Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Colter]

The verse says the Son made everything that was made. Read the entire verse.

The Son didn't make himself, or anything else that the Father made.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Son didn't make himself, or anything else that the Father made.

That's because the Son wasn't made. He was in the beginning, with God, and is God. So the Son would not have to make himself. He is begotten of the Father, but not made of the Father, for he existed at all times, he is always begotten. "Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father."

Yes, the Son made everything the Father made. The Holy Trinity has one action, the Son and the Father are one and do all things as one action together. All that God does, is done from the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Colter]

Who gets to decide where Scripture errs? You?

Yes, me, I get to decide what I believe and what I do not believe. I don't claim to believe ridiculous things just because they are in the Bible and the church MEN use fear and threats to sell it. And the Bible says multiple, conflicting things about the same events. Faith in God isn't faith in the Bible.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What did Jesus tell you?

Matt 18:17
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

And what is this "church" that He is referring to? You think it might have been the synagogue since there was no earthly church while Jesus was here?
G1577

Original: ἐκκλησία
Transliteration: ekklēsia
Phonetic: ek-klay-see'-ah
Thayer Definition:
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
the assembly of the Israelites
any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
in a Christian sense
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
Origin: from a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564
TDNT entry: 11:21,4
Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine
Strong's Definition: From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.
Matthew 18 (ISV)
17 If, however, he ignores them, tell it to the congregation. If he also ignores the congregation, regard him as an unbeliever and a tax collector.

 

[Colter]

That's because the Son wasn't made. He was in the beginning, with God, and is God. So the Son would not have to make himself. He is begotten of the Father, but not made of the Father, for he existed at all times, he is always begotten. "Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father."

Yes, the Son made everything the Father made. The Holy Trinity has one action, the Son and the Father are one and do all things as one action together. All that God does, is done from the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity you are describing is a creation of theologians who were trying to explain how God is one and Jesus was also God. They made a real mess of things.

The Son is a Son because he came after his Father. As to when we can't say, but some time back in eternity the Son came into being. The Son is conscious of being ancestral to the Father.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yes, me, I get to decide what I believe and what I do not believe. I don't claim to believe ridiculous things just because they are in the Bible and the church MEN use fear and threats to sell it. And the Bible says multiple, conflicting things about the same events. Faith in God isn't faith in the Bible.

Biblically, faith means TRUST most essentially, more than "accepting as so" in the modern sense. If you don't trust God's commands, you don't trust God, full stop.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Trinity you are describing is a creation of theologians who were trying to explain how God is one and Jesus was also God. They made a real mess of things.

The Son is a Son because he came after his Father. As to when we can't say, but some time back in eternity the Son came into being. The Son is conscious of being ancestral to the Father.

Scripture says overtly that the Son was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, and all things that were made, were made by the Son. You can either accept this, or make up your own theology. You say Scripture is full of errors, yet you have the hubris to suggest your theology is superior? Where did you get yours from? You made it up. Scripture was written by holy men, who were appointed by God for missions, including writing, why is your theology superior to theirs?

 

[Colter]

Biblically, faith means TRUST most essentially, more than "accepting as so" in the modern sense. If you don't trust God's commands, you don't trust God, full stop.

I do trust God, I just don't trust the kind of holy men who killed Jesus. Those men made your same argument to their followers in their religion. Judaism used the so called authority of the scripture to withstand the teachings of Jesus.

Do what you think is right, but I never have believed God wrote the Bible. As a child in Sunday school the other kids seemed content to make paper cutouts of Noah's ark, but I was thinking.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I do trust God, I just don't trust the kind of holy men who killed Jesus. Those men made your same argument to their followers in their religion. Judaism used the so called authority of the scripture to withstand the teachings of Jesus.

Do what you think is right, but I never have believed God wrote the Bible. As a child in Sunday school the other kids seemed content to make paper cutouts of Noah's ark, but I was thinking.

Jesus continually referenced the authority of Scripture. Just because wicked people do so, doesn't mean Scripture is wicked. SATAN quoted Scripture to try to trick Jesus, and how did Jesus reply? By quoting Scripture right back at him, he didn't say, "Scripture lol."

Your "thinking" is not holy, it doesn't mean anything here. Early Christians, while they had many brilliant minds among them, were continually mocked in ancient times by astute and rationalist philosophers, and continue to be today. The wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's eyes. Being holy is not about thinking, it's about contrition, and also about prayer and fasting, although the latter two are useless without the first.

 

[Colter]

Scripture says overtly that the Son was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, and all things that were made, were made by the Son. You can either accept this, or make up your own theology. You say Scripture is full of errors, yet you have the hubris to suggest your theology is superior? Where did you get yours from? You made it up. Scripture was written by holy men, who were appointed by God for missions, including writing, why is your theology superior to theirs?

Christ was denied, put through a trumped up trial and crucified by your "holy men". They are just men like the politicians of governments, only they are the church government. Up to their eyeballs in child molestation and covering for other child molesters! They've been thieves, they've been in cahoots with Nazis! They've been scoundrels, back stabbing double crossers! And they had the gull to pronounce their councils inerrant! Not for a moment sister do I believe they were inerrant!

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Christ was denied, put through a trumped up trial and crucified by your "holy men". They are just men like the politicians of governments, only they are the church government. Up to their eyeballs in child molestation and covering for other child molesters! They've been thieves, they've been in cahoots with Nazis! They've been scoundrels, back stabbing double crossers! And they had the gull to pronounce their councils inerrant! Not for a moment sister do I believe they were inerrant!

Christ was Crucified by the men who wrote down Scripture? I don't think so.

I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm Orthodox, so you can drop the child molestation line.

 

[Colter]

Christ was Crucified by the men who wrote down Scripture? I don't think so.

I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm Orthodox, so you can drop the child molestation line.

Same kinds of holy men.

And I'm sure you are a good person, I'm just answering your questions about scriptures.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Same kinds of holy men.

And I'm sure you are a good person, I'm just answering your questions about scriptures.

No, they weren't the same kinds at all. What makes a man holy was taught by Christ, and the men who wanted to get him crucified clearly didn't qualify.

 

[mercyfollowsme]

Scripture is incontrovertibly true = this cannot be proven or held to the same standard of proof you are asking of others.

Solo Scriptura is probably what you are advocating, where tradition is lower than Biblical authority.

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.
5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.

By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.

Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.

So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.

 

[JacksBratt]

It does not state that, but in fact and in concept it is so. Surely, you must know that there are correlations in the Old Testament with respect to the New Testament. On thing is for sure, God is consistent and the main themes of the Bible do correlate.

The Arc was a means of salvation as the Virgin Mary was.

Mary was not a means of salvation in any way like the arc. She was Jesus mother. Nothing more. She was chosen by God to be the mother of the Christ. However, she was a sinner and needed the salvation her son brought just as much as anyone else.

Mary was a vessel for Jesus until His birth and thus, again the world was saved. The old testament deals with temporal circumstances and the New Testament deals with spiritual circumstances. Abraham, with loving obedience to God, was willing to sacrifice his deeply loved. God, the Father sacrificed His only beloved and obedient Son. Mankind was saved by the Arc. Mankind was saved by the Arc.The Israelite were saved when they crossed from the old life in Egypt to new life as the people of God. The temporal Kingdom of David was on earth. The everlasting kingdom of Jesus is forever, for God is not limited by His own creations as space and time. Bathsheba was the queen mother (Queen of King David and mother of King Solomon)interceded for her son and for others to King Solomon (her son) and Mary, the Queen Mother, intercedes (through Jesus) for us if we ask her to.

Please show me scripture that states that Mary can intercede for anyone. She cannot. She had no power for any of this.

You must understand that the early Christian Church was a continuation of Judaism, was started by Jews and did not cut off the Old Testament. Jews were taught by oral tradition and the Scriptures and knew about their past and heritage. There are a lot of Biblical references that Protestants won't accept. Here is one among others:
Mathew 16:18-19

Mathew 16 16-20 will show a better context than the clip you took out of context. Christ is not building His church on Peter, He is building it on the fact and truth that He is the Messiah.


You must remember, the arc was where God resided when He was among His people. When Christ said "it is finished" the curtain that separated the holy of holies from the world was ripped from top to bottom.
This was to signal that there was no need for any intercessory for us anymore. We could go directly to Christ, ourselves. We do not need a priest to bring our sins to God. We come as we are directly to Him and He will hear our prayers.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

2) Scripture is God's Word.

Is that the way Jesus treated scripture in his day? Further some have posted scripture verses that profess to the truthfulness and it being God's word.

You ask; prove to me that the Bible is scripture. At this point in time, if you are a Christian and doubt this, get a better church.

Ah, you have no proof. I suggest you work on that.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Scripture is incontrovertibly true = this cannot be proven or held to the same standard of proof you are asking of others.

Solo Scriptura is probably what you are advocating, where tradition is lower than Biblical authority.

That's called Prima Scriptura.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.
5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.

By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.

1 Timothy 3:15

15 so that, if I am slow in coming, thou mayest be in no doubt over the conduct that is expected of thee in God’s household. By that I mean the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation upon which the truth rests.

Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.

So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.

We Know that the Bible is The Truth Since the Church ratifies it as TRUE. In the Same Way, The Sacred Scripture is True since it endorses the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

We of Course say that The Church to which the Sacred Scripture Refers is the Only One True Church, The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[zippy2006]

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.
5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.

6) Therefore scripture alone is to be trusted

It makes no sense. It is non sequitur.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Once upon a time a Christian and a Muslim got together and were discussing the holy scriptures.

They both agreed that (1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true. Nodding their heads, they went on.

"(2) the Bible is God's word," said the Christian, and "(2) The Koran is God's word" said the muslim.

They had a nice long conversation about that and wound up deciding to hold their disagreement in abeyance while they went on to discuss other things.

(3) "Whatever God's word is, is therefore incontrovertably true", they both said, and agreed that, if they could just decide what WAS God's word, this would also be true.

(4) "Consider this challenge: Prove another source of incontrovertible truth." They each looked at the other, asking the other to prove, incontrovertably that the other's idea of scripture was indeed the word of God.

Strangely, they found that no matter what the other person said, the opposite party was fully capable of controverting their statements. Imagine that.

"(5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven. ", they considered and they looked all around in their libraries and wound up agreeing that they didn't see any other perfect scriptures wherever they looked. It may be that this conclusion was partly because no Hindu or Buddhist or Zorastrian was present to defend their own scriptures, but that's what these two good citizens did.
Then along came a scientist.

He told them that there were some things he could tell them for sure. Things such as how far away the stars were, how to build rockets that could travel to the moon and planets, how to cure diseases with medicines, and how to look up things on the internet. The pair were greatly interested. But then he told them that men were the result of evolution and the earth is billions of years old and at that the two debaters told him to leave, they weren't interested in his ideas any more.

Sadly, the scientist left them to their discussions, which were perhaps in some danger of becoming heated. "Its too bad", he said to himself, "That these good people won't listen to the direct revelations of God left to us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes".