Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AnticipateHisComing]

Christ references Old Testament stories, but he also teaches ones that come directly from him. There is nothing in the Old Testament that overtly says you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of God to inherit eternal life.

How astute of an observation. Tell me does the OT teach that we should fill ourselves with God's word? And who is the Word? Maybe there is an understanding of the Lord's Supper that agrees with the OT.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I'm not going to argue about things that will require a lot of depth to address, because that will hijack this thread way off topic. If you want to discuss Petrine supremacy, I would be happy to, but not in this thread. Make another one.

You are correct it is off topic. I shall remember that the next time I see a response invoking the 40,000 Protestant churches.

I don't consider it so off topic. In my thread I have repeated asked for someone to prove another source of incontrovertible truth. I would think that apostolic succession and papal infallibility fit in there as reasons for such a claim. No proof of it has been given though.

The OP is about the authority of Holy Spirit Inspired Scriptures. The transcendent standard the Church fathers used to test truth claims and refute heretics.

Not really. I had hoped that there was general consensus on points 1,2 and 3 in the OP. I guess it is a lot easier to attack SS than to defend another source of incontrovertible truth.

 

[samir]

We must be careful of how we take the context of scripture. This passage, you posted, Mathew 18:17, is but a portion of the long line of people that you are to contact if you are done wrong by someone.

In other words, if your neighbor takes your wheel barrow and doesn't give it back, you should ask him. If that doesn't work you should get some buddies and the four of you approach him. If that still doesn't work you are to take it to the elders of the church.

None of that changes the fact that scripture says to treat him as an unbeliever if he refuses to listen to the church.

This is NOT a passage that instructs us to "listen to the church" as apposed to "listening to the scripture", The Word of God, as they are written.

This does not put the word of the church above the Word of God.

Who said the church is above Jesus? If you want to listen to scripture, lean not our your own wisdom, but go to the church for the proper interpretation.

 

[samir]

One might take note of the fact that Matthew 18:17 was not written to The Church, the Body of Christ. The Greek affords the meaning "a gathering of citizens," "assembly of the people," and "any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance," in context, the Jews of that day.

So Jesus is telling believers to take disputes to an assembly of Jews and treat them as unbelievers if they refuse to listen to those Jews? Sure.

 

[samir]

If the Bible is not true..... we are to be pitied.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19New International Version (NIV)

The Resurrection of the Dead
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I agree but you still haven't proven the Bible is true. How do you even know the 73 books chose by the church are scripture? How do you know they didn't include non-scriptural books and leave out scriptural books?

 

[samir]

Was the doctrine of the Trinity a church proclamation? Divine revelation?

Yes to both questions. It was divinely revealed by the church.

No. Look back at the arguments for the Trinity. The church fathers used Holy Scriptures to argue their points.

Of course they did. Why would they use the unwritten tradition but not the written tradition? Fact is the Trinity doesn't come from scripture alone. It comes from Tradition.

 

[samir]

God's words are true, written or not. God still reveals his truths to us through the Holy Spirit.

Correct. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to believers through the church.

Now here is the tricky part. How do you know that when a man speaks, it is a true revelation from God/"unwritten word of God" or as Jesus said, it is "merely human rules"?

Easy. Jesus said the gates of hell won't prevail against the church. Human rules are man's opinions that aren't taught by the church.

Matthew 15:3-9 The point of SS is that it is the only source of incontrovertible truth. That means we don't have to question or guess to its authenticity and truth. There may be other truths out there. Traditions may have merits. But, these details must be tested against scripture and are not necessary for salvation.


You mince words, playing a game that your traditions are God's word. Prove it. So far none has.

You still haven't proven the Bible is God's word. Once you've done that, we can discuss the other traditions.

 

[samir]

Samir was just throwing out a red herring, because he's got nothing.

It is impossible to prove EVERY WORD OF SCRIPTURE, so I don't have to prove anything with traditions. Does one really think this is going to end well for followers of such a mindset?

So you accept the written tradition without any proof but you won't accept the unwritten tradition without proof? The unwritten tradition came first so I'll accept that as God's word and ask you to prove the written tradition is true.

 

[CaptainToad]

Imho the bible is the oldest authority. Everthing that comes after must be judged by that standard. If it goes against the word of God, then... or you will end up with some like the RC church.

 

[Colter]

So, if the Jews don't accept that Jesus was the Son of God, does that mean that He isn't?

They certainly believe in a Messiah. They are just still waiting for Him. There eyes will be opened and the saving of the 144,000 will become a proven prophecy.

Jesus is the Son of God regardless of the erroneous expectations of Judaism's Messiah concept.

The 144,000 is also erroneous, it's an idea perpetuated by the JW sect of Christianity.

 

[Colter]

I will pray for you, Colter.

Thank you.

 

[Colter]

Jesus created the universe.... thought I spelled that out..

Genesis 1:1 says that “God created the heavens and the earth.” Then, Colossians 1:16 gives the added detail that God created “all things” through Jesus Christ. The plain teaching of Scripture, therefore, is that Jesus is the Creator of the universe.

Jesus is the co-creator of the worlds under his jurisdiction. God the Father is the creator of the universe. Jesus is a Son, as a Son he is the Father of his creation, not the entire creation of his Father. When Christ was on earth mans understanding of the history of the earth and the size of the universe was not understood. Jesus worked within the framework of that which we could understand. We know more now.

 

[Colter]

So you don't believe all things were made by him (John 1:3)?

No, the Father wasn't made by the Son, that's silly. Johns beautiful prose should be taken with a little common sense.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Is it necessary for salvation?

Paul did not seem to think it a priority; he baptised only a handful of people and was glad he did not do many.
1 Cor 1
Divisions in the Church
10 Brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, I urge all of you to be in agreement and not to have divisions among you, so that you may be perfectly united in your understanding and opinions.
11 My brothers, some members of Chloe’s family have made it clear to me that there are quarrels among you.
12 This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to the Messiah.”
13 Is the Messiah divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? You weren’t baptized in Paul’s name, were you?
14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (Oh yes, I also baptized the family of Stephanas. Beyond that, I’m not sure whether I baptized anyone else.)
17 For the Messiah did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, so the cross of the Messiah won’t be emptied of its power.
Jesus did not baptise any (though his disciples did)....John 4:1-2.
So no, baptism in water is not necessary for salvation:
Ephesians 2
8 For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
9 and not the result of actions, to put a stop to all boasting.
But baptism in the Holy Spirit is necessary:
We need to know first that all Christians receive the Spirit upon their conversion and in this sense all Christians have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This means that they are saved and that they have all they need at that time to be able to live godly and holy lives. 1 Cor. 12:13 says, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." carm.org

 

[civilwarbuff]

So scripture is true because you believe it is true?

If faith is proof, then my proof that Tradition is true is my faith.

No, because tradition is not God breathed nor revealed by the Holy Spirit. If it were it would be called Scripture.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

"Belief" is completely useless by itself.

This is not about "belief"; this is about true believers, the Body of Christ. It is not necessary to be part of a particular denomination to part of the Body of Christ.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Holy Spirit is not just a thing you can possess, the Holy Spirit is God himself, and he works through his Church,......

I cut your replacement theology statement as it is not pertinent to the discussion.
https://carm.org/what-baptism-holy-spirit
What is baptism in the Holy Spirit?

Baptism of the Holy Spirit1 is a term used to describe a movement of the Spirit upon and/or within a believer usually sometime after the person is saved. There is controversy surrounding this phenomenon as to whether it is legitimate or not. Some people believe that once a person is saved the Holy Spirit is in the person and there is no subsequent "baptism in the Holy Spirit." In other words, they maintain that this Baptism of the Spirit occurs at salvation. Others believe that it is possible for the Christian to experience an additional movement of the Holy Spirit sometime after salvation. Generally speaking, it is the charismatic movement that supports the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

We need to know first that all Christians receive the Spirit upon their conversion and in this sense all Christians have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This means that they are saved and that they have all they need at that time to be able to live godly and holy lives. 1 Cor. 12:13 says, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."

However, there are many Christians who claim to have had this "secondary" experience of the Spirit.2 They say that it has brought great blessing and comfort to them. Furthermore, they say that the results of the experience is a renewed dedication and appreciation for God, a stronger desire to read the Bible, a stronger desire to fellowship with Christians, and a deeper sense of worship of God. Millions of Christians who claim to have had this experience forces us to deal with the issue. Is it real or not? Let's look at the Scripture to find out.

The term "baptize with the Holy Spirit" occurs several times in scripture:

Matt. 3:11, "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."Mark 1:8, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."�Luke 3:16, "John answered and said to them all, 'As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."John 1:33, "And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, "He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit."Acts 1:5, "for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."Acts 11:16, "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

We can clearly see that the phrase is used in the Bible. But, we do not find a clear teaching in the Bible of what the phrase means. Nevertheless, we can conclude that when a person is baptized in the Holy Spirit he has power bestowed upon him. This power is for the purpose of the preaching of the gospel (Acts 4:31), living a purer life, and having a deeper devotion to God. Also, it is frequently accompanied by speaking in tongues. Acts 2:4, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance." At this point, I would recommend the reader to examine Acts 1-2 to see the movement of the Holy Spirit upon the early church at Pentecost.

The issue now seems to be whether or not Baptism of/in/with the Holy Spirit is a subsequent event occurring after salvation. It would seem that this is the case. In John 20:22, Jesus commanded that the disciples receive the Holy Spirit, "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." This means that they were saved since the Holy Spirit is not received by the unregenerate. Then, later in Acts 1:4-5 we read, "And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which,"� He said, "you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."�

Conclusion

The danger of this phenomena is the potential division of the body of Christ into two categories: those who are "regular" Christians and those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This, of course, would be an incorrect way of looking at Christians, and this is why. If you were to step outside into a soft mist, it would take a long time to get completely wet. On the other hand, if you were to step into a torrential rain, you'd be drenched quickly.

Those who have not experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (meaning a sudden and powerful experience) are not second-class citizens by any means. They are the ones in the gentle mist who experience the Lord over a long period of time and get just as blessed as those who suddenly step into the torrent of the Spirit's presence. In fact, the Baptism of the Spirit can be a pitfall since so many people who have experienced it long for it again, almost to the point of putting the validity of their faith in the experience instead of the clear teaching of the word of God.

We must all be careful not to fall in our strengths as well as our weaknesses.

 

[chilehed]

Sacred Scripture is a collection of ancient documents. How do you know which ancient documents are what they claim to be, and which ones truly belong in the collection? For example, how do you know that Paul's letter to the Hebrews was actually written by Paul?

Religions have scripture. The true religion has true scripture. You look for a way out of defending your belief of traditions.

Learn from the Old Testament. God wants us to learn of him and his ways. He from the beginning of "religion", with the Jews, gave books. The people of God followed these books and took them to be true because they were followers of God. The words in them do not have to be proven.

Learn from what Jesus said of the religious leaders of his day and their traditions.

Matthew 15:2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 6 hey are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’​

Now Jesus did not say disregard all the traditions/teachings of their leaders. He said to test them against the word. Now how could they be tested against the word unless it was established what the word was? God has protected his word in the Old Testament and he has protected it in the New Testament. If you doubt the Bible, you doubt God.

As for the hypocritical comment, tell that to Jesus. Jesus said to test "human rules" against the word, for they are human if they are not contained in scripture.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[civilwarbuff]

1 Timothy 3:15 tells us that pillar and foundation of truth is the Church. The Church uses the scriptures. The Church compiled the scriptures, decided which ones were actually scripture, and also interprets them. This is part of Holy Tradition and this is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Actually the Holy Spirit did all this; He simply acted through men and this was accomplished over a period of centuries.

 

[Albion]

Sacred Scripture is a collection of ancient documents. How do you know which ancient documents are what they claim to be, and which ones truly belong in the collection? For example, how do you know that Paul's letter to the Hebrews was actually written by Paul?

In a sense, you don't know. Just as you don't "know" that I exist.

And we do know that some of the books of the Bible were probably written by someone other than the one whose name is on the book. But they have been judged, for a number of reasons, to be inspired works and there comes a time when you have to count on the decision made by almost the whole of Christianity over the course of 2000 years or else assume that almost nothing in life can be trusted to be what it appears to be.