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

Geralt said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is true only its not solo but nuda scriptura. FYI

Tomm said:

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."
View attachment 246342
Dr Scott Hahn: "Sola scriptura is not biblical".

Click to expand...

Your parroted polemic has already been attempted and basically exposed as fallacious, as once again it is both based upon strawman of SS, as well as misappropriating Scripture, both of which which is what sophists as Staples so much rely on. But as it typical in these treads, once you refute a number of posters another shows up posting the same specious arguments. Therefore by the grace of god I will reiterate and sometimes expand on what has been said in refutation.

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)

Click to expand...

And which text you enlist in support that your church is also teaching the oral word of God as the apostles did, but which is simply not what these texts support.
1. 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), neither of popes and councils claim to do.
2. You can only presume that these traditions were not also written, or would be, and unless they were then you cannot tell us what these traditions precisely were. You only other alternative for certainty of what these traditions were rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

Which doctrine itself much rests upon tradition, and the false presupposition that being the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Holy Writ means they are the assuredly correct proclaimers and interpreters of it.

However, even ensured correctness as per a certain criteria (which a broken watch of mine has) is not the same thing as the wholly inspired word of God, which has a anointing of power all its own. (Hebrews 4:12)

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???

Click to expand...

Which is simply a fallacious argument for it only attacks with the practicality of SS, not the status and sufficiency of Scripture. The status of a book that provides all the info and helps that one needs to complete a college course is not negated simply because only 10% have access to it and can read it to others.

A SS preacher can lead a church even if only one copy of the Scriptures are available. That would impugn the corporate practical application of SS, however it no more negates the status and sufficiency of Scripture in being and providing what it claims any more than the status and sufficiency of the Law was impugned by a lack of copies and literacy.

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul, and making wise the simple, rejoicing the heart, enlightening the eyes, enduring for ever, more to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb; moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)

But none of these qualities and the supreme status of the Law (a term which is used broadly to include wisdom lit.) are impugned by the reality that it needs preachers to provide it.

As for practical application, and your argument that "most the people in the old days were illiterate, Therefore, how could the faithful during the period AD33 - AD1450 read the Bible by themselves?" presumes that SS necessarily means one must be able to read, but which is not so. Even a 10% literacy rate is more than sufficient for the rest to hear the word, and in due times to have time to study if they learn to read.

And while SS holds that all the necessary light can be found in Scripture, including (as has been documented ) by being logically deduced, and by the due use of ordinary means, and affirms church councils as what settles a matter, yet the sufficiency of SS does not mean that it formally provides all that is needed, from reason to reading, but which it materially provides for, affirming such. Yet SS is usually understood as not fully applicable until a complete canon was established.

Which leads to your next objection, "the Bible Canon was not established until 4th century," and which while true as regards a somewhat general settled canon, fist, this does not mean all the books of Scripture did not exist or were not recognized by multitudes, while as for indisputable certitude via church council, this would not take place until after the death of Luther in 1546 (which fact is also contrary to Rc propaganda).

However, the lack of a complete canon in no way impugns the supreme status of Scripture, in which 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 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.

As for the sufficiency claim of SS as applying before the NT was complete and the canon established, from what i have read SS only fully is to pertain to the after that establishment. Yet consider also that the alternative to SS, that of the church effectively being the sure supreme standard on faith and morals, and providing what is needed for both, also cannot be said to exist prior to a certain time in the history of the people of God.

And Westminster states is that, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." (Westminster confession)

However, again, this does not mean Scripture formally provides all things necessary for this knowledge, which would require that Scripture provide (as said) even the ability to reason and read, as well as the aid of the Holy Spirit and church councils themselves (which need Westminster affirms and Scripture materially provides for).

In addition, OT Scripture itself materially provides for wholly inspired revelation being recognized and written and established as authoritative, and thus a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ.

Therefore, while SS is not be fully applicable while as yet men were speaking and writing as wholly inspired of God, yet the supremacy of Scripture was already established by the time of Christ, and the Scriptures provided for men such as the apostles speaking and writing as wholly inspired of God.

But what Scripture does not provide for is the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), and whereby souls assuredly know what is from God, but which was not how a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ.

Note also that WC states that what is "necessary" is provided, and which even Adam and Eve had. For God has always provided man what was necessary for the obedience required, and judges man in the light of what man had. Yet God does give more grace, and "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48)

And what we have is Scripture as being the assured word of God as regards public revelation. And unless Rome speaks as wholly inspired of God then they are not a replacement for Moses and apostles in this regard.

"Sola Scriptura is the position that you can trust Scripture and Scripture alone as your sole authority for your faith and life."

This position would deny the crucial element of authority that living people play in our day to day life. My criticism of this Sola Scriptura is that it's too extreme, making the individual their own authority, since it takes individuals reading the bible to form an opinion of it. If the errant mind is convinced of an errant position by reading the scripture and cannot be reasoned with, why is he not justified in dismissing the words of those who are right but disagree with him? He is justified despite his error because he has gleamed it from his perception of the Bible and this is the fundamental problem with Sola Scriptura.

What the Protestant needs to realize is that there are times when we should trust other people over our interpretation of the Bible.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

"Sola Scriptura is the position that you can trust Scripture and Scripture alone as your sole authority for your faith and life."

This position would deny the crucial element of authority that living people play in our day to day life. My criticism of this Sola Scriptura is that it's too extreme, making the individual their own authority, since it takes individuals reading the bible to form an opinion of it. If the errant mind is convinced of an errant position by reading the scripture and cannot be reasoned with, why is he not justified in dismissing the words of those who are right but disagree with him? He is justified despite his error because he has gleamed it from his perception of the Bible and this is the fundamental problem with Sola Scriptura.

What the Protestant needs to realize is that there are times when we should trust other people over our interpretation of the Bible.

Click to expand...

But by that reasoning that could be said of scripture plus tradition. Where let's say a RC parishioner is convinced that the RC interpretation is correct over the EO position. Ultimately the debate comes back to scripture trumping each other's tradition.

Tigger45 said:

But by that reasoning that could be said of scripture plus tradition. Where let's say a RC parishioner is convinced that the RC interpretation is correct over the EO position. Ultimately the debate comes back to scripture trumping each other's tradition.

Click to expand...

Well I'm not opposed to listening to tradition as an authoritative voice unlike Protestants. I consider it essential.

The problem you have is what I laid out before. It can't solely go back to scripture alone or else it goes back to the individual alone reading Scripture. I would suggest we recognise that there are times where the individual is wrong to rely solely on their own reading of the Bible but that is antithetical to the entire justification for Protestantism.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

"Sola Scriptura is the position that you can trust Scripture and Scripture alone as your sole authority for your faith and life."

This position would deny the crucial element of authority that living people play in our day to day life. My criticism of this Sola Scriptura is that it's too extreme, making the individual their own authority, since it takes individuals reading the bible to form an opinion of it. If the errant mind is convinced of an errant position by reading the scripture and cannot be reasoned with, why is he not justified in dismissing the words of those who are right but disagree with him? He is justified despite his error because he has gleamed it from his perception of the Bible and this is the fundamental problem with Sola Scriptura.

What the Protestant needs to realize is that there are times when we should trust other people over our interpretation of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Before you join the crowd the presents SS as meaning Scripture is the only authority for the believer, vs. the only infallble/sure standard, and or that it provides every thing needed to obey God, and is necessarily opposed to the magisterial office of the church, and or that it means all who read Scripture will come to the same conclusion, or another of the many other unreasonable misconceptions of SS, then you should carefully read a historical description of SS.

For while affirming that as concerns infallible revelation, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." and "that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them,"

yet the Westminster confession also states ,

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.(d)

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s)

Therefore, while the whole necessary counsel of God is said to be provided by Scripture, not only does this not mean always explicitly, or necessarily without the due us of ordinary means which I am sure would include dictionaries since Luther used them, but it does not say all believers will (verses "may") understand correctly the counsel of God, and thus the magisterial office is affirmed. And which includes recourse to the original languages.

Thus we see that the sufficiency of Scripture is not to mean it formally or explicitly provides all necessary things, nor that it by itself it will always be sufficient for all, but that together with its materially providence it is sufficient.

However, the foundational contrast with Catholicism is not only that SS rejects popes and councils as speaking as wholly inspired of God and also sometimes providing new public revelation thereby, but it does not hold that the veracity of a doctrine is assured under the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

Therefore, WC upholds wholly inspired and infallible Scripture as being the supreme standard on Truth:

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Finally, it can hardly be said that SS is understood as disallowing private revelation or the leading of the Spirit, for how else can pastors hope that God will speak to the hearts of the faithful during the offering?

I myself take a broader view of sufficiency, and and there are some, as myself, who hold (if not necessarily exampling much) to the perpetuity of Pentecostal gifts as not being in conflict with SS, and strongly affirm Scripture as being the supreme infallible standard, the sure word of God, thanks be to gGod.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Well I'm not opposed to listening to tradition as an authoritative voice unlike Protestants. I consider it essential.

The problem you have is what I laid out before. It can't solely go back to scripture alone or else it goes back to the individual alone reading Scripture. I would suggest we recognise that there are times where the individual is wrong to rely solely on their own reading of the Bible but that is antithetical to the entire justification for Protestantism.

Click to expand...

Sola scriptura is not scripture alone that’s nuda scriptura. Sola scriptura is where scripture is the final authority.

• Sola scriptura is unscriptural
"I believe that the doctrine of sola scriptura, that the Bible alone is our only authority, is itself unscriptural. I can't find anywhere in scripture God telling his people that the Bible alone is their sole authority. It would have been very convenient for me in terms of my career to find it, and I looked and I tried, but I couldn't ...How can that be? St. Paul also commends the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:2 for 'holding fast to the traditions that he had handed on to them'.
So I rejected sola scriptura because it was unscriptural."
- Dr Scott Hahn (ex-Protestant minister and ex-anti-Catholic)

• Sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality
"sola scriptura violates the principle of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture, and the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible."
- Dr Peter Kreeft (ex-Protestant)

• Sola Scriptura is unhistorical
"sola scriptura is unhistorical, for the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the Church, to teach them"
- Dr Peter Kreeft (ex-Protestant)

BNR32FAN said:

But scripture says so my friend. Matthew 16:18

Click to expand...

No, and I thought you rejected Rome in favor of the another contender for the coveted (false) title of the one true church?

The Lord established His church upon Scriptural Truth, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and upon "living stones" who prophesied and professed this, as Peter and the other apostles and prophets, Christ being the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:20)

And in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

PeaceByJesus said:

No, and I thought you rejected Rome in favor of the another contender for the coveted (false) title of the one true church?

The Lord established His church upon Scriptural Truth, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and upon "living stones" who prophesied and professed this, as Peter and the other apostles and prophets, Christ being the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:20)

And in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

Click to expand...

Matthew 16:18 has nothing to do with Rome my friend. It does however have everything to do with the Catholic Church. Where does the Bible say “The Lord established His church upon Scriptural Truth”? That is not mentioned anywhere in the chapter or anywhere in the Bible that I know of. You do confess that the Church was established upon “living stones” and what church did they establish? The church in Jerusalem? The church in Antioch? The Church in Corinth? The Church in Rome? All of which were Catholic Churches. Every church mentioned in the Bible was Catholic. The very churches the apostles themselves established. Do you believe that every single church the apostles established turned to apostasy?

BNR32FAN said:

Matthew 16:18 has nothing to do with Rome my friend. It does however have everything to do with the Catholic Church. Where does the Bible say “The Lord established His church upon Scriptural Truth”? That is not mentioned anywhere in the chapter or anywhere in the Bible that I know of.

Click to expand...

Once again you are resorting to a strawman as well as a either/or false dilemma. An exact explicit statement that "the Lord established His church upon Scriptural Truth" is not required for that to be manifestly true. It certain that the church was not established upon unScriptural falsehood, it was the Truth that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" that was that Rock, and hence Christ, the Word made flesh, which, in contrast to Peter, is what is clearly stated.

Moreover, it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the Lord and His church established its Truth claims, even its very "gospel of God Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:1-2) with Scripture manifestly being the prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the church, which Scripture testifies to Christ being its chief cornerstone.

And thus the Truth that the church is built upon Christ is not contrary to the church being built upon Scriptural Truth, that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," nor is it contrary to the church having men who confess that Truth as being its foundation.

But if as you reject that the Lord established His church upon this Scriptural Truth then it means you affirm Peter himself is the rock upon whom the church is built, and thus you are arguing as a RC.

You do confess that the Church was established upon “living stones” and what church did they establish? The church in Jerusalem? The church in Antioch? The Church in Corinth? The Church in Rome? All of which were Catholic Churches. Every church mentioned in the Bible was Catholic. The very churches the apostles themselves established. Do you believe that every single church the apostles established turned to apostasy?

Click to expand...

Why are you again engaging in logical fallacy and also asking what I already answered, even two days ago ? That neither your church nor that of Rome are uniquely the one true church, or even "a true church is simply not contrary to all of the NT churches being catholic (small "c") churches, though they varied greatly in faithfulness (as described in Rv. 2+3), and much less does the rejection of your church nor that of Rome mean that these all turned to apostasy, or that even Catholicism is utterly apostate and all that are in it.

Instead, the true people of God have typically ended up only being a relative remnant, (Romans 9:27) and will end up that way, (Revelation 11:13) with the church having begun with only a small percentage of Jews who believed. (Romans 11:5)

Likewise, Catholicism did not and has not yet become so corrupted that it did not retain salvific Truths amid her errors and deadness by which humble contrite souls could be saved, and thus the the one true church continued.

For the church which He promised to overcome the gates of Hell is not one particular organic church or groups of such, but is the Lord's body, the one true church to which He is married, which uniquely only 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.

Jason0047 said:

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

Sola Scriptura is the position that you can trust Scripture and Scripture alone as your sole authority for your faith and life. That the revelation known as the Bible can be trusted as your final word of authority for knowing God, salvation, true love, right living, and truth. Now, while there may be other books, letters, or epistles mentioned in Scripture that we don't have currently, they are not a part of the cannon of God's Word today, for there is no other written texts or revelations that is needed besides the Bible for all spiritual matters. For the Bible is unlike any other book in human history. It is clearly a book that is divine in origin that is backed up by many evidences in Science and History.

Now, some might object and point out that you can't prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture because such a position wouldn't have existed until the close of Revelation because the apostles were still speaking and writing the Word of God. However, that is not Sola Scriptura, though. Sola Scriptura is putting your faith in the written Word of God and believing it is suffient for all matters concerning one's faith in God. But what about the spoken Word of God? Does that not conflict with Sola Scriptura? No. First, the spoken Word of God was confirmed by the written Word of God (Acts 17:11). Second, one truth (the Spoken Word of God) was not in conflict with another truth (i.e. the Written Word of God). They both breathed in harmony until one passed away. In other words, picture it in your mind that there are two branches or sticks. One branch represents the Spoken Word and the other branch represents the Written Word. Now imagine one of those branches starting to vanish away out of thin air until it is gone. Is the one branch that remains any different just because the other branch is gone? Yeah, but wouldn't Sola Scriptura only exist until after the close of Revelation with Revelation 22:18-19 because you can't add anymore words to God's Word? No. This is not an exclusive teaching within Scripture; For the Bible teaches elsewhere that we are not to add to the written Word of God, too (Deuteronomy 4:2) (Deuteronomy 12:32) (Proverbs 30:5-6).

Anyways, the purpose of this study is to provide passages to help the reader in possessing Scripture so that they can trust in one divinely inspired written revelation or book (i.e. the Bible) for all spiritual matters in regards to having love, faith, and salvation in Him.

Also, before we examine this study, it is important to note that there are 3 major Words spoken about within Scripture that are connected to one another. There is the:

(1) Living Word of God (Jesus),
(2) Spoken Word of God (Either from God or His people),
(3) Written Word of God (Scripture).

All three are perfect and will endure for forever.
All three are tied together and are always connected.

The Biblical Case for Sola Scriptura:

I. All Scripture is Profitable for Doctrine, Correction, Righteous Teaching.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

A. All Scripture is profitable:

(a) for doctrine, (because)
~ (1) Scripture is sufficient for eternal life (1 John 5:13).
(b) for correction (and)
(c) for instruction in righteousness,
(It is sufficient in righteous training because):
~ (1) Scripture brings about hope (faith). (Romans 15:4).
~ (2) Scripture can be hid within one's heart so as not to sin against God. (Psalm 119:11)

All Scripture is profitable so that the man of God:
(d) May be perfect.
(e) Completely furnished unto all good works.
~ (1) For speaking Scripture provides spiritual nutrition or life (Matthew 4:4)
~ (2) For Scripture brings about joy (1 John 1:4)
(In fact, one of the fruits of the Spirit is joy) (Galatians 5:22)
All Scripture is profitable so that the man of God may be perfect and complete unto all good works. For Scripture is profitable in (1) doctrine, (2) correction, and (3) training in righteousness. All three of these things are essential to a person's faith in God and will lead the man of God to beperfect and completeunto all good works. Not some good works. But all good works. No oral Words of God alone were ever mentioned to do such a thing for us currently or during the time the "Written Word of God" came into being. No "Spoken Word of God" was ever mentioned to make the man of God perfect and complete unto all good works in addition to Scripture. This shows us that Scripture and Scripture alone is sufficient in and of itself because it will lead the man of God unto perfection and being fully furnished unto every good work.

For man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of his mouth that is from God. This is to live spiritually. For it is how one's faith even begins. So we gain faith and a life with God. We gain spiritual nutrients from speaking God's Word, whereby we can grow spiritually so as to conform to the image of Christ in being perfect and to allow Christ to do every good work within us. For you are what you eat. For the seed of the Word took root within your heart when you first believed and it grows within you to bring forth much fruit. However, how can you believe or grow if there is no "Written Word of God" which is nailed down in written form for all to agree?​

II. Do Not Add or Take Away or Go Beyond What is Written:

A. Do Not Add or Take Away From God's Word:

Revelation 22:18-19
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Before you say it, yes, I am aware that Revelation 22:18-19 is speaking in context of the book of Revelation. However, we have to think about this logically, though. If you can't add any words to the book of Revelation, then you can't add any words to the Bible, too. Why? Well, the book of Revelation is the end of the Bible. It is the close of the whole book known as the Bible. It is the end. This is why I believe Revelation 22:18-19 is prophetic in the fact that it has a secondary fulfillment of speaking about "this book" in reference to "Revelation" in being a part of the book known as the Bible. How so? Well, there are several passages that have a double fulfillment to them. Here is one them:

Hosea 11:1
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."

First Fulfillment (That was in the Past):
Reference to the exodus of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.

Secondary Fulfillment (That was in the Future):
Reference to the Love of God calling his Son back to the comparative safety in Egypt so that he might die for his people. Matthew 2:15 - "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."
Also, in Revelation 2 and Revelation 3, Jesus gives His assessment of various churches. In these chapters, Jesus spoke of real churches that existed at the time when John written the book of Revelation, but also to the spiritual state of churches thru out time and today, too. For one of the churches is told to repent or they will go thru the tribulation. For obviously there has been Luke warm churches thru out history and today like the Laodician church.

Besides, there are hundreds of double fulfillment passages in the Bible. How so? Well, the "Typifications of Christ" in the Old Testament are essentially double fulfillment type passages (See this forum thread here to check them out). In fact, Jesus said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39). In other words, the OT Scriptures are a double fulfilment. For the Old Testament Scriptures spoke of the events of it's time and they also spoke about Jesus Christ, too; For Jesus said so Himself.

Also, consider the prophecy in the book of Daniel which was to seal up vision and prophecy versus the prophecy of the book of Revelation which is not sealed.
~ Daniel's End Times prophecy speaks of the events in Revelation. These prophecies of the End Times (that were in a book, i.e. scroll) were to be sealed up and closed (Daniel 12:4) because they were a far way off because Jesus still needed to come to save His people from their sins.

Revelation 22:10 mentions the spirit of prophecy that the book is open.
~ Now, the book is open whereby the things within Revelation (That Daniel also talks about) is exposed so that it will be fulfilled in bringing in the End with Christ's return.
For the entire book of Revelation is about the End Times leading up to Christ's return.
For the end of Revelation closes with Jesus saying,
"Surely I come quickly." (Revelation 22:20).

This means that we should be looking to Jesus return and not some new Revelation.
Paul said if we or an angel from heaven preach to you another gospel, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8). It is strange that both the Mormon and the Muslim religion are founded on a revelation that comes from angels. Yet the Bible warns against this very thing.

In fact, Jesus Christ commanded that we as believers were to preach this gospel unto all the world (or all nations) until Christ's return.

Matthew 24:14
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

This is also what we see in Revelation. For this same gospel message was still going out to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people (That is still an ongoing process today).

Revelation 14:6
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,"

In other words, God knew that the book of Revelation was going to be a part of the Bible. For surely God does not want us accepting new revelations or additional written works to add to the Bible like with the book of Mormon, the Koran, the added oral traditions of the RCC (Roman Catholic Church), and or the added writings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For it is not a coincidence that this warning in Revelation 22 is at the close of our Bibles. In other words, the new reader (Who is unaware that the Bible is made up of 66 books) would understand that you are not to add or subtract from the book (i.e. the Bible) that they were reading. For God obviously intended Scripture to be compiled into one book known as the Bible. For Christians today do regard the Bible as one book, for it is published as one book and it is not generally published into 66 individual books or a 66 book volume set. There are no 66 individual old manuscripts in their original form anymore; And God does not exist in the past abiding with these old manuscripts. These manuscripts are dead and gone. For they were written in a language that is dead. All these things are in the past. However, our God is not a God who just exists in the past. Our God is present and ever active with His people today. For our God is not the God of the dead but of the living. He works with His people who are alive with the written Revelation known as the Bible. Adding any new words to that revelation would be adding to God's Holy written Word as it currently exists with His people who live today.
​

B. Warning Against Altering God's Word is Confirmed in Old Testament:

Forbidding in altering God's Word in Revelation 22:18-19 can also be seen in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 12:32 which says not to add or take away from the words of God's commands. This was the written Word. The Law. God did not want His words being changed or altered in any way by adding or taking away from His words. In fact, if somebody were to try and destroy God's Word, we see that God would protect or preserve His Word. We see an example of this in Jeremiah 36:22-32 where king Jehoiakim burns the scroll in a fire (i.e. to eliminate God's Word) and then later God has Jeremiah re-create another roll that says the same thing. In other words, the written Word could not be destroyed by fire, just as the Living Word cannot be destroyed by fire. For the fourth who was in the fiery furnace with Daniel's friends was the Son of God (Daniel 3:25). For even when Moses had broken or shattered the tablets of stone that had the direct hand written Word of God (i.e. the Ten Commandments) on it (Exodus 32:19), the Lord our God had hand written them down on tablets of stone again (Exodus 34:1). For the Word of God cannot be broken (John 10:35). For Jesus said, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). Meaning, that Christ's words would be memorialized by being written down where they would not pass away (or be deleted by men).
​

C. Do Not Go Above What is Written on how we think about men:

The Bible says we are not to go above that which is written (concerning our thoughts of men). Granted, this verse is not all inclusive to the fact that we are not to go above Scripture on other matters, but what this passage does is show us a pattern that Scripture and Scripture alone is our sole authority on the faith and spiritual matters. It confirms that we are not to add or take away from God's Word.

1 Corinthians 4:6
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."​

Click to expand...

Hello brother and God bless. Some good things you pointed out. But I had to make another post to clarify some issues here.

God bless

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

Dave L said:

I think if we were to compare what scripture provides with what present day vibes and voices provide, we would be amazed.

Click to expand...

Dave L said:

I think if we were to compare what scripture provides with what present day vibes and voices provide, we would be amazed.

Click to expand...

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

LoveofTruth said:

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

Click to expand...

Do you have scripture to support this?

Dave L said:

Do you have scripture to support this?

Click to expand...

Scriptures given by the Soirit of God which are understood by the Spirit iof God as the primary rule and as we read in 1Cor 2

1 Corinthians 2 - 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”

And maybe read my post to consider what I said there.

The scripture testified of Jesus Christ and the gospel but they are not Jesus Christ they are not alone without the first rule of the Spirit revealing them.

Yes men can read them without being born again but they cannot know the things of God or His word without the primary rule as I speak of in the post

LoveofTruth said:

Scriptures given by the Soirit of God which are understood by the Spirit iof God as the primary rule and as we read in 1Cor 2

1 Corinthians 2 - 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”

And maybe read my post to consider what I said there.

The scripture testified of Jesus Christ and the gospel but they are not Jesus Christ they are not alone without the first rule of the Spirit revealing them.

Yes men can read them without being born again but they cannot know the things of God or His word without the primary rule as I speak of in the post

Click to expand...

But this = Sola Scriptura. The Holy Spirit gives understanding of the written word and the spoken word based on the written.

Dave L said:

But this = Sola Scriptura. The Holy Spirit gives understanding of the written word and the spoken word based on the written.

Click to expand...

then it is not "sola" scriptura or scripture "alone". The expression is not clear to those who hear it.

Scripture then, is not the primary rule of faith and practice it is the Spirit that gave the scriptures and the Spirit who gives understanding of the scripture the anointing teaches us all things (1 John 2:27 ) and the Holy Spirit will guide into all truth. Yes the scriptures are the scriptures of truth, but, he pharisees had scripture alone and did not know Jesus.

LoveofTruth said:

then it is not "solo" scriptura or scripture "alone". The expression is not clear to those who hear it.

Scripture then, is not the primary rule of faith and practice it is the Spirit that gave the scriptures and the Spirit who gives understanding of the scripture the anointing teaches us all things (1 John 2:27 ) and the Holy Spirit will guide into all truth. Yes the scriptures are the scriptures of truth, but, he pharisees had scripture alone and did not know Jesus.

Click to expand...

It is scripture alone. If you consider the history of the claim. And the dependence upon the Holy Spirit's quickening of the reader. Before they can understand the word. Taught by those who hold to the doctrine. You cannot read scripture like you would a cook book. It takes illumination by the Holy Spirit.

Dave L said:

It is scripture alone. If you consider the history of the claim. And the dependence upon the Holy Spirit's quickening of the reader. Before they can understand the word. Taught by those who hold to the doctrine. You cannot read scripture like you would a cook book. It takes illumination by the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

So it is not scripture "alone" or "Sola scriptura". The first primary rule is the Spirit in faith in the new creation and to live and move and understand from the new creation. This is the rule. The scriptures are a secondary rule to this though in perfect harmony with them and the Spirit will never contradict what he has spoken in scripture through men.

"15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."(Galatians 6:15,16 KJV)