A few questions for Protestants

[BBAS 64]

Here's my objection.
This "Sola Scriptura" argument falls apart once we realize that the majority of the Human Race could not read written language until modern times, nor were books able to be mass produced. Jesus used a different method of passing on his true, correct and infallible teaching. If it wasn't written language, then what other channel of communication was selected?

Jesus Christ and the apostles instituted a system for preserving and passing on His truth to the masses for the 1500 years before the invention of the printing press that didn't use books or literacy. And Jesus knew what he was doing.

So, again, since we know it wasn't books or Literacy, what channel of communication do you believe Jesus used to preserve and pass on his truth to the human race?

Good Day, Parousia

Well your supposed objection is caused by a clear misunderstanding on you part:

Sola Scriptura defined:

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

The rest of you post unfortunately is known as a baseless assertion on your part. Name it claim it statements from your denomination are not very useful to use for a foundation of an argument.

In Him,

Bill

 

[com7fy8]

And, like I mean, above, God is able to simply not have us trust certain ones and groups. He knows.

David Koresh used to say the same sort of thing.

Well, how about what Jesus says?

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me," in John 10:27.

"'Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.'" (John 10:5)

So, Jesus Himself says this. He makes us able to follow Him so we are not fooled by the voices of wrong leaders and the charming voices of ones we should not marry.

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (in Matthew 11:29-30)

I have learned that this "yoke" has us in personal union of connection with Jesus Himself so He is personally guiding us in His love which gives our souls "rest". And Jesus our Shepherd guides us reliably about whom to trust and how.

So, as I have meant > there can be wrong people along with right people, in a same denomination or other Bible claiming group. And with God we can tell the difference so we aren't blaming and accusing some whole group because of what certain bad and/or incompetent actors are doing. But we can feed on the good example of the real ones, not only go by say-so.

But there does appear to be a problem of how higher denominational leaders and many pew members can not tell the difference between a psychopath and a pastor who is qualified according the our Apostle Paul's standards > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. So, in case some group has been ordaining evil people, I am concerned about the qualifications of higher leaders who could do that . . . no matter what claims they might make about themselves.

So, why call attention to David Koresh? I have offered what I find that Jesus Himself has said. Jesus is worthy of our attention. Isn't David dead? And I don't know of any group who now is naming him and feeding his ideas to their group. But now it does appear that there are leaders who can't tell the difference about whom they are ordaining. And it appears there are now pew members of various groups, who are not making sure with God about whom they trust. So, this is not only a problem of cults.

And Joshua 9:1-14 gives us an object lesson, in my opinion, of what can happen because leaders did not make sure with the LORD about the people who came to make a treaty with Israel. They evaluated untrustworthy people by their rigged evidence.

And Jesus Himself does say >

"'Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.'" (John 7:24)

So, this is basic. But a cult leader or a denominational impostor might tell you these scriptures, in order to pass oneself off as a real representative of God's word. So, it is not wise to throw out God's word just because a wrong person has said things which are in the Bible and might say what the Bible even means.

Counterfeit money can have many features found on real money, right? But if someone hands you a real hundred dollar bill, will you say "That has the sort of things you can find on a counterfeit?"

But a point I am offering is that within a group, there can be false ones along with real ones. So, it is not wise to throw out a whole group because you have found a counterfeit. And we need to be able to tell the difference so we can connect with the real sheep of Jesus, so we can share as His family and minister God's grace to one another > 1 Peter 4:9-10. You with Jesus can tell who is really ministering God's own grace to you . . . effecting you with His own love (Romans 5:5) which changes us into the image of Jesus. This grace is almighty to change our character and make us immune to sin-sick stuff of boredom and loneliness and hate and unforgiveness and lusts and worry and fear and self-righteous judging. And His love is beautifully wonderful in Heaven's pleasantness of "rest for your souls", plus this love is all-loving while having us in family sharing with one another who are sheep of Jesus. This is basic, I offer. We trust God through Jesus, for this.

 

[Buzzard3]

Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable, for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to).

Protestants study the NT all their lives and they still get it wrong! Admitting that the Scriptures describe the early church with a strict hierarchy headed by Peter is too close to the Catholic model, so they steer well clear of that reading and insist that the early church was some invisible, nebulous community in which each individual was directly led by the Holy Spirit ... no need for any middle-man like an official church.

 

[com7fy8]

some invisible, nebulous community in which each individual was directly led by the Holy Spirit ... no need for any middle-man like an official church.

But every Christian is the church, and God's word says we are led by the Holy Spirit > Romans 8:14.

And when Peter wanted to appoint deacons, he trusted "the multitude of the disciples" - - - "brethren" to select the right men for the job > Act 6:1-7. They were able to tell the difference between qualified men and ones not qualified; because God's children have the Holy Spirit making us able to tell the difference.

But now there are high-up people who can't tell the difference about whom they should trust to be pastors. This problem is in various groups. But our Apostle Paul is clear who qualifies just to be considered for taking "care of the church of God" > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. Because even high-up leaders disobey this, their wrong spirit makes them so they are in darkness so they can even select and train and ordain predators and con artists.

But right in their same groups can be Jesus' people who are worth sharing with and receiving how they minister God's grace with one another > 1 Peter 4:9-10. The wrong ones can't stop this!

 

[SamInNi]

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

 

[Buzzard3]

Catholic church, that Peter was the rock. Tell me if I have that correct.

We claim that the rock is Christ and that the church is founded on Christ.

Christ is the head of the Church, which is founded on him. But Jesus gave Peter "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).
What do you think that actually means? ... for a mere, imperfect man to have "the keys to the kingdom of heaven"?

And why would God do that? ... give a sinful, flawed human being the "keys" of supernatural power that surely belong only to God?
These are important questions that I never hear Protestants asking themselves.

If Protestants understood the significance of Jesus giving Peter the "keys", they would understand why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (which means "rock"), and why Jesus said he will build his Church on Peter (Matt 16:18).
Christ is the rock on which the Church is built, and Peter is the rock on which the Church is built ... bcoz Peter was given the "keys".

 

[com7fy8]

Christ is the head of the Church, which is founded on him.
But Jesus gave Peter "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19). What do you think that actually means? ... for a mere, imperfect man to have "the keys to the kingdom of heaven"?
And why would God do that? ... give a sinful, flawed human being the "keys" of supernatural power that surely belong only to God?
These are important questions that I never hear Protestants asking themselves.

It appears Jesus said this to Peter. But Peter says leaders are our "examples" > 1 Peter 5:3. So, as much as we follow our examples, we do what they do. And God's grace can minister to us the abilities of the keys. Peter could pass on the grace Jesus gave to Peter, like Peter says for all of us to do > 1 Peter 4:9-10. I understand that keys to God's kingdom would include >

prayer

forgiving

feeding on God's word

submission to the Holy Spirit

humility

The merciful will receive mercy > mercy, then, could be considered a key, I suppose, to getting mercy.

Certain Protestants might not think of these things as being "keys", but we know how well they work

All these are keys that open things up for us in God's kingdom. God in His grace in us makes us able to partake of Heaven's kingdom, and we minister this grace to one another, as Peter himself says to do > 1 Peter 4:9-10.

 

[Buzzard3]

every Christian is the church

... which is why there are literally tens of thousands of different Protestant sects and denominations, each pushing their own interpretation of the Bible.

Are we to believe that this chaotic situation is the answer to Jesus' prayer that his disciples may be "one" (John 17:21)? I think not.

Thank God for the Catholic Church!

 

[parousia70]

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

Yet even the adhearants to Sola Scriptura have automatically appealed to an authority OUTSIDE of the scriptures to tell them what is and what isn't "scripture".

The Canon of scripture did not "self collate" into the books we have today that we call "the Holy Bible" as the adhearants to "sola Scriptura" would wish.
Men of the Church, with authority, hundreds of years AFTER they were written, assembled and infallibly declared which gospels, epistles and letters WERE scripture and which were NOT.

And today, EVERY adhearant to "sola Scriptura" is subordinate to, conceeds and abides by, the authority these men of the Church exercised when they assembled the Canon.

 

[Fidelibus]

We all "get" that Catholics think that's the case.

That's right, along with these Catholics and their writings such as: (aka, Apostolic Fathers.)

Ignatius of Antioch:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 110]).

Polycarp:

And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

Justin Martyr:

For the men of former generations, who instituted private and public rites in honor of such as were more powerful, caused forgetfulness of the Catholic faith to take possession of their posterity (On the Sole Government of God 1 [inter A.D. 151-155]).

Irenaeus:

The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles (Against Heresies 3:4 [A.D. 189]).

The Muratorian Canon:

He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church (3 [inter A.D. 180-200]).

Tertullian:

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22, 30 [A.D.200]).

Clement of Alexandria:

It is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled…Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith (Stromata 7:17 [A.D. 202]).

Origen:

Let such things, however, be lightly esteemed by him who is desirous of being trained in divine learning, while retaining in its integrity the rule of the Catholic faith (On First Principles 3 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus:

Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church! (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 228]).

-Cyprian of Carthage:

They are striving here also to distract the members of Christ into schismatical parties, and to cut and tear the one body of the Catholic Church (Epistle 40:2 [circa A.D. 250]).

-Just to name a few. (There are plenty of others!)

It doesn't become true just because church members believe that particular teaching of their church.

-Hmmmm.... let's see, should we believe what Albion has to say, or what the early Church Fathers knew and learned from the apostles have to say? I think we all know the answer to that! He-he! (Again, it's not "their" Church, it's Christ's Church!)

Nor is it true if Mormons say the same thing about their church or Orthodox Christians say it of theirs, or if the members of any other church body say it of their own.

-I agree, because the Mormon, Protestant, non-denominational churches and sects were founded by mere men, and never existed up until five hundred or less years ago. I didn't see any mention of the Anglican church, the SDA church, the Presbyterian church, the Methodist church, or any of the many, many other Protestant/non-denominational churches or sects in the ECF writings.

Could we return to the discussion instead of posting testimonials??

Yeah, I get it Albion, early church history/church authority is not a very popular subject for members of Protestant and non-denominational churches or sects.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[parousia70]

Again, (and I welcome any protestant to demonstrate why these cited scriptures do not mean what I contend they do) The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Pope Clement of Rome (late 80s AD) wrote a letter to the Corinthians, and the letter was in response to THEIR appeal to him to solve a serious doctrinal division they were having. So, even in the late first century there were apostolic Churches that were making appeals to the Bishop of Rome to settle grave disputes.

The fact remains that There was only one denomination until the protesting catholics broke away in the 1500s (Luther etc). Moreover, only one group of christians can trace its existence from the first century down to today: the catholics. No protestant denomination traces its history back to before about AD 1500. So, we know for a fact that no modern protestant sect has apostolic origins. Yet the catholic sect does, for it originated in the first century and continued in unbroken existence down to our times.

It has continued for 20 centuries now, and its doctrines have never changed. No other organization or government has lasted even beyond a few centuries.

Francis is, also without question, the 266th successor of the Prime Minister of the King, Bishop of the Church of Rome, an apostolic Church which appears in our bibles.

Apostolic Succession is historical and biblical. It can be traced by history, going all the way back generation by generation to Jesus. This is precisely why the Catholic priesthood is the one Jesus instituted 20 centuries ago. This is NOT at all to say those outside of this order are not Christians, but only to say that God has created a governmental order to the Church, and this has not been followed by protestants who broke away from the government of the Church and denied it existed any longer since "the papacy became the endtimes antichrist" (as Luther falsely taught). Obviously, the chaos of the protestant world is the result of this breaking away from the ordained Church government instituted by Christ.

 

[BBAS 64]

Yet even the adhearants to Sola Scriptura have automatically appealed to an authority OUTSIDE of the scriptures to tell them what is and what isn't "scripture".

The Canon of scripture did not "self collate" into the books we have today that we call "the Holy Bible" as the adhearants to "sola Scriptura" would wish.
Men of the Church, with authority, hundreds of years AFTER they were written, assembled and infallibly declared which gospels, epistles and letters WERE scripture and which were NOT.

And today, EVERY adhearant to "sola Scriptura" is subordinate to, conceeds and abides by, the authority these men of the Church exercised when they assembled the Canon.

Good Day,

Not sure what this has to do with Sola Scriptura has I have rightly defined... Classic member of the Roman Church red-herring fallacy.

The OT is the of God Breathed words give to his OC people think Jerome. Now I know that at Trent the Roman denomination, created it's own Cannon for it's members and supposed for it's self the need of the authority and Claimed it for it's self.

The NT is the product if Historical investigation not authoritative but factual ( again you presuppose it is need because your denomination tells you so, and in error you mistakenly believe them).

Lets not conflate the 2 they are clearly defined both functional and historical.


In Him,

Billl

 

[Fidelibus]

I don't know how many times this has been explained by now, but the same comment seems always to come back from Catholic members. I don't know why that is, but here's the explanation once again--

Maybe because it is an un-biblical, man-made belief that did not exist for the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity. Repeating it over and over again does not make it true!

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible IS the ultimate authority for essential doctrine, being that it is God's revelation to mankind.

Could you show the Book, Chapter, and verse in the Bible that say's this?

What Sola Scriptura does not mean is that every last human is guaranteed to understand everything that's in the Bible. In fact, there isn't anything that in this life, is guaranteed to be correctly apprehended by every last human on Earth.

So, Albion, is it your belief that every Protestant or non-denominational church or sect believes or should believe 100% with your definition of Sola Scriptura you posted here? If not, what authority within these churches or sects would have the final authority on who has the correct definition of SS, and who does not? Is it the Anglican church? The Baptist churches? The Methodist church? Pastor Bob and his home church? Pastor Jane and her church that rents out the local school gym? etc. etc. Who's or what authority would make that decision?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

That's right, along with these Catholics and their writings such as: (aka, Apostolic Fathers.)

Aside from the obviously inaccurate attempt to make all the Early Church Fathers be seen as members of the Church of Rome of later times, you already knew that Protestants are guided in essentials by the word of God and not the words of men.

 

[Albion]

Maybe because it is an un-biblical, man-made belief that did not exist for the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity. Repeating it over and over again does not make it true!

Well, the Bible did indeed exist prior to the Protestant Reformation.

That aside, the issue was Sola Scriptura and the misunderstanding your post pointed to about the meaning of the term. But if it is not necessary to know what Sola Scriptura means before we evaluate whether or not it is an appropriate standard of belief, we might as well end this discussion here.

 

[Hank77]

Wouldn't it be more efficient for you to just start a thread based on the text, rather than go for the gotcha approach?


1Ti 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that,
1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Going back to the OP's question of what is the pillar and buttress of the truth, you have stated it right here in the very next verse.

1Ti 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that,
1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

This, the gospel of Christ is the pillar and buttress of the truth of the Christian religion and faith.

 

[Albion]

Going back to the OP's question of what is the pillar and buttress of the truth, you have stated it right here in the very next verse.

1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

This, the gospel of Christ is the pillar and buttress of the truth of the Christian religion and faith.

On the contrary, the explanation is in the very same sentence. See the pink wording above, which clearly identifies "the household of God" as being the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[BBAS 64]

Going back to the OP's question of what is the pillar and buttress of the truth, you have stated it right here in the very next verse.

1Ti 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that,
1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

This, the gospel of Christ is the pillar and buttress of the truth of the Christian religion and faith.

Good Day,

Chrysostom (349-407): HOMILY IX 2 Timothy iii. 16, 17.— For this reason he writes: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.” NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Homily 9.

 

[timothyu]

Again, the governmental structure that Jesus instituted for His church, As clearly evidenced in the holy Scriptures, is real and visible… it is not some invisible, non existent structure-less feel-good mythos, as you would have us believe.

Jesus didn't come to establish yet another religion. As a matter of fact he showed how corrupt it was in the hands of man. The Kingdom of the Father is not a religion nor will the Kingdom to come be a religious institution. It is a way of life to be practiced by all which upon paying it forward, needs no hierarchy. Caring for others needs no government. The entire Bible shows how God teaches man how to live (not how to build institutions and follow rituals) and man continues throughout to refuse to live according to God's will, carrying on in the ways and will of man. The choice is ours to make which path we follow and defend.

Jesus teaches about not following the will of man but instead the will of the Father (which is put His will before our own and love all as self) and yet the institutional church grabs at the chance to incorporate and team up with the governments of man to achieve power and follow in the same old tired ways of man (as we see with Corporatism today) rather than ways of the Kingdom. So God's truth may survive in scriptures but it certainly is not represented in a movement turned institution that as is common with man, went rogue and re-joined the world of man. Chalk another one up for the Adversary. It's will being done in earth rather than the Father's.

 

[Fidelibus]

Well, the Bible did indeed exist prior to the Protestant Reformation.

Yes, the Bible did, (thanks to the Catholic Church) but "IT" being the belief of sola scriptura, did not exist prior to the Protestant reformation

That aside, the issue was Sola Scriptura and the misunderstanding your post pointed to about the meaning of the term.

My misunderstanding? I just asked if other Protestant or non-denominational churches or sects, (other than your own) did not agree 100% with the definition of Sola Scriptura you posted, who's or what authority within these sola scriptura believing churches or sects would have the final authority on who has the correct definition of SS, and who does not? Your church, or one of the many other churches or sects?

Also, Albion, it seems to me, that some of your Protestant/non-denominational sola scriptura adherents/posters on this thread, may not be in 100% agreement of your definition of SS. Is it possible there are many different flavors of SS?

But if it is not necessary to know what Sola Scriptura means before we evaluate whether or not it is an appropriate standard of belief,

Really?? Where in the Bible does it say, if it's not necessary to know what SS means before it's evaluation if it is an "an appropriate standard of belief?" Book, Chapter, and Verse please.

we might as well end this discussion here.

Pity.

Have a Blessed Day!