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

[thecolorsblend]

Using the Westminster Confession as a historical authority

Wouldn’t it be lovely if the entire Protestant world could agree on that (or any) single definition for the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You mean the rhetorical statements suffixed with question marks? Those are the only question marks in post 129.

Okay, if you are going to give me these kinds of responses (instead of you dealing with Scripture on this matter), I think it is best that I move on from talking to you.

 

[GingerBeer]

Wouldn’t it be lovely if the entire Protestant world could agree on that (or any) single definition for the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura?

It would be refreshing but it is hardly likely to happen.

 

[GingerBeer]

instead of you dealing with Scripture on this matter

I posted a set of passages from the bible but you just fobbed them off.

 

[Fidelibus]

A question to sola scripturists. (one that appeal to the Bible alone as their sole rule of faith) Why should anyone believe in your particular denominational teaching rather than another?

 

[Mountainmike]

If I may jump in here for a moment without reading all the previous exchanges, the premise that under SS something must explicitly stated in order to be Scriptural is simply a straw man, and thus your argument is invalid insofar as resting upon that premise.

Using the Westminster Confession as a historical authority, it plainly states that what is "necessary for God's 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:"

But the westminster confession is a #FAIL for sola scriptura.
If scripture stands alone. Why do you need a confession?

Answer it replaces tradition (ie what the first 1500 years thought the bible meant including authority decisions on it)
With the west minster confession which is pure man made tradition of the reformation (ie what reformatinists changed it to mean)

 

[Mountainmike]

I posted a set of passages from the bible but you just fobbed them off.

So are you going to tackle the substantial issues of post 140 that make a nonsense of sola scriptura - all of them scriptural!

 

[GingerBeer]

So are you going to tackle the substantial issues of post 140 that make a nonsense of sola scriptura - all of them scriptural!

No, none of my contributions to the discussion were supportive of sola scriptura. Why are you asking me to tackle your contribution as if I opposed it?

 

[parousia70]

So you believe it was men and not God who assembled the Canon?

Of course, it was men, just as men wrote the scriptures... men infallibly, inerrantly inspired by God.

You believe something different than that?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There are 101 problems with the false premise that is sola scriptura.

Here a few - all biblical!

Start with the fact that scripture does nowhere contain its own table of contents.
So how do you even know what is scripture, without tradition or authority?
History records the first canons were deemed heretical, and the church decided the contents in council. The new testament did not self select nor did it fall out of the sky.

So you believe GOD did not work through His people to preserve His Word? My friend: It was not the church ultimately who decided which books are in the Bible. It was GOD who decided which books are in Scripture because GOD says in His Word that His Word is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5), and that it would be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). GOD knew Revelation would be in one whole book known as the Bible today. GOD says in His Word (the Bible) not to add or take away from the prophecy of the words of this book (Which is known as the Bible today). The Bible today is not treated as separate books. It is regarded as one book by many today. Just as GOD worked through men to inspire Scripture, GOD worked through men to preserve the Bible. For why would GOD allow His Word to fall like seed by the way? It makes no sense. The evidences are there for any person to examine and see that the Bible is unlike any other book in human history.

Check out my Blogger article here for the many evidences that back up God's Word:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

So the Bible is divine in origin by looking at the observable evidences and not in believing what some church says about the Bible. Historical evidences are not reliable to me. Who is to say that someone (not a part of the church) re-wrote history? Also, I can check what the RCC does now and what they say is contradictory to what the Bible teaches (Like bowing to statues, and praying to other entities besides GOD, calling a man father on the Earth, not acknowledging or downplaying the command on idolatry in Exodus 20, etc.). So I am not going to trust them. No offense. I am going to trust what GOD's Word says. Revelation talks about how if you add to God's Word, the plagues that are in that book will be added to you (See Revelation 22:18-19). This is not referring to the plagues just in Revelation. It is referring to the plagues in the whole of God's Word for the church today (i.e. the Bible).

For men have already lost their voice over this:

Bible Correctors lose Voice
Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show

Second, Jesus never said "write this" or "read this" he said "do this" and "teach this" - and the faith was handed on by tradition (which is paradosis, the faith handed down) from the apostles and succession bishops. Read the early fathers! Its why Paul says "stat true to tradition" (ie the faith handed down) and is why the early fathers all refer to staying true to the teaching of bishops...primacy at Rome. Third the "new testament" of which Jesus said "do this" was not even a book (or was not in origin) testament is same as covenant.

That's ridiculous! We have written Scripture that gives us the teachings of Jesus Christ! There is not another set of teachings that are in auditory form or in practice alone along with Scripture. Have you never heard of the game where a person tells something to a person, and then they tell another person, and then they tell another? By the end, the story is not the same because people have a way of embellishing things or interpreting what is said. People can misunderstand. But if it is written down there is less chance of that message in being corrupted like with someone passing a long a message to many people.

The "new covenant/testament in my blood" is the eucharist, not a book! The book was compiled to support tradition not to replace it.

No. The New Testament was set into place by the actual blood of Jesus back at the time of the cross and not in the observance of the Lord's supper. We are told to observe the Lord's supper in remembrance of what He did. His blood was shed 2,000 years ago at calvary and it created a New Covenant from that point on. We don't need to keep re-instituting the New Covenant over and over and over and over and over and over again. That does not make any sense.

Fourth if you all have is scripture, you do not have the word of God.
The word of God is the words AND the correct meaning for them. The meaning handed by tradition. (faith handed down) Obviously. And by divorcing scripture from tradition (the faith handed down) is why protestants disagree on every key aspect of doctrine.

No. In all Jesus' teachings He referred to the divine authority of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-18; Matthew 8:17;Matthew 12:40-42; Luke 4:18-21; Luke 10:25-28; Luke 15:29-31; Luke 17:32; Luke 24:25-45; John 5:39-47). He quoted the Old Testament 78 times, the Pentateuch alone 26 times. He quoted from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, and Malachi. He referred to the Old Testament as “The Scriptures,” “the word of God,” and “the wisdom of God.” Jesus defeated the devil by using Scripture. For three words, "It is written" was said 3 times by Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11. There is no imaginary thing called "auditory traditions" or the "practice traditions" that was separate to the written Word of God. They had written down everything they wanted to teach for us today so that nobody can alter or change what God's Word says. For we both know the problem that occurs even in folks misinterpreting Scripture even. Imagine the problems in trying to interpret these so called "extra biblical traditions" over the years.

Fifth- even the bible says "the foundation of truth is the church" (not scripture!) because Jesus gave his apostles authoirity (the power to "bind and loose"). Without it you would not have a bible.

Nope. Jesus is the head of the body of the church. Jesus is the foundation upon which we lay or build. Jesus is the rock. Not Peter. For no man can lay another foundation but Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11). A foundation is like a concrete slab that one would place their house upon (When building a house). Jesus is our foundation! He is the one we follow and not Peter! For most of the New Testament was written by Paul and not Peter. As for binding and loosing: This is in regards to the teachings that the church would agree on based upon the Written Word of GOD that came from the teachings of Jesus Christ. The servant is not above His master.

1 "Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways.
2 In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. God has appointed him heir of all things and made the universe through him." (Hebrews 1:1-2) (CSB).

And so on.....

Sola scriptura is a pure man made tradition of the reformation. It is certainly not justified either in or by scripture or history. Nobody was sola scriptura before that.
Everyone then became their own pope with endless schism because of it. Even Luther lamented "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"! All because of sola scriptura.

You can keep telling yourself that, but it simply would not be true, my friend.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, none of my contributions to the discussion were supportive of sola scriptura. Why are you asking me to tackle your contribution as if I opposed it?

100 apologies! i thought you were the OP!

 

[Jonathan OShea]

Maybe i don't understand well what sola scriptura is but,
I think sola scriptura fails, when we need to know something in a matter the bible doesn't talk about, there is other ways of knowing from God, like experience, or the guidance of the Holy spirit.
Also if you have only biblical knowledge of God but have not experienced anything from Him your knowledge is very limited.

Does Sola Scriptura mean that even though the Bible says to obey those that have rule over you that you only have to if it is plainly written in scripture? Like regarding clothing, marriage, etc?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course, it was men, just as men wrote the scriptures... men infallibly, inerrantly inspired by God.

You believe something different than that?

Let's just cut to the chase here. Do you believe GOD is the One who ultimately wrote Scripture?

Do you believe the Bible has errors in it?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I posted a set of passages from the bible but you just fobbed them off.

I must have missed them. But you cannot miss the OP. I can say that you did the same with my verses in the OP.

 

[NBB]

For example, the casting out devils thing, there is a huge 'i'm not sure about this' and 'chritians cannot have demons' debate, and a person doing ministry needs to know that christians can have demons, some say they go away when you convert, maybe God had mercy on some of your troubles and free you of something, but christians can have devils and satanic works against them, and the bible seems not to talk about this, but its important, so not everything pertaining christian life is in the bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For example, the casting out devils thing, there is a huge 'i'm not sure about this' and 'chritians cannot have demons' debate, and a person doing ministry needs to know that christians can have demons, some say they go away when you convert, maybe God had mercy on some of your troubles and free you of something, but christians can have devils and satanic works against them, and the bible seems not to talk about this, but its important, so not everything pertaining christian life is in the bible.

No. What fellowship does light have with darkness?

 

[NBB]

No. What fellowship does light have with darkness?

I wish the bible had been explicit about this, so this debate could not exist... but still there is a lot of debate. I have casted out evil spirits of myself and another pastor casted them out of me as well, that makes me a non christian? i think i was born again but now what?.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I wish the bible had been explicit about this, so this debate could not exist... but still there is a lot of debate. I have casted out evil spirits of myself and another pastor casted them out of me as well, that makes me a non christian? i think i was born again but now what?.

I am not allowed to comment on that statement here on the forums.

 

[NBB]

I am not allowed to comment on that statement here on the forums.

I was just expressing that there is cases when people have trouble with devils and are christians, and if they go to someone for help, they just can't say 'but christians can't have demons'...

God bless.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I was just expressing that there is cases when people have trouble with devils and are christians, and if they go to someone for help, they just can't say 'but christians can't have demons'...

God bless.

There is nothing in the Bible that the Bible does not address as a part of the faith.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine so that the man of God may be perfect unto every good work. Yet, you are saying otherwise.