• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by BobRyan, Sep 1, 2016.

  1. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    Biblical Christians believe the Bible is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4, John 8:31b) not because of some intellectual trust on their part in a purportedly infallible Church, but because Biblical Christians have been granted God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b) and some measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). And so they're able to spiritually recognize if something is said by God (John 10:4,27; 1 Corinthians 14:37), or only by some "stranger" (John 10:5).

    And Biblical Christians know the Bible is God's Word not only because of the spiritual evidence of faith (Hebrews 11:1), but also because Jesus Christ confirms the entire Old Testament is true (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). And the entire New Testament was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24; 1 Peter 5:1, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). And Jesus' New Testament suffering and death on the Cross for our sins, and His physical resurrection from the dead on the 3rd day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Acts 26:22-23, Isaiah 53, Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:31). Also, no doctrine in the Bible has ever been proven false, so there's no reason for any Christian to reject any doctrine taught by the Bible.

    It's the Bible which is able to make people wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15; 1 Peter 1:23-25, Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, James 1:18). All the Bible's teachings were given by the inspiration of God, and so they're all true and God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4). Jesus Christ says: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31). Christians must be willing to die before they would deny any part of His Word (Mark 8:35-38). One of Satan's prime aims is to get people to reject all or parts of God's Word and start believing something else which sounds better to them as humans (Genesis 3:1-6, Matthew 16:21-23; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3-4), but which can't save their souls, so they will end up suffering in fire and brimstone with Satan and his fallen angels forever (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11).

    *******

    We're assured at least some people in the Church will continue in the truth until Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming, for there will be true Christians who will still be "alive and remain" at that time (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). But the way they will continue in the truth won't be by replacing God Himself with Church leaders as their source of truth, for Church leaders are fallible (e.g. Matthew 16:23, Galatians 2:11-14, Luke 22:34). It's only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16, Acts 17:11b, John 17:17) that Christians can be sure not to be led astray by any Church leaders who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31b, Mark 8:35-38).

    Because all humans (except Jesus Christ) are fallible, the Church itself (unlike God's own Word the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4) has never been a perfect model for Christian doctrine and practice. There have always been wrong divisions (Acts 6:1; 1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4) and heresies in the Church (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). For even those whom God's Holy Spirit has made leaders in the Church (Acts 20:28) can wrongly employ their free will to teach wrong doctrines and practices which increase their power over people in the Church (Acts 20:30, cf. also 3 John 1:9-10). They and their followers can mistakenly forget the warnings of 1 Peter 5:3, Matthew 20:25-27, and Matthew 23:8-12.

    Also, even Satan's ministers can transform themselves into "apostles" of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, cf. also Matthew 7:15). And even those truly appointed as apostles by Jesus can wrongly employ their free will to fall from their office (Acts 1:17,20b,25). So even the teachings of apostles must be checked against God's own Word the Bible (Acts 17:11b). So how much more must the doctrine of lesser "teachers" in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11) be checked against the Bible, to make sure what they're teaching isn't mistaken (2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:2-4)?
     
  2. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    Do they reject the apostle Paul himself, and so reject the books of the Bible written by him? If so, that's a serious mistake, for the basis for Paul's theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That's why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

    The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1) and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to Christians confirming that all Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There's no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful work on behalf of Jesus proves he's not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true Christians (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

    Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17; Acts 7:58 to Acts 13:9), Christians should never give up on any non-Christians, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, Christians should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8, Colossians 1:21-23). And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, shouldn't think that what they've done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or deed) in the past disqualifies them now from being able to repent and ask God's forgiveness, and to receive His salvation through their faith in Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:21-22).
     
  3. Gracia Singh

    Gracia Singh Newbie Supporter

    +9,107
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That's a good question. Some reject what they read in the Pauline Epistles as texts, and at the same time divorce the inspiration of the text from the text, and from the man (Paul). They read something that they do not like, understand, or can not accept theologically, and thus reject the Pauline Epistles as Scripture.

    I agree that this is awful, and dangerous. But similarly less-than-helpful for us would be to divorce the texts of Scripture from the Apostolic, pre-textual context in which they were penned and through which they were later canonized. Ultimately, both things work together and balance one another.

    Outside of this application we begin to take Scripture, read it, things jump out at us, and soon we've formulated our own complicated, nuanced, subjective theology based on our own impressions of the text. Any Christian can do this; and so have I, with really confusing and meandering, useless results.

    Any one of us can do that, though. And most of us do. Which is how you get a vast, vast, vast array of mutually exclusive theologies being displayed, argued for, and defended on discussion forums. Almost everyone is persuaded that they are right, yet obviously not everyone can be. All seriously and earnestly quote Scripture to back their views.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  4. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +497
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Sola Scripura is nonsense. Our authority is neither the Bible nor the Church nor even God but our own conscience (unless God is unjust) The following comments explain why.

    Virtually every evangelical scholar in the last 500 years has accepted Calvin's doctrine of the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit, and rightly so. Since the human mind can err, the Holy Spirit must intervene to initiate conversion and stabilize it. Saving faith therefore germinates from the Holy Spirit convicting (convincing) the sinner, giving him or her a FEELING OF CERTAINTY (in their conscience) on issues such as:
    (1) Christ is God and died for our sins
    (2) The Bible is inspired.
    "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children" (Rom 8:16). The foundation of our faith is special revelation, not Bible-study. Let's take Calvin's idea further.

    Feelings of certainty are AUTHORITATIVE. The Holy Spirit cannot expect you to obey feelings of certainty in one case and disobey it in others. And it's really the CONSCIENCE. Conscience is your feelings of certainty as to your current moral obligations. Conscience is your ONLY authority - not God, not the Bible, and definitely not the church - because a just God can only expect men to behave to the best of their knowledge. "The Bible is my only authority." False. If tomorrow you feel certain about the Koran, you'll abandon the Bible. Thus your conscience is your highest authority, because it DICTATES whether you accept a given book, a given religion, or a given doctrine.

    This system WORKS. Even an angel is much like a prophet, in the sense of hearing God at 100% felt-certainty. God stakes the ENTIRE SUCCESS OF HIS KINGDOM on the Inward Witness defined as feelings of certainty, because it's a reliable system - it's the ONLY reliable system. Exegesis is far too fallible to undergird the Kingdom. Therefore when it comes to matters of doctrine, WHERE is our greatest hope likely to be? Exegesis? Or the Inward Witness? John wrote:

    "I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him." (John 2:26-27).

    John wanted them safe from false doctrine. Based on the above passage, was John putting his hope primarily in:
    (A) Exegesis? Seminary? Scholarship?
    (B) The anointing as Inward Witness?
    Given that the printing press wasn't invented until 1400 years later, choice A is unlikely. The implication is clear enough. Special revelation - not 'the completed canon' - always was, currently is, and always will be the bedrock of the church.

    Exegesis does have some value - it's a useful crutch (that can influence your conscience in positive ways) whenever special revelation (God's voice) isn't currently speaking to us as loud and clear as it spoke to the prophets. My various posts on the following thread defend the need for prophetic revelation, starting with post #150 and ranging so far through #450.
    Question about Gift of Prophecy
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  5. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +497
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Fixed the quoted sections.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,887
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself.
    2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
    3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
    4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

    It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,887
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    Luke 24:27
    Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

    You seem to be asking how they knew what scripture was... is that correct. Notice how often the NT text talks about "scripture".

    Indeed. Yet Luke's readers knew the term and understood the phrase -- "He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

    As Josephus also argues in his day that the Canon of scripture had not changed for over 400 years
    .
    a. There is no dispute about the NT text - that is abundantly clear -- both Catholics and Protestants have no quarrel on that point.
    b. Luke's readers had no quarrel about the rest of the Bible - that which was not what we call the NT ...
    Luke 24:27
    Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.




    The "debatable" part of the discussion was already solved by the time of Christ's teaching in Luke 24.

    The non-debatable part - then is "what about the NT" and as you point out "what about Luke" how can we know that Luke is scripture?

    1. Nobody reading Luke's letter in the NT was telling themselves "lets wait 200 or 300 years until someone tells us what to read as NT scripture". We both agree on that point. And clearly the term "all of scripture" as used in Luke 24 was not at all confusing to his readers.

    2. Nobody today proposes any confusion at all about the NT - not Protestants and not Catholics --proof: they both agree when it comes to the NT.

    3. Paul himself says this (without any church tradition at all to guide him) -
    1 Thess 2
    11 For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, 12 encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. 13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

    So then - no confusion on this point in the first century for NT saints.

    Your proposal seems to be that "it got more confusing later " -- is that right??

    Which means that terms like "all of scripture" used in Luke 24 means that 2000 years ago they had the same agreed upon standard definition - and Josephus confirms this in the first century as well.

    That only leaves the NT - and as we both know there is no dispute on the NT between Catholicism and Protestants.

    Notice what Paul said about this in 1Thess 2

    11 For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, 12 encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. 13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

    And Peter argues the same "known scripture" point

    2 Peter 3
    just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    Including Paul's writing in the accepted canon of scripture while also using terms that show that the readers had a common understanding of the term long before Catholicism or an ecumencal council on "what is scripture"
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,887
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    I know that Muslims do that - but that is not a trademark position of Protestantism - and I doubt that the folks in Germany this month are trying to compromise with such tiny segments who have the extreme position you mention ... not sure that they exist but if they do ... it would be great if they had a "name" for that group.
     
  9. Gracia Singh

    Gracia Singh Newbie Supporter

    +9,107
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Sir, simply quoting Scripture as it exists now does not answer the question of what Scripture is, how it came to be approved of as Scripture, and how it was Canonized. One can't simply quote Scripture as we know it today to demonstrate a pre-modern process of authorship and Canon. We would need to go back to the texts and witnesses of that period to demonstrate this. If we want to know how a city was founded, it doesn't help us to read a contemporary phone book. We'd need to go back into older materials and documents to understand what went into founding that city.

    Some groups of Christians do reject the Pauline Epistles, as the theology within them does not synch with their personal theologies. Some groups of Torah-keeping Gentiles do this, for example. As do some fringe Protestants who take issue with Pauline teachings on sex, gender, marriage, and family.
     
  10. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +497
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    You gave me four bullet points and several verses to back up your position. Even if you gave me 100,000, your position is still incorrect if it contains any logical contradictions. Such contradictions impose a burden on you to reexamine your bullet points and reinterpret the verses cited. Unless you're an irrational person. So let me remind you of three logical contradictions caused by denying the authority of conscience (feelings of certainty) - the first two already mentioned in the initial post. K?

    (1) Suppose you're preaching the gospel to unbelievers. The Holy Spirit begins to convict (convince) the audience, causing them to feel certain that the gospel is true. What kind of reaction do you WANT them to have? Either:
    (A) "Yes, yes, we've been cut to the heart, we repent of our sins and accept Jesus as Lord right now!" (See acts 2:37 for an example).
    (B) "Sorry, our authority is sola scriptura. First we need to goto seminary several years mastering Hebrew and Greek, we'll need to verify we've even got valid manuscripts, and then POSSIBLY we'll accept Jesus as Lord. In fact we don't even know if that was the Holy Spirit speaking through you."

    Again, ask yourself: If tomorrow you felt certain that the Bible is false, would you continue to heed it? I don't think so. Therefore conscience is authoritative. If you cite Scripture, you're really just proving my point because you wouldn't even CITE Scripture unless you felt certain that Scripture is inspired.

    (2) If you deny the authority of conscience, you depict God as unjust. In 30 years as a Christian, I've presented the following analogy again and again and never seen the logic of it refuted. Suppose you tell your son to clean his room every day of the week. He thought you meant every week day and thus cleans it five days instead of seven. He's acting in good conscience defined as feelings of certainty about his moral obligations. Should he be punished?

    (3) Some acts are so morally questionable as to require feelings of certainty at the level of 100% certainty. Hebrews identifies Abraham's attempt to murder his son as one of the most righteous acts in human history. Only a psychopath, or an evil man, would say to himself, "I'm not 100% sure that was God speaking but I'm going to kill my son regardless." That same Voice told Moses to kill 7 nations to gain the promised land - again requires 100% certainty.

    I'm sorry that Protestants sold you the lie of Sola Scriptura but it's your responsibility to rethink it. God won't give you a pass on judgment day just because you followed the majority (I'm not questioning whether you'll be saved but rather to what extent He will approve of your behavior).
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  11. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +6,098
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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 andcomplete 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 be perfect and complete unto 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 through 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. 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 36:22-32where 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."
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  12. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +6,098
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    III. Scripture Can Help us to Know the Certainty of Christ's Teachings.

    Luke sets out an order of declaration amongst the ministers of the Word to write out the events in order to Theophilus so that he might know for certain of the truth (on Christ's teachings) which he had been instructed.

    Luke 1:1-4
    "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

    IV. Christ quotes Scripture as an authority:

    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 inMatthew 4:1-11. This is confirmed by Ephesians 6 with how the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God which is a part of putting on the amor of God so that one can stand against the wiles of the devil (Ephesians 6:11, 16). For the Living Word (Jesus) is like a two edged sword that divides asunder the soul and the spirit because He always speaks the words of God because He is God (Hebrews 4:12).

    V. Spoken Word is confirmed by the Written Word. Acts 17:11

    In Acts 17:11, we learn that the Bereans were more noble because they received the "Spoken Word of God" from Paul and Silas with an open mind but yet they searched the Scriptures (i.e. the Written Word of God) to see whether those things were so or not. So the "Spoken Word" is confirmed by the "Written Word." So the "Written Word" is a reliable authority that we can trust. For even Philip opened the heart of the Ethiopian's understanding from a reading in Isaiah (Thereby confirming the Written Word of God) (Acts 8:26-35). Jesus had opened the disciple's understanding on the Scriptures when He was with them (Luke 24:32); And Paul had told the Corinthians that their words that they speak in Christ (i.e. the Spoken Word of God) were not like as with many others who had corrupted the Word of God (i.e. the Written Word of God) (2 Corinthians 2:17).

    VI. 1 Corinthians 14:37 - What Paul had written is the Lord's commandments.

    Paul had written to the Corinthians about how if anyone thought of themselves as spiritual or a prophet, they were to know that what he had written unto them was the Lord's commandments (1 Corinthians 14:37). In other words, the "Written of God" that came from Paul was the Lord's Commandments; And by the authority of the Lord: Paul gave commands to the brethren in doing many things (1 Corinthians 7:10) (2 Thessalonians 3:4, 6, 12) (1 Timothy 4:11) (1 Timothy 6:11, 12, 13, 14).

    VII. The spoken/written Word is standard by which Jesus will Judge All Men.

    John 12:48 essentially says, Christ will judge us by His Word in the last day.
    Christ's spoken words have been memorialized within the Holy Scriptures for us to have faith in them. His words within the Bible will judge us in the last day.

    In fact, the unsaved dead will be judged by their works at the Great White Throne Judgment in this life by what is written in various books of Judgment (Revelation 20:12). This shows us that the written Word of God has power and authority to judge just as the books of Judgment have power and authority to judge a person's actions on the last day.

    For all believers will be judged by the Law of Liberty (James 2:12). This is the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) and or the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2) or the royal Law of love under the New Testament (James 2:8) (Romans 13:8-10).

    VIII. John's Gospel is sufficient alone for saving faith in Jesus Christ.

    What is purpose of John's book or gospel?

    John 20:30-31 says,
    "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

    Did you catch that? It essentially says these things (Within the book of John) are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ and that we might have life (eternal life) through his name. In other words, a person can receive eternal life or salvation in Jesus Christ by reading the book of John. This is the "Written of God." In other words, this shows that the "Written Word of God" alone is sufficient to bring us to saving faith in God.
     
  13. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +6,098
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Please take note that the above two posts on the Defense of Sola Scriptura is indeed my own written work after doing much study on the subject.
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,887
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself.
    2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
    3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
    4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

    It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


    Which it does not.

    that is a nonsequitur -- I do not argue that no one can have "feelings" or "feelings of certainty" if they accept the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and practice as we find it in

    Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


    1. My preaching is from scripture -
    2. Paul's preaching in Acts 17:11 is to UNBELIEVERS - the very case you propose. And what happens there? they "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


    B - never happens.

    Some folks do reject the Bible presentation of the Gospel - but not via a claim to "sola scriptura" rather via a claim to "sola man-made-tradition" of whatever group they are in.
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,887
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    1..Luke 24 was written before the first Catholic council stepped foot on the planet and we both agree to this detail.
    In Luke 24 Christ and his hearers already had common understanding of the term "all of scripture" -- this detail keeps getting repeated - not sure if you have seen it. But it is the first sticking point for what you are suggesting.

    2. Josephus also confirms the Luke 24 detail about "all of scripture" - saying that they had a fixed canon of scripture for over 400 years by his time in the first century.

    Thus your case falls entirely short of the OT canon of scripture.

    3. As for the NT canon of scripture - we both know that there is no doubt about it - in either Catholicism or Protestantism.

    What is more - I have shown in several first century sources (we call them scripture) that they also had the concept of NT scripture - though not a "book" of it canonized the way we have it today.

    4. Even you can not make the case that nobody was reading Paul's letters as scripture -- or that nobody read Peter's letters until 100's of years after they died... and we both know it.

    This much is irrefutable.


    I have no idea who those groups are - but I am familiar with the rejection of Paul by Muslims.

    In any case - the tiny fringe groups you mention are not the sort of person you may meet in a life time...so not likely that they are getting much attention in Germany this month as the churches meet to figure out just how big the "gap" between them still is.
     
  16. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +497
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    This is one of those posts that makes a big pretend-show of 'responding' to the objections raised but never actually meets them at full-force, head on. It's standard practice on these forums but certainly isn't fooling God.
    (1) You didn't address the issue of the kid being told to clean his room 7 days a week. It decisively defines righteousness as obedience to conscience if God is good, kind, and just. (I can already anticipate a pretend-show of responding to this objection coming up in your next post."
    (2) You 'responded'
    Totally misses the force of the objection. The question is whether the APPROPRIATE response is choice A (which it is), and the implications thereof. If feelings of certainty are not morally obligatory, it would be appropriate to reject A. That alone proves my point, but you'd like to pretend otherwise. Who do you think you're fooling?

    (3)
    You keep making obvious statements (such as the Holy Spirit gave us Scripture). I'm not here to debate the obvious things that we already agree on.
    (3A) If they didn't feel certain about the inspiration of Scripture, they wouldn't be reading it.
    (3B) There's nothing there to disprove my position. Scripture is useful in cases where you're NOT feeling certain about something and hope, therefore, that studying it will leave you feeling more certain. IDEALLY, the Voice would speak to us so loud and clear at all times that we'd ALWAY feel certain. And for Moses, that's literally how it was most of the time. But for the average believer, especially one who is not a prophet, we have to fall back on a crutch (Bible-study) to hopefully get more certainty. But the key point here is that, it is ONLY to the extent that Scripture causes us to feel more certain, does it raise our moral obligations (if God is just).

    If you deny the authority of feelings of certainty, you deny God to rule His church as He wants. Why so? Suppose God wants you or your whole congregation to do Action X RIGHT NOW. Must He wait until you happen to reach that same conclusion exegetically? Why not just give you a feeling of certainty? It's just like if your car is about to go over the cliff (due to a driving mistake). And so he tells an angel to save you. If the voice doesn't give the angel a feeling of certainty - if the angel has to go 'check it out with Scripture' (or something similar), you're in BIG TROUBLE. Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory because it is not a workable system - it doesn't allow God to run the church.

    Calling something a non-squitur doesn't make it so. Nor is it professional to mispresent or water-down my actual argument, as to thus make it easier to 'respond' to. This is a pretend-response.


    No. That was not the situation proposed. The situation proposed was, IF YOU FEEL CERTAIN ABOUT SOMETHING (specifically the Holy Spirit gave the audience feelings of certainty about the gospel), what is the APPROPRIATE response? You are proposing the opposite situation, that is, where people are looking up something in Scripture precisely because they do NOT yet feel certain.

    So yes if you totally gloss over everything I actually said, it's very easy to make a big show of 'responding' to me.
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,887
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    1. The Holy Spirit authored the Bible - 2 Peter 1:19-21 - so that following the Bible is to follow the work and teaching of the Holy Spirit Himself.
    2. The Holy Spirit condemns all doctrine that contradicts scripture Gal 1:6-9 Isaiah 8:19-20
    3. The Holy Spirit IS God .. so then our authority is God.
    4. There are those "seared in their conscience" such that following it would be sin in that case. 1 Tim 4:2

    It is the Holy Spirit that gives us Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


    Which it does not.

    that is a nonsequitur -- I do not argue that no one can have "feelings" or "feelings of certainty" if they accept the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and practice as we find it in

    Acts 17:11 telling us that they are approved who "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"

    Acts 17
    10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.


    1. My preaching is from scripture -
    2. Paul's preaching in Acts 17:11 is to UNBELIEVERS - the very case you propose. And what happens there? they "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so"


    B - never happens.

    Some folks do reject the Bible presentation of the Gospel - but not via a claim to "sola scriptura" rather via a claim to "sola man-made-tradition" of whatever group they are in.

    I do appreciate your optimism.
    You are right about one thing - your post is not addressing any of the Bible details I raised in my own prior post... the post you are quoting.

    This is a thread about "sola scriptura" -- remember???


    It is often my lot to "point out the obvious" for those who are avoiding the details at almost every step.

    That is a bit of a relief -- I like it when someone comes along who is not stuck on "rejecting the obvious". I find it refreshing.

    That is a doctrine made out of whole clothe -- it is merely "you quoting you".

    Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

    The logical fallacy "either-or" that you offer is less than compelling. There is no logic in "either you test all doctrine by the Bible and deny that people have some feeling of certainty... or you admit that people have a feeling of certainty."

    BTW - I have met a great many Mormons that have informed me of their "feelings of certainty"

    Does not mean all feelings of certainty are in error - but some are ... that is certain.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
  18. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Newbie

    +1,644
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    I am not opposed to any of these texts which are being used as primary sources for the doctrine of sola scriptura. I simply think there are better explanations of some of them and blatantly assuming a doctrine of the bible alone, which I understand to mean is that the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice doesn't prove the doctrine. To put it simply, a more detail exegesis would be nice.

    I want to comment on one of those texts, namely with regards to Bereans. If the principle by which we form our judgements is that the scripture is the final authority, let's present a hypothetical challenge. Let's say the Bereans, instead of agreeing with Paul, rejected him because they read the Old Testament according to a traditional 1st century Rabbinic model. Presumably, since the bible is the final authority and Paul is but a mere man in his presence, they would be justified in rejecting him. We shouldn't imagine that those who necessarily rejected Paul or the Gospel of Christ did so out of callousness but did it out of an intense loyalty to the religion they had grown up with and a sincere belief Christ was not in the scripture. At this point the New Testament was not passed around as canonical and the point of the arguments for Sola Scripture is that the Bereans agreed with Paul by confirming what they read in the scriptures. Yet I think some Protestants are attributing to the Old Testament alone what should be attributed to both the man Paul and the Old Testament. The Bereans had heard the Gospel from Paul prior to examining the scripture and this shaped their reading of, the Kergyma of faith was given to them and was the key which gave them a greater comprehension of the bible than what they previously had. Paul's preaching, his words were therefore just as necessary as the bible which they examined and tested his words by.

    A possible counter argument is that Paul was only presenting what would later be written down in the New Testament and I would agree to that, yet it still poses a significant challenge to using this a a proof text for sola scripture. If the point of referring to the example of the Bereans is that scripture is the Judge, we need to understand the Bereans were using the Old Testament as a criterion to judge the New. It makes no sense to suggest that the words Paul preached should be judged by the Old as that would make it less authoritative and the authority of the New would dependent on the Old. This would make the New Testament less important in our canon which cannot be the case since it is necessarily the thing we look to first through which we see the entire bible. The Bereans accepted that Gospel, not as of yet written down through word of mouth. Sola Scriptura as a framework simply doesn't apply to this time period.
     
  19. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +497
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I don't care what Mormons SAY. It's about objective fact. If a Mormon REALLY IS feeling certain he's doing the right thing, a just and kind God cannot fault them.

    To see why, picture this scenario. "I feel 100% certain God wants me to do action X but I refuse." How do you suppose God will feel about that? He MUST judge you on your current feelings of certainty.

    Exactly. It's a thread about whether scripture is the ONLY authority. I've proven that feelings of certainty are, in fact, the FINAL authority. On that point you keep ignoring my example of the boy asked to clean his room seven days a week. Please address that scenario. I think you'll have to admit that a good and kind parent judges his kids based ONLY on their feelings of certainty.

    Your next statement is still too evasive. Instead of addressing the SPECIFIC SCENARIOS head on, you try to sound intellectual, speaking of 'fallacies' and 'compelling' and 'either-or' and 'no-logic' - and you also totally misrepresent my position.
    Here's some clarification, however.
    - When you feel 100% certain of something, your obligation is absolute (see earlier examples of Abraham and Moses).
    - Otherwise your obligation is to what you currently feel MOST certain about, among options such as the following:
    (A) I feel most certain that I should do Action X instead of Y.
    (B) I feel most certain that, at the moment, I really don't have enough certainty to justify EITHER X OR Y. Therefore I need to be patient, aspiring to a stronger feeler of certainty, perhaps obtained by prayer, or by studying the Bible, or by talking to counselors (etc).

    So I'm not saying the Bible is NEVER involved in any way, shape, or form. But ULTIMATELY God must judge you, at any given moment in time, on your current feelings of certainty regardless whether they were born from:
    (A) bible-study
    (B) the convicting power of the Holy Spirit
    (C) your own reasoning
    (D) Some other voice/influence. I don't care which. God can fault you for lending ear to a bad source, if you did so against conscience/certainty, but He cannot fault you for heeding current certainty.

    Because rebelling against certainty is always wrong. Visualize, "God I'm certain that you want me to do Action X but instead I'm going to do Action Y." That's rebellion. Period.

    You keep citing Scripture. Do you NOT understand that you FEEL CERTAIN about Scripture's inspiration?

    In fact if everyone suddenly stopped heeding conscience (feelings of certainty) right now, the world would end in a matter of hours. Given this fact, how can you or anyone else deny the primacy of conscience?

    If in your next post you still fail to address head-on all the SPECIFIC SCENARIOS that I painted, I'm going to have to conclude that you're playing dodgeball.
     
  20. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +497
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    That's putting the cart before the horse. I've been addressing a more foundational issue, namely by what AUTHORITY (on what basis) do you accept the Bible to be God's Word? Answer: conscience (feelings of certainty).

    Sola Scriptura ('The bible is the only authority') is a lie because it fails to acknowledge conscience as the HIGHEST authority.

    So I have thus proven that conscience is a higher authority than the Bible. Can I also prove that the conscience is the HIGHEST authority of all? Probably not directly - but every attempt to deny this conclusion seems to lead to self-contradictory scenarios. Therefore it seems to be our best bet.
     
Loading...