. By trying to do away with God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) your doing away with God's standard of what is truth and error; right and wrong. Leaving you defencless to know if God or the devil is speaking to you.
*BOOM Point 4 falls down
(Point 5) How do we know that Scripture is inspired? This itself is a Direct Revelation. The Spirit convicts us of this truth (Point 3 explained how Direct Revelation works). The Protestant Reformation crystallized this Reformed doctrine under the rubric "The Inward Witness" - they rightly claimed that the Spirit reveals to us that Scripture is inspired by causing us to feel certain about it. Since this revelatory influence DICTATED whether or not to accept the book, it is a higher authority than the book. Even if you don't accept the Reformed doctrine of the Inward Witness, the fact remains you accepted the book on SOME basis (such as Reason). This positions Reason as a higher authority than the book, since it dictated your decision to accept or reject the book. In a nutshell, the book cannot be our highest authority, since we had to accept the book based on some other authoritative basis.
Ok now your contradicting yourself. Your claiming here that the written Word of God is the inspired Word of God in one breath but then claiming in the next breath that we no longer need it? How does that make any sense? If God give us the inspired Word of God for our guidence and protection why are you so hard pressed to get rid of it when JESUS says there will be many false prophets and teachers who will seek to deceive if possible God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24 and the scriptures teach that we are to test the Spirits through the Word of God to see if they are from God or not from God. (e.g. 1 JOHN 4:1; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; ISAIAH 8:20 etc). The scriptures tell us that todays claims of divine revelation (spoken Words of God) are to be tested to see if they are of God or not. This makes the written Word of God the final test of todays "divine revelations" (spoken Word of God) that determine if they are from God or not from God. Your claims seek to do away with the very standard of God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) that determines if todays spoken word is from God or from the devil. This is both not biblical and a dangerous false teaching that can lead those who follow it away from God and into false teachings that are not from God. Your claims and teachings is like sending a soldier into battles without his SWORD (the Word) and Shield (Faith) and leaving them to be attacked by the enemy of souls. Your points are pretty repetitive as are these responses that prove why your claims are in error.
*BOOM Point 5 falls down
(Point 6) Scripture is babes-milk-revelation, not solid-food-revelation. This is clear because Paul often handed out epistles (such as 1Corinthians) INSTEAD of solid food - see 1Cor 3 (and see point 14 in my 16-point summary for a set of posts on 1Corinthians that, by themselves, adequately refute Sola Scriptura). The writer of Hebrews did the same (Heb 5) - he handed out the Epistle to the Hebrews INSTEAD of solid food. This flatly contradicts the notion that the canon contains all the revelation intended for us. And I'm not alone in this thinking: the church father Chrysostom remarked on solid food that not even “Scripture hath anywhere discoursed to us of these things" (NPNF, Part 1, Vol 12, Homily 34).
According to the scriptures this solid food is represented by the Word of God. PAULS reference to milk and solid food dear friend is in referenece him quoting from ISAIAH 28:9-10 that says; [9], Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. [10], For precept must be on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, and there a little:
As you can see here Paul is referring to the meat being doctrine of the Word of God. A similar metephore is used by JESUS when he says I am the bread of life and the living bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die and if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. This is in reference to the Word of God (see JOHN 6:48-63). This is also in reference to JESUS being the living Word of God else where *JOHN 1:1-4; 14. The milk represents the first principles of the written Word of God (see HEBREWS 5:12-14; 1 CORINTHIANS 3:1-2). All you have shown here dear friend is that you do not know the scriptures (the written word of God) and what they mean and your trying to promote reasons to do away with the scriptures. Testing your claims against the scriptures I think it is very clear your message is not from God.
*BOOM Point 6 falls down
(Point 7) Exegesis is inevitably tainted with man-made opinions, for at least two reasons: (A) A man-made lexicon and/or grammer book is the only way to learn Hebrew and Greek. (B) All exegetical proofs are based on assumptions that, in turn, need to be proven. This leads to an infinite regress of unproven assumptions. The only way to break out of the infinite loop is to provisionally STIPULATE some man-made presumptions.

As a result, there is no such thing as "testing against Scripture" - the best we can do is study, and test against, a somewhat man-made version of Scripture.
This one can be dismissed right away the written Word of God teaches that we cannot understand Gods' Word without God's Spirit but God promises to give us His Spirit to understand His Word if we ask him to be our guide and teacher *JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 7:17: JOHN 17:17; HEBREWS 8:11; 1 JOHN 2:27. There is only many different teachings because many people do not seek God to be their guide and teacher to understand his Word. They go to seminary school like the Scribes and the Pharisees to learn academic methods for word study, which is well and good but without seeking God's guidence through His Spirt the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God and like the Scribes and Pharisees who were the keepers of the Word of God did not even know that the very scriptures they claimed to know were all pointing to JESUS. Without God's guidence through His Spirit we are only worldly wiseman who do not know God. Now if that same person honestly and sincerely comes to God's Word with an honest heart seeking to know God's truth then God promises to send him/her His Spirit to guide them and teach them his Word. These promises are conditional of course on believing and following and continuing in His Words *JOHN 8:31-34.
*BOOM Point 7 falls down
(Point 8) The epistles do not command the churches to practice exegesis (regardless of whether the prophet Timothy was so commanded). Even in those few passages that do mention "The Word", the question remains whether:
(A) Is it talking about the written Word or the divine spoken Word (Gen 15:1, Isa 55:11) - you can't just assume one or the other, nor indiscriminately equate both with Sola Scriptura - as you have been so fond of doing in our debate.
(B) Nor can you presume these verses to advocate studying the written Word without recourse to divine illumination (Direct Revelation). As mentioned earlier, there is no basis for assuming that Paul counseled Timothy to study the Scriptures without divine illumination.

To summarize, Sola Scriptura is a theological construct, not an exegetical datum. It has no clear support in Scripture, it seems to contradict Scripture at every turn, and it seems to be a man-made doctrine from first to last. Just because a tradition is longstanding in the church, doesn't prove it true. The Reformers already demonstrated that traditions persisting for 1500 years in the church need not be true.

On the other hand, what IS clearly articulated, nay, commanded, to the churches is the primacy of prophecy - and Paul closely associated the term prophecy with the word revelation. Paul puts prophecy on the very top rung of the priority-ladder alongside love:

"Eagerly desire the greater gifts" (1 Cor 12:31)

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. (
39Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues

There you have it - multiple clear references to prophecy and, as usual, not a single clear reference to exegesis.

What nonsense. Let's examine your claims according to the scriptures ...

2 TIMOTHY 2:15 [15], Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 [16], All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 17:10-11 [10], And the brothers immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night to Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11], These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

JOHN 17:17 [17], Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth.

There is too many dear friend and they all disagree with everything you are claiming here. Sorry dear friend God's Word disagrees with you.
*BOOM Point 8 falls down
(Point 9) Paul gave us his definition of a church:28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues (1Cor 12:28).

Every alternative definition - every subsequent definition - is a deviation from Paul's definition and is thus man-made. To embrace a definition of the church other than Paul's is itself a violation of Sola Scriptura. And note that Paul's definition already stands in stark contrast to the Sola-Scriptura mentality:
(1) In the Sola-Scriptura mentality (exegesis), Bible-scholars are the leaders of the church.
(2) In the Pauline mentality, apostles and prophets (recipients of Direct Revelation) are the leaders of the church.
Well this one is an easy one. This is not a definition of a Church it is Church order of the different members and roles within a Church. All Church member are commanded in the scriptures to study to show themselves approved to understand the scriptures. It is not a directive to leadership within a Church but to all members that make up the Church *2 TIMOTHY 2:15. What you do not seem to understand dear friend is that our very salvation TODAY is determined by us having faith in God's Word *EPHESIANS 2:8-9 because as we know God's written Word we receive faith to walk in Gods Spirit. If you do not have God's written Word you cannot have faith and if you do not have faith there is no salvation. Doing away with the written Word of God is the same as doing away with your very salvation that is provided through it.
*BOOM Point 9 falls down
(Point 10) Christ's entire ministry was a rebuttal of the Sola Scriptura parties of His day (the Pharisees, Sadducces, and teachers of the law). He made it clear that HIS teaching came directly from the Father, literally speaking with Him face to face, and thus by Direct Revelation. He made it clear that it was Direct Revelation that veered Him away from the myriad exegetical errors of the Bible scholars. And He made it clear that, for us too, Direct Revelation proves to be a more reliable interpreter of the Scriptures than Bible scholarship:

"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to babes".

A babe lacks the scholarly skills to test his father's voice exegetically. Thus he accepts the message based on the perceived authority and reliability of the father - in a word he feels certain that his father's voice is trustworthy.

Bonus Point: The NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).
Oh goodness what nonsense. JESUS is the living Word of God. This is who the father draws all men to. Everytihng JESUS shared was scripture and the Word of God. How you could post the above certainly makes me happy that I can take God's council to test the Spirits according to the written Word of God to know if somone is from God or not from God. I thank God for his Word and it is on the Word of God I stand and trust. I can do no other so God's Word tells me dear friend we will have to agree to disagree. All you have managed to prove here is that you do not know God's Word and your teaching things that are not biblical.
*BOOM Point 10 falls down

May God help you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My 10 point critique of Sola Scriptura was at post 28, and I see here that you are responding to it - as usual, with endless rambling and no direct rebuttals. Let's face it. The SDA movement is based on a biblical-literalist approach to the 10 commandments - it is based on Sola Scriptura. You're just reacting to my posts recognized to be a threat to the SDA ideology. Exposed.
10 POINT REBUTTAL NON SOLA SCRIPTURA CLAIMS
Not really dear friend. We examined each one of your 16 points section by section to examine if your claims were true or not true based on the truth and standard of what is. My standard for determining what was true and what was error was the scriptures from the bible which is simply God's MAXIM that he gives to mankind as the standard of right and wrong; truth and error.
Except that men from Adam to Moses obeyed the Voice without any written Scripture to test it, as I reminded you a dozen times - with STILL no rebuttal! Round and round we go.
The results of this did indeed show your 16 points were not based on any standard of right and wrong; truth and error but simply your own opinion that is not based on any fact or any scriptures. Having no standard for your MAXIM did show that your 16 points were not based on any truth but what felt right to you. This is where your claims fell over. To date you have not been able to clearly address the 16 point rebuttal that was provided to you linked here.
The results of what? Endless rambling?

No not at all dear friend. As posted to you more than once now. According to the scriptures there is the "spoken word of God" by divine revelation to His prophets and messengers. There was no prophets before the "written Word".
Exegetical error of fact. Abraham wasn't a prophet? Moses wasn't a prophet?

What was shared with you from the scriptures earlier was that according to the scriptures God communicates to us today by both the "spoken word" divine revelation" and the "written Word of God" given already through his prophets, apostles and JESUS.
Endless rambling. Yes all sides agree that there is both a spoken Word and written Word - how is that a defense of SS?


Where your posts fall over and disagree with JESUS, the prophets and Apostles is that today JESUS tells us that there will be many false prophets and teachers who will seek to deceive if possible God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24 and the scriptures teach that we are to test the Spirits through the Word of God to see if they are from God or not from God. (e.g. 1 JOHN 4:1; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; ISAIAH 8:20 etc). The scriptures tell us that today claims of divine revelation (spoken Words of God) are to be tested to see if they are of God or not.
This has been refuted a dozen times. Here's one Voice that we are NOT supposed to test - the prophets such as Abraham didn't "test" this Voice, they just obeyed it, even if it told them to kill their own son, or slaughter 7 nations to take Canaan:

12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16).

Today we have a Bible because Moses (et. al) wrote down what the Voice dictated - Moses didn't "test the voice". He simply obeyed it. Even
Adam wasn't supposed to "test the voice". Neither was Noah.

This is because God's voice is fully self-authenticating. It self-authenticates by convicting our conscience (convincing our conscience) even to the extent of 100% certainty (at least it rises to that level for prophets). As a result, we cannot disobey it in good conscience.

Since life is short, no one is going to waste time testing something that he's 100% certain of. Do you pull out your birth certificate every five minutes to recheck your name and/or its correct spelling? Part of what I mean by 100% certainty is 100% certainty that we are NOT supposed to test the voice, that the voice is final. When I was a kid, if my Dad stood face to face me and spoke to me loud and clear, and if I then had the audacity to say, "I'm not going to obey you until I find some way to test your voice", he would have "slapped me upside the head", and then whipped me silly if I persisted.

You're right. The prophets needed a standard for testing - and the (self-authenticating) Voice WAS that standard. Thus any spirit or voice that disagrees with THE Voice (disagrees with the Anointing) has failed the test. For example here's a biblical example of testing a voice:

"I am writing these things to you about those [demonic voices] who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

Did you catch that? No mention of exegesis as the test. No mention of exegesis as the standard. The STANDARD is the Anointing itself. Does the spirit agree, or disagree, with what you learned from the Anointing? That is the test. That is the standard. The only reason we don't see it is because the Reformers have for 500 years brainwashed us to believe that exegesis was God's intended test.

The Reformers contradicted themselves. They rightly taught that the Inward-Witness (God's Voice) is what causes us to feel certain that Scripture is inspired. Until then, we generally don't even believe in Scripture. Why would I use Scripture - that I do not yet believe in - to test the initial Voice (test the Inward Witness) ???? That doesn't make sense.

To summarize. There's no clear evidence in Scripture that God's Voice is supposed to be exegetically "tested". In fact Paul instantly rejected 20 years of exegetical conclusions when he heard the Voice on the Road to Damascus.

In our immaturity the Voice isn't particularly loud and clear. Often the certainty is so far below 100% that we find ourselves scrambling around trying to test it. This is not a good long-term strategy. The best strategy is to wait upon the Lord in praise, prayer, and worship until we too, like the prophets, become mature and thus hear the Voice loud and clear, at 100% certainty.

You might think that the Bereans or verse 2Tim 3:16-17 are proof that exegesis is the test, but we've been over this. There are two ways to read the Scriptures - and only 1 of them is exegesis. The other is under the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation). But I've confronted you with all these points over and over again - unrefuted.

This makes the written Word of God the final test of todays "divine revelations" (spoken Word of God) that determine if they are from God or not from God. Your claims seek to do away with the very standard of God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) that determines if todays spoken word is from God or from the devil. This is both not biblical and a dangerous false teaching that can lead those who follow it away from God and into false teachings that are not from God. Your claims and teachings is like sending a soldier into battles without his SWORD (the Word) and Shield (Faith) and leaving them to be attacked by the enemy of souls.
We are supposed to test God's voice? At least five times I've charged you with a logical contradiction on this point and you haven't resolved it. Here it is again. Supposedly God's voice is supposed to help me understand Scripture. But if I understand Scripture well enough to exegetically test the Voice, why do I need the Voice to help me understand Scripture?

I said no earlier as I am still waiting for you to address or answer my 16 point rebuttal to your first set of claims starting here linked. Anyhow lets have a look at your new ones.
Let's not be dishonest. This makes what - four total threads now? I've responded to your so-called "rebuttals" multiple times now.

As posted earlier of course we cannot understand God's Word without His Spirit. The Spirit of God however works through the word of God not outside of it.
That's odd. John the Baptist, and presumably Jesus too, were filled with the Holy Spirit from the mother's womb. Seems to me, therefore, that exegetical skills honed at four years of seminary simply aren't necessary for the leading of the Spirit. Oh that's right. I forgot. There were no exegetical seminaries in the days of Abraham, Enoch, Noah, and Moses.

God's Spirit is the Spirit of the Word of truth and is the Word of truth *JOHN 6:63; JOHN 17:17. We do not need to worry about GENESIS to REVELATION as they are the written Word of God that we are to test all todays claims to the "spoken Word of God" (divine revelation).
*BOOM Point 1 falls down
You might be surprised to learn that endlessly reasserting your opinions doesn't make them true, especially when you do nothing to resolve the counterpoints and charges of contradiction.

Where your posts fall over and disagree with JESUS, the prophets and Apostles is that today JESUS tells us that there will be many false prophets and teachers who will seek to deceive if possible God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24 and the scriptures teach that we are to test the Spirits through the Word of God to see if they are from God or not from God. (e.g. 1 JOHN 4:1; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; ISAIAH 8:20 etc). The scriptures tell us that today claims of divine revelation (spoken Words of God) are to be tested to see if they are of God or not. This makes the written Word of God the final test of todays "divine revelations" (spoken Word of God) that determine if they are from God or not from God. Your claims seek to do away with the very standard of God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) that determines if todays spoken word is from God or from the devil.
*BOOM Point 2 falls down
Repetitious reassertions. Already addressed above.

Where point three falls down and can be dismissed right away is that there is only one standard for right and wrong; truth and error and that is the Word of God *JOHN 17:17. Outside of God's Word we do not know what right or wrong or truth and error is. The written Word of God is therefore God's MAXIM and the standard of all truth and error. Today JESUS tells us that there will be many false prophets and teachers who will seek to deceive if possible God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24 and the scriptures teach that we are to test the Spirits through the Word of God to see if they are from God or not from God. (e.g. 1 JOHN 4:1; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; ISAIAH 8:20 etc). The scriptures tell us that todays claims of divine revelation (spoken Words of God) are to be tested to see if they are of God or not. This makes the written Word of God the final test of todays "divine revelations" (spoken Word of God) that determine if they are from God or not from God. Your claims seek to do away with the very standard of God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) that determines if todays spoken word is from God or from the devil. This is both not biblical and a dangerous false teaching that can lead those who follow it away from God and into false teachings that are not from God. Your claims and teachings is like sending a soldier into battles without his SWORD (the Word) and Shield (Faith) and leaving them to be attacked by the enemy of souls.
*BOOM Point 3 falls down

To be continued...
Repetitious reassertions. Already addressed above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
My 10 point critique of Sola Scriptura was at post 28, and I see here that you are responding to it - as usual, with endless rambling and no direct rebuttals. Let's face it. The SDA movement is based on a biblical-literalist approach to the 10 commandments - it is based on SS. You're just reacting to my posts recognized to be a threat to the SDA ideology. Exposed.
Except that men from Adam to Moses obeyed the Voice without any written Scripture to test it, as I reminded you a dozen times - with STILL no rebuttal! Round and round we go.
The results of what? Endless rambling?

Exegetical error of fact. Abraham wasn't a prophet? Moses wasn't a prophet?

Endless rambling. Yes all sides agree that there is both a spoken Word and written Word - how is that a defense of SS?


This has been refuted a dozen times. Here's one Voice that we are NOT supposed to test - the prophets such as Abraham didn't "test" this Voice, they just obeyed it, even if it told them to kill their own son, or slaughter 7 nations to take Canaan:

12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16).

Today we have a Bible because Moses (et. al) wrote down what the Voice dictated - Moses didn't "test the voice". He simply obeyed it. Even
Adam wasn't supposed to "test the voice". Neither was Noah.

This is because God's voice is the one voice that is self-authenticating. It self-authenticates by convicting our conscience (convincing our conscience) even to the extent of 100% certainty (at least it rises to that level for prophets). As a result, we cannot disobey it in good conscience.

Since life is short, no one is going to waste time testing something that he's 100% certain of. Do you pull out your birth certificate every five minutes to recheck your name and/or its correct spelling? Part of what I mean by 100% certainty is 100% certainty that we are NOT supposed to test the voice, that the voice is final. When I was a kid, if my Dad stood face to face me and spoke to me loud and clear, and if I then had the audacity to say, "I'm not going to obey you until I find some way to test your voice", he would have "slapped me upside the head", and then whipped me silly if I persisted.

You're right. The prophets needed a standard for testing - and the (self-authenticating) Voice WAS that standard. Thus any spirit or voice that disagrees with THE Voice (disagrees with the Anointing) has failed the test. For example here's a biblical example of testing a voice:

"I am writing these things to you about those [demonic voices] who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

Did you catch that? No mention of exegesis as the test. No mention of exegesis as the standard. The STANDARD is the Anointing itself. Does the spirit agree, or disagree, with what you learned from the Anointing? That is the test. That is the standard. The only reason we don't see it is because the Reformers have for 500 years brainwashed us to believe that exegesis was God's intended test.

The Reformers contradicted themselves. They rightly taught that the Inward-Witness (God's Voice) is what causes us to feel certain that Scripture is inspired. Until then, we generally don't even believe in Scripture. Why would I use Scripture - that I do not yet believe in - to test the initial Voice (test the Inward Witness) ???? That doesn't make sense.

To summarize. There's no clear evidence in Scripture that God's Voice is supposed to be exegetically "tested". In fact Paul instantly rejected 20 years of exegetical conclusions when he heard the Voice on the Road to Damascus.

In our immaturity the Voice isn't particularly loud and clear. Often the certainty is so far below 100% that we find ourselves scrambling around trying to test it. This is not a good long-term strategy. The best strategy is to wait upon the Lord in praise, prayer, and worship until we too, like the prophets, become mature and thus hear the Voice loud and clear, at 100% certainty.

You might think that the Bereans or verse 2Tim 3:16-17 are proof that exegesis is the test, but we've been over this. There are two ways to read the Scriptures - and only 1 of them is exegesis. The other is under the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation). But I've confronted you with all these points over and over again - unrefuted.


We are supposed to test God's voice? At least five times I've charged you with a logical contradiction on this point and you haven't resolved it. Here it is again. Supposedly God's voice is supposed to help me understand Scripture. But if I understand Scripture well enough to exegetically test the Voice, why do I need the Voice to help me understand Scripture?

Let's not be dishonest. This makes what - four total threads now? I've responded to your so-called "rebuttals" multiple times now.

That's odd. John the Baptist, and presumably Jesus too, were filled with the Holy Spirit from the mother's womb. Seems to me, therefore, that exegetical skills honed at four years of seminary simply aren't necessary for the leading of the Spirit. Oh that's right. I forgot. There were no exegetical seminaries in the days of Abraham, Enoch, Noah, and Moses.

You might be surprised to learn that endlessly reasserting your opinions doesn't make them true, especially when you do nothing to resolve the counterpoints and charges of contradiction.


Repetitious reassertions. Already addressed above.

Repetitious reassertions. Already addressed above.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts I think our conversation is over as your only repeating yourself now dear friend without addressing any of the content you are quoting from except providing your opinion. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For me I only believe God's Word and you do not provide any for your opinions. Where as God's Word is the MAXIM I follow to determine truth and error, right and wrong. I can do no other. I am sorry dear friend but I believe God's Word disagrees with your claims and teachings. Thanks for the conversation though.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
10 POINT REBUTTAL NON SOLA SCRIPTURA CLAIMS
Oh goodness your first three points have already been shown to be in error and ignores God's MAXIM and standard of what is truth and error *JOHN 17:17; JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13 which is the written Word of God. According to the scriptures it is God alone that illuminates the mind through the Spirit of the Word of God whos is our guide and teacher. By trying to do away with God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) your doing away with God's standard of what is truth and error; right and wrong. Leaving you defencless to know if God or the devil is speaking to you.
*BOOM Point 4 falls down
More repetition, embellished with intellectual dishonesty. Why would I want to dispense with the written Word? I use it on a regular basis to refute false doctrines (such as SS). Paul did likewise - it's a sound debating tactic.

Ok now your contradicting yourself. Your claiming here that the written Word of God is the inspired Word of God in one breath but then claiming in the next breath that we no longer need it?
Here we are on point 5 of my 10-point critique, and still no direct responses to those five points. In this case, instead of addressing objection 5, you're trying to extrapolate it to a different topic that I never even broached. I'm not even sure what you're asking me here. Is it:
(1) Is God capable of building a church without a Bible? Given that the angels existed without the Bible, and there was no printing press for 90% of human history, I'd say that God is capable of spawning a following without it.
(2) Or, are you asking me if it is okay to throw our Bibles away as superfluous? I never claimed such, and don't believe it. God has decided to make use of the Bible. Therefore, regardless whether we need it in the strictest sense, we can't dispense with it in good conscience, even if we wanted to (and I don't want to).
How does that make any sense? If God give us the inspired Word of God for our guidence and protection why are you so hard pressed to get rid of it...
Get rid of it? Pure intellectual dishonesty. A fellow poster - a former SDA - observed your responses to me and called you out on these false accusations. And yet you persist.

...when JESUS says there will be many false prophets and teachers who will seek to deceive if possible God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24 and the scriptures teach that we are to test the Spirits through the Word of God to see if they are from God or not from God. (e.g. 1 JOHN 4:1; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; ISAIAH 8:20 etc). The scriptures tell us that todays claims of divine revelation (spoken Words of God) are to be tested to see if they are of God or not. This makes the written Word of God the final test of todays "divine revelations" (spoken Word of God) that determine if they are from God or not from God. Your claims seek to do away with the very standard of God's MAXIM (the written Word of God) that determines if todays spoken word is from God or from the devil. This is both not biblical and a dangerous false teaching that can lead those who follow it away from God and into false teachings that are not from God. Your claims and teachings is like sending a soldier into battles without his SWORD (the Word) and Shield (Faith) and leaving them to be attacked by the enemy of souls. Your points are pretty repetitive as are these responses that prove why your claims are in error.
*BOOM Point 5 falls down
Have you noticed that, when every one of your posts is a repetition of the last one, they cannot possibly address my 10 distinct points?

ccoding to the scriptures this solid food is represented by the Word of God. PAULS reference to milk and solid food dear friend is in referenece him quoting from ISAIAH 28:9-10 that says; [9], Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. [10], For precept must be on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, and there a little:
As you can see here Paul is referring to the meat being doctrine of the Word of God. A similar metephore is used by JESUS when he says I am the bread of life and the living bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die and if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. This is in reference to the Word of God (see JOHN 6:48-63). This is also in reference to JESUS being the living Word of God else where *JOHN 1:1-4; 14. The milk represents the first principles of the written Word of God (see HEBREWS 5:12-14; 1 CORINTHIANS 3:1-2). All you have shown here dear friend is that you do not know the scriptures (the written word of God) and what they mean and your trying to promote reasons to do away with the scriptures. Testing your claims against the scriptures I think it is very clear your message is not from God.
*BOOM Point 6 falls down
Nice for you to share your opinions on solid food, but I fail to see how all this speculation changes the facts. The fact is that Paul handed out Scripture (epistles) INSTEAD of solid food (1Cor 3). And the writer of Hebrews likewise handed out the Epistle to the Hebrews INSTEAD of solid food (Heb 5). This proves that Scripture is not solid food, it is babes-milk-revelation instead of solid-food-revelation. Again, I'm not alone in this thinking: the church father Chrysostom remarked on solid food that not even “Scripture hath anywhere discoursed to us of these things" (NPNF, Part 1, Vol 12, Homily 34).

This one can be dismissed right away the written Word of God teaches that we cannot understand Gods' Word without God's Spirit but God promises to give us His Spirit to understand His Word if we ask him to be our guide and teacher *JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 7:17: JOHN 17:17; HEBREWS 8:11; 1 JOHN 2:27. There is only many different teachings because many people do not seek God to be their guide and teacher to understand his Word. They go to seminary school like the Scribes and the Pharisees to learn academic methods for word study, which is well and good but without seeking God's guidence through His Spirt the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God and like the Scribes and Pharisees who were the keepers of the Word of God did not even know that the very scriptures they claimed to know were all pointing to JESUS. Without God's guidence through His Spirit we are only worldly wiseman who do not know God. Now if that same person honestly and sincerely comes to God's Word with an honest heart seeking to know God's truth then God promises to send him/her His Spirit to guide them and teach them his Word. These promises are conditional of course on believing and following and continuing in His Words *JOHN 8:31-34.
*BOOM Point 7 falls down

You've confirmed that exegesis, by itself, doesn't work because the Spirit is the only reliable source of understanding. This just proves my position - it confirms you can't use exegesis to test the Voice of the Holy Spirit because exegesis isn't even reliable until the Voice has already assisted it.

What nonsense. Let's examine your claims according to the scriptures ...

2 TIMOTHY 2:15 [15], Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 [16], All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 17:10-11 [10], And the brothers immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night to Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11], These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

JOHN 17:17 [17], Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth.

There is too many dear friend and they all disagree with everything you are claiming here. Sorry dear friend God's Word disagrees with you.
*BOOM Point 8 falls down

(Sigh). Again, I never said that all the biblical saints ignored Scripture. Despite the lack of a printing press, a handful did have access to it. What i said was, there are two ways to read it:
(1) The exegetical method (human reasoning, also known as bible scholarship)
(2) Under the light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation).
You have no proof that Paul counseled either the Berean or Timothy to rely on method 1.

Here we are at point 8 and, in every case, you've either created a strawman, or repeated an assertion, instead of refuting any of the 8 points.

Well this one is an easy one. This is not a definition of a Church it is Church order of the different members and roles within a Church.
Um...Actually you're not saying anything here. Just quibbling over terminology?

All Church member are commanded in the scriptures to study to show themselves approved to understand the scriptures. It is not a directive to leadership within a Church but to all members that make up the Church *2 TIMOTHY 2:15.
Patently false. I'm sorry you don't much like the facts. FACT: Not one epistle commands the entire church to practice exegesis. Paul did, however, command the entire church to seek prophecy (Direct Revelation), in fact he placed prophecy on the top rung of the priority-ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1).

Paul wanted Timothy to continue to study the written Word, but Timothy was almost certainly a prophet (Paul mentored him after all). And even so, there are 2 ways for Timothy to read Scripture:
(1) The exegetical method (human reasoning, also known as bible scholarship)
(2) Under the light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation).
Which method does a prophet like Timothy normally use, in your view? Did most of the prophets go to seminary? Did Jesus attend seminary?

What you do not seem to understand dear friend is that our very salvation TODAY is determined by us having faith in God's Word *EPHESIANS 2:8-9 because as we know God's written Word we receive faith to walk in Gods Spirit. If you do not have God's written Word you cannot have faith and if you do not have faith there is no salvation. Doing away with the written Word of God is the same as doing away with your very salvation that is provided through it.
*BOOM Point 9 falls down

Another empty reassertion. That's not a rebuttal of anything.

Oh goodness what nonsense. JESUS is the living Word of God. This is who the father draws all men to. Everytihng JESUS shared was scripture and the Word of God. How you could post the above certainly makes me happy that I can take God's council to test the Spirits according to the written Word of God to know if somone is from God or not from God. I thank God for his Word and it is on the Word of God I stand and trust. I can do no other so God's Word tells me dear friend we will have to agree to disagree. All you have managed to prove here is that you do not know God's Word and your teaching things that are not biblical.
*BOOM Point 10 falls down
May God help you.
Rambling again. Some of those points I agree with. None of them appear to rebut anything I said. At least one of them I've already refuted several times.[/quote][/quote]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for sharing your thoughts I think our conversation is over as your only repeating yourself now dear friend without addressing any of the content provided. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For me I only believe God's Word and you do not provide any for your opinions. Where as God's Word is the MAXIM I follow to determine truth and error, right and wrong. I can do no other. I am sorry dear friend but I believe God's Word disagrees with your claims and teachings. Thanks for the conversation though.
I didn't provide any biblical basis for my conclusions? Sheer intellectual dishonesty.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
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

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I didn't provide any biblical basis for my conclusions? Sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Sorry dear friend we will have to agree to disagree. I choose to believe the scriptures and that only Gods Word is true and we should believe and follow it. Thankyou for the conversation
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sorry dear friend we will have to agree to disagree. I choose to believe the scriptures and that only Gods Word is true and we should believe and follow it. Thankyou for the conversation
I choose to believe the Scriptures too. That's why I cannot accept the false doctrine entitled Sola Scriptura.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I didn't provide any biblical basis for my conclusions? Sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Hi JAL,
I hate to get in the middle of the discussion between you and the O.P., but I do have a question for you:

I believe all Christians are in agreement that the Moral Law is still in effect.

So do you think we're following
10 Commandments
or
9 Commandments?

Isn't worhsipping the Sabbath a commandment?
Why don't we?

Just wondering.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,298
Tuscany
✟231,507.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I choose to believe the Scriptures too. That's why I cannot accept the false doctrine entitled Sola Scriptura.
Why is Sola Scriptura a false doctrine?

I look to the Early Fathers for some guidance at times.
But they always agree with scripture so I have no problem.
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believe all Christians are in agreement that the Moral Law is still in effect.

Well I bowed out of this thread, but I can't help but jump in for a moment on this (as you are jumping in also!). Not all Christians separate the Old Testament into the three compartments of law that Adventists do: moral, ceremonial, and civil. Most do, but not all. I used to be an SDA so I know this is the normal teaching among Adventists. Many groups teach to keep the covenant as one moral whole. For example, the ceremonial laws are moral in that disobeying them is immoral. To keep the covenant one must continue to keep the ceremonial laws. To separate a covenant into moral laws is a man made construction that is not a part of the original covenantal plan. No where, that I am aware of, does the bible make a reference for moral laws to be decided upon and separated from ceremonial or civil laws. The whole covenant is moral.

On a separate note, if you believe you can do a good job separating what you believe to be moral from the other laws, by what criteria will you make your judgments? I believe you will find the Sabbath, by definition to be a ceremony. Ceremony has the definition on Dictionary.com for example (but basically the same wherever you go):

a formal act or ritual, often set by custom or tradition, performed in observation of an event or anniversary:​

Do you think the formal act of stopping work weekly by tradition to rest and worship in observation of the Sabbath counts? So splitting the law this way undermines the Sabbath anyway. Thus even if we do split the Mosaic Covenant specifically into these sections, the Sabbath fits into the ceremonial law (see here for a quick summary of why the Sabbath doesn't fit into a moral category).

For a final punch, if moral law is eternal, how can God threaten to take something eternally moral, away?

Hosea 2:11 (NIV)
I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts.​

Why is Sola Scriptura a false doctrine?

See one of @JAL 's explanations here.
 
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

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I choose to believe the Scriptures too. That's why I cannot accept the false doctrine entitled Sola Scriptura.
Well that is a bit of an oxymoron you believe God's Word but the written Word of Sola Scriptura as the final authority of truth and error is a false doctrine huh? Ok thanks again for the discussion we will have to agree to disagree. To me that is like sending a soldier into battle but telling him not to take a sword (word) and shield (faith in the Word). Good luck with that.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Well I wouldn't call it as a matter of loyalty to an institution. More than anything I would say that it is loyalty to God and faith in God.
Well of course; that is how any true believer would want it to be worded.

I could not leave the Catholic Church because I honestly believe that this is where God wants me to be. To leave the Catholic Church would be to not follow what I believe God wants me to do.
Sure, but that doesn't change anything. You are apparently stuck on the idea of loyalty to the organization, thinking that we ought to allow for there being good reasons FOR such loyalty. All right. That is fair.

Does faith play any role for you? Do you view your choice to be an Anglican as merely the result of a series of choices based on Scriptural evidence and logic?
As opposed to...what?

You seem to have a different view of what Sacred Tradition is than what the Catholic Church actually teaches with respect to it.
No, I have referred to what the Catholic Church actually does teach about the matter. But I agree with you that the way she explains it is carefully manipulated to make that POV look like it is something more mystical, more uniform or homogenous, and therefore more credible.

The Catholic does not define Sacred Tradition merely as a matter of consensus.
Nor do I.


 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Ok, thought you said goodbye? I was wondering if I should respond to this or not as I did not want to go off topic to the op and there is already a Sabbath and Law section within the forum that these things can be discussed elsewhere but then I thought nuh this is a good chance to test the Spirits with the written Word of God to see if a message that is proposed is of God or not not of God with God's MAXIM the Word of God that is the true standard of truth and error. Let's bring everything to the light of God's Word on which we should try and bring our responses back to the OP here of the written Word of God being the final authority and God's standard of all truth and error.
Not all Christians separate the Old Testament into the three compartments of law that Adventists do: moral, ceremonial, and civil. Most do, but not all.
JESUS and the Apostles teach that in the last days there will be many false prophets (messengers) and false teachers showing great signs and wonders that if it were possible they should deceive God's very elect *MATTHEW 24:24; ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 20:29 so it is to God alone we must turn with a prayerful guidence of his Spirit through His written Word to find out what is truth and what is error *JOHN 14:26: JOHN 16:13; HEBREWS 8:11.
This more so today as we see the warnings of JESUS being fulfilled more repidly, wars and romours of wars, pestilance, plague and fimine are all there for all to see. Today false prophets and teachers abound in over 40,000 different denominations of Christianity. Obviously they cannot all be right. Can they? How can you find your way when the road is dark and narrow? There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death. It is God that makes a separation between his laws as shown through his Word. Happy to share why through the scriptures if your interested as there is a lot of them. Just let me know. The only point I am trying to make here though is that we cannot know what truth and error is if there is no standard for truth and error and God is not our guide and teacher.
I used to be an SDA so I know this is the normal teaching among Adventists. Many groups teach to keep the covenant as one moral whole. For example, the ceremonial laws are moral in that disobeying them is immoral. To keep the covenant one must continue to keep the ceremonial laws. To separate a covenant into moral laws is a man made construction that is not a part of the original covenantal plan. No where, that I am aware of, does the bible make a reference for moral laws to be decided upon and separated from ceremonial or civil laws. The whole covenant is moral.
You have your facts mixed up dear friend. There is no directly translated words from the Hebrew and Greek to english for moral and ceremonial laws. That said the Greek equivallent for ceremonial laws are in ordinances is G1378 δόγμα; dogma which means civil, ceremonial laws or ordinances (Colossians 2:14; EPHESIANS 2:15) or G3544 νομικός; nomikos which means ceremonial law from TITUS 3:5.

While in the Hebrew sometimes the word חקּה; chuqqah is used for ordinances which are normally applied to matters of religious and ceremonial rituals. As for moral the closest is righteousness. In the Hebrew this is H664 RIGHTEOUSNESS; RIGHTEOUS; from צדק; tsedeq (H6663); meaning the right (natural, moral or legal; also (abstractly) equity or (figuratively) prosperity: - X even, (X that which is altogether) just (-ice), ([un-]) right (-eous) (cause, -ly, -ness). This does link into the english definiation of ceremonial laws however as we read from. The Greek is G1342 δίκαιος; dikaios From G1349; equitable in character or act; by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): - just, meet, right (-eous).

God's Word defines Righteousness or Righteouss as right doing and the moral standard as God's commandments. PSALMS 119:172 My tongue shall speak of your word for ALL YOUR COMMANDMENTS ARE RIGHTEOUSNESS <Right Doing - MORAL>

The above definitions all agree with the english definitions for ceremony; ceremonial and moral; right doing as shown below...

WEBSTERS DICTIONARY

MOR'AL, a. [L. moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.
Keep at the least within the compass of moral actions, which have in them vice or virtue.
Mankind is broken loose from moral bands.
2. Subject to the moral law and capable of moral actions; bound to perform social duties; as a moral agent or being.
3. Supported by the evidence of reason or probability; founded on experience of the ordinary course of things; as moral certainty, distinguished from physical or mathematical certainty or demonstration.
Physical and mathematical certainty may be stiled infallible, and moral certainty may be properly stiled indubitable.
Things of a moral nature may be proved by moral arguments.
4. Conformed to rules of right, or to the divine law respecting social duties; virtuous; just; as when we say, a particular action is not moral.
5. Conformed to law and right in exterior deportment; as, he leads a good moral life.

CEREMONIAL, a. [See Ceremony.]
1. Relating to ceremony, or external rite; ritual; according to the forms of established rites; as ceremonial exactness. It is particularly applied to the forms and rites of the Jewish religion; as the ceremonial law or worship, as distinguished from the moral and judicial law.
2. Formal; observant of old forms; exact; precise in manners.
[In this sense, ceremonious is now used.]

CEREMONIAL, n.
1. Outward form; external rite, or established forms or rites, including all the forms prescribed; a system of rules and ceremonies, enjoined by law or established by custom, whether in religious worship, in social intercourse, or in the courts of princes.
2. The order for rites and forms in the Romish church, or the book containing the rules prescribed to be observed on solemn occasions.

So as can be shown above Gods' LAW (10 commandments) are all Moral laws or according to the scriptures the standard of "RIGHTEOUSNESS" *PSALMS 119:172 and right doing. That is our duty of right doing (righteousness) to God and man.

While ceremonial laws are laws related to outward external religious rites and ceremonies such as the Sanctuary laws for remission of sins and sin offereings, Sanctuary laws and the Levitical priestly laws and ordinances.
On a separate note, if you believe you can do a good job separating what you believe to be moral from the other laws, by what criteria will you make your judgments? I believe you will find the Sabbath, by definition to be a ceremony. Ceremony has the definition on Dictionary.com for example (but basically the same wherever you go): a formal act or ritual, often set by custom or tradition, performed in observation of an event or anniversary: Do you think the formal act of stopping work weekly by tradition to rest and worship in observation of the Sabbath counts? So splitting the law this way undermines the Sabbath anyway. Thus even if we do split the Mosaic Covenant specifically into these sections, the Sabbath fits into the ceremonial law (see here for a quick summary of why the Sabbath doesn't fit into a moral category).
Well this is a load of nonsense. You have been shown why through the scriptures and word definitions above proving that the 10 commandments are all moral laws of right doing or righteousness according to the scriptures definition *PSALMS 119:172 and the differnece between Moral and Ceremonial laws so do not need to comment much here eccept to say that it is impossible for God's 4th commandment to be a ceremonial law. Here is why.

1. God's 4th commandment is a "MEMORIAL" law it starts of saying...

EXODUS 20:8-11 [8], REMEMBER the SABBATH DAY, to KEEP IT HOLY. <Why?> [Because JESUS made it a Holy day of rest for mankind and commands us to keep it as a Holy day] [9], Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: [10], But the SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH of the LORD thy God [This is a direct reference from God's Word defining what the Sabbath is; The SABBATH = the SEVENTH DAY OF THE WEEK]: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: <WHY> [11], For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the SEVENTH DAY: wherefore the LORD BLESSED THE SABBATH, and HALLOWED IT.

Note it is pointing back to creation saying "REMEMBER THE SEVENTH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY". It is pointing back to creation and God as the creator who "BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY, and made the SEVENTH DAY a HOLY DAY of REST where no work is to be done.

2. We have already seen that all God's laws are "MORAL LAWS" of right doing to God and man or according to the scriptures definition the standard of all "RIGHTEOUSNESS" *PSLAMS 119:172 and the scripture definitions and meaning of MORAL and CEREMONIAL law.

Ok saved the best for last. Drum roll pleas...

3. Every ceremonial law from the Mosaic book of the old coveanant *EXODUS 24:7 was made and given to mankind as a part of the old covenant for sin and God's plan of salvation from sin for all mankind. God's SEVENTH DAY SABBATH was made BEFORE SIN and the fall of mankind when ceremonial laws did not exist!
For a final punch, if moral law is eternal, how can God threaten to take something eternally moral, away? Hosea 2:11 (NIV) I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts.

This one will be fun and is the easiest but lets see what you know. You do know that there were many difference kinds of Sabbaths in the old covenant right? Since your making the claims here that Hosea 2:11 is saying God's 4th commandment is to be abolished prove to me what Sabbaths are being spoken about in HOSEA 2:11 was it...

1. The Sabbaths of the Feast of unleavened bread (first and last day) that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:6-8
2. The Sabbath on the annual day of Atonement that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:27-32
3. The Sabbath on the annual Feast of Trumpets that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:24-25?
4. The Sabbath on the Feast of Booths that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:34-36
5. Feast of first fruits (first and last day) that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:39
6. The sabbaths (sabbaton plural) of holy convocations from the annual feast days *LEVITICUS 23:7-8; 21;24; 27; 35-36 that can fall on any days of the week
7. The Sabbath of the land (7 year single cycle) *LEVITICUS 25:2
8. The Sabbath of Jubilee - culminating of the 7x7 yearly cycles sabbaths *LEVITICUS 25:9-54
9. Or God's 4th commandment seventh day weekly Sabbath which is one of the 10 commandments that define sin when broken? *EXODUS 20:8-11 from GENESIS 2:1-3

Also why you at it what does HOSEA 2:11 mean when it says "HER" Sabbaths as opposed to God saying "MY" Sabbath?

Finally you might want to reconcile your intepretation of HOSEA 2:11 being in reference to God's 4th commandment seventh day Sabbath being no more to

ISAIAH 66:22-23 [22], For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, said the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. [23], And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, said the LORD.

Kind of a few problems with your interpretation of the scriptures dear friend don't you think?

Anyhow for anyone interested HOSEA 2:11 is in refence to the ceremonial sabbaths in the feast days of ISRAEL (Her sabbaths) which is the within scripture context there is a detailed scripture response starting here that includes this scripture in the linked thread.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well that is a bit of an oxymoron you believe God's Word but the written Word of Sola Scriptura as the final authority of truth and error is a false doctrine huh?
We've been over this. Debates like this one center on the exegetical basis for a conclusion. While my fundamental beliefs come from the Inward Witness, I am not yet a prophet who hears God loud and clear on complex issues, hence I fall back on exegesis as a tentative, temporary crutch.
Ok thanks again for the discussion we will have to agree to disagree. To me that is like sending a soldier into battle but telling him not to take a sword (word) and shield (faith in the Word). Good luck with that.
That's PRECISELY how Sola Scriptura has virtually decimated the church. You, like most Christians, think the Word needed for battle is the Bible!!!! That was the Galatian error - which Andrew Murray lamented with such futility! What the Galatians needed, said Paul, was reviving outpourings of the divine Word received via divine speech (Isaiah 55:11) also known as Direct Revelation - and Paul, at Gal 3:6, cited his favorite example:

"The [divine] Word of the Lord came to [the prophet] Abram in a [revelatory] vision [speaking promises loud and clear]". (Gen 15:1)

And again, with 100 billion souls at stake, it doesn't MATTER whether I am right or wrong about the need for Direct Revelation. With that much at stake, we still need to seek infallible revelation to be 100% SURE whether or not we need it. So even if I'm wrong, I'm still right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
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

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0