Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Fireinfolding]

SDA Fantasy

What is?

 

[topcare]

What is?

her post

 

[Fireinfolding]

her post

Which verse

 

[topcare]

Which verse

Her whole post. I'm out a here, anybody want to know what true authentic verifiable Christianity is away from nonsense stop by Traditional Theology (TT) sub forum http://www.christianforums.com/forums/traditional-theology.1149/. Peace out and Merry Christmas.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I never heard of a TT before a TP yeah but not a TT

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
The Law is what reveals iniquity in us... the school master. We are not to have a relationship with the Law as the OT Israelites did, but the Law is still in effect if you believe that Jesus pardons us from iniquity. When I sin, how do I know it? The Spirit reveals that I have broken one of the Commandments either in letter or spirit. The Law does nothing for me except reveal my sin... Christ receives my confession and repentance and pardons me. I can provide more scripture on this point if you like.


Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Hebrews 4:14
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Revelation 8:3
And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.

Hebrews 9:12
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.



What was the 'Church' in Christs day? The Judaic temple worship, right? Did the early Christians stay within the established Church? They tried but were persecuted out. Sound familiar? Scripture shows us that the apostles went abroad, setting up independent self supporting home church's.
Acts 28:30-31
And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

That is true -but they had church organization according to 1Cor 12 and Ephesians 4. And in Acts 15 we see a central Jerusalem Council.

The church started off in pure form when it comes to the leadership at the top. But in Acts 20 and in 1Tim 1, and in Titus 1, and in Jude 1, and in 3 John and 2 John we see that error had come up in the church -- even in the first century things were getting dicey toward the end of that century.

 

[BobRyan]

No, we cannot agree that the USA constitution is authority in the USA but we can point to the supreme court (and the police forces that enforce the decisions of the supreme court) as authority in the USA. The USA constitution is the law which the supreme court interprets. It is the decisions of the supreme court that are enforced as binding authority in the USA. A recent example ought to suffice. The supreme court decided that same sex marriage is a protected 'right' under the USA constitution and therefore that no state in the union may make laws denying that freedom (right) to same sex couples. We need not get bogged down by the technicalities of this particular ruling it is sufficient for my purposes to note the decision and its immediate effect on USA law and law enforcement. It was not the constitution that stopped states from exercising their authority it was the supreme court's decision (interpretation) of the USA constitution that did it.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated clearly that the SS - was just "making stuff up" and was not at all holding to its charter under the Constitution in the SSM ruling. 3 other Justices agreed. All of them Catholic. I think there were only 2 Catholic justices that joined with the "free lancing" faction in the SS to start "making stuff up".

 

[BobRyan]

EastCoastRemnant said: ↑
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

SDA Fantasy

Because of the way this thread software collapses quoted posts - your post makes it appear that you think Romans 3 is an "SDA Fantasy" --

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

That is true -but they had church organization according to 1Cor 12 and Ephesians 4. And in Acts 15 we see a central Jerusalem Council.

The church started off in pure form when it comes to the leadership at the top. But in Acts 20 and in 1Tim 1, and in Titus 1, and in Jude 1, and in 3 John and 2 John we see that error had come up in the church -- even in the first century things were getting dicey toward the end of that century.

The question wasn't whether they were a rag tag unorganized lot but rather what evidence is there for separating from the established 'Church'.

At least the RC/OC's join in unity in their erroneous doctrines. No wonder they think us protestants fools, always infighting and bickering amongst ourselves.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Follow the true Church, like the Orthodox Church.

You know you sound like a cult recruiter... "never mind the truth just believe what we say even if it doesn't jive with the Bible... trust us, we have some infallible men a long time ago that passed these things down to us."

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

SDA Fantasy

Considering that I thoughtfully answered your questions with scripture... what do you have? Childish retorts....lol

 

[Fireinfolding]

That is sorta a Hallmark I look at to preach themselves rather then Christ

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

......

Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

.

Actually, the correct wording is "Sanctuary", not "Temple". No where in Revelation is the greek word for "Temple" used. The Sanctuary stood inside the Temple and consisted of the Holy and Most Holy place.
Just thought I would clarify that.

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3485&t=YLT
Strong's Number G3485 matches the Greek ναός (naos),
which occurs 46 times in 40 verses in the Greek concordance

Revelation 11:19
And opened was the Sanctuary/naoV <3485>of God in the heaven, and there was seen the ark of His covenant in His Sanctuary,
and there did come lightnings, and voices, and thunders, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Reve 15:8
And is being replete the Sanctuary/naoV <3485> of smoke out of the Glory of the God and out of the power of Him.
And no one was *able to be entering into the Sanctuary/naon <3485> until should be being finished the seven blows of the seven Messengers.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7510446/
Camp, Temple and Sanctuary in NT/NC

Studies In The Scriptures - Tabernacle Shadows - Chapter 1

The Camp--The Court--The Tabernacle--The Brazen Altar--The Laver-- The Table--The Lampstand--The Golden Altar--The Mercy Seat and Ark--The Gate--The First Veil--The Second Veil--The Significance of These and Their Antitypes.



.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Infant Baptism is easy. St. Paul baptized the jailer whole household, includes babies.

That's the evidence you bring? What about the other scripture that speaks about confession and understanding and belief before baptism? Did these 'babies' confess their sins and seek repentance?

Matthew 3:6
And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated clearly that the SS - was just "making stuff up" and was not at all holding to its charter under the Constitution in the SSM ruling. 3 other Justices agreed. All of them Catholic. I think there were only 2 Catholic justices that joined with the "free lancing" faction in the SS to start "making stuff up".

The point being made in my earlier post - the one to which you replied in the above quote - is that the USA constitution is merely ink on paper without any power of enforcement until people (the supreme court of the USA and the police forces in the USA) interpret its meaning and enforce their interpretation. Your post is more concerned with judgements made by some regarding one particular ruling than with the principle. Since you're post is about the technicalities of the case it appears to be irrelevant to my earlier post and to this thread. Let's proceed to a discussion of the principles involved in interpretation and enforcement as they apply to holy scripture and to the doctrine of SS as defined by Standing Up in the quote from wikipedia that he provided.

 

[TheDag]

Then how is it that all these denominations which claim to adhere to Sola Scriptura can't even agree with each other on how to make Kool-Aid?

Well you could try reading the bible and it would tell you that it is ok to have differences. they all agree on the essentials so no problem. If you don't think it is ok to have differences on non-essentials then perhaps you should stick to the unorthodox theology section of the forums since you don't believe the bible.

I'm afraid I don't see how. This thread is dedicated to why Sacred Scripture alone is not sufficient to be the sole rule of faith. My post was the first part of what was going to be a dialectic on how exactly that can be demonstrated vis a vis Protestant practice. So on that basis, I'd say my post relates directly to the topic at hand.

So you put half a post up and expect people to be magical mind readers and know you planned on making another post later with the rest of your point of view. Perhaps give some indication of that next time.

For a group who want to demonstrate that the practices and structures of the Catholic Church are not binding upon them, you guys sure do use a lot of Latin.

What weird claim is this??? Only catholics are allowed to use latin??? What weird doctrine is that and where did it come from? Protestants have never been against using latin.

 

[TheDag]

Where did Jesus say, exactly ""the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice"."?

If you are going to continually demand evidence for claims never made you should do the decent thing if you are a christian like you claim and that is observe and not talk. If however you are interested in discussion rather than demanding people defend a view they have never put forward then by all means join in the discussion. What you are doing is just being blatently dishonest.

 

[TheDag]

Infant Baptism is easy. St. Paul baptized the jailer whole household, includes babies.

Evidence please. There is no evidence there were babies in the household. That is an assumption.

If you want to see Holy Tradition the whole Bible came out of such (not the cut down 66 version). You see Scripture never claimed to be everything but evangelical Christians (man) have made that claim. Scriptures itself says that it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. Christ left a Church not a book

Once again that is personal interpretation. The only response to other possible understandings that is ever given is "because the Roman Catholic church says so". Hardly evidence. Early christians saw themselves as part of the jewish religion not a christian religion. So the church was not left either. That came later when those who followed Christ's teachings were banned from the temple. Essentially they were just another jewish sect. To argue with that is to say God was wrong which means the whole faith is wrong because if God is wrong then he is not worth having any faith in.

Lets look at your claims as to having truth by following tradition as well as scripture. Was it your tradition that resulted in the church taking part in condemning people as heretics and having them killed for saying the earth was not flat which was in opposition to what the church at the time taught. Don'teven dare try to give me the that wasn't doctrine line. if the church condemned people and put them to death over itthen yes it was doctrine.

 

[topcare]

Evidence please. There is no evidence there were babies in the household. That is an assumption.


Once again that is personal interpretation. The only response to other possible understandings that is ever given is "because the Roman Catholic church says so". Hardly evidence. Early christians saw themselves as part of the jewish religion not a christian religion. So the church was not left either. That came later when those who followed Christ's teachings were banned from the temple. Essentially they were just another jewish sect. To argue with that is to say God was wrong which means the whole faith is wrong because if God is wrong then he is not worth having any faith in.

Lets look at your claims as to having truth by following tradition as well as scripture. Was it your tradition that resulted in the church taking part in condemning people as heretics and having them killed for saying the earth was not flat which was in opposition to what the church at the time taught. Don'teven dare try to give me the that wasn't doctrine line. if the church condemned people and put them to death over itthen yes it was doctrine.

I am not Catholic so no.

 

[BobRyan]

The point being made in my earlier post - the one to which you replied in the above quote - is that the USA constitution is merely ink on paper without any power of enforcement until people (the supreme court of the USA and the police forces in the USA) interpret its meaning and enforce their interpretation. .

Acts 17:11 does not say "they searched the scriptures daily to see if they could interpret it according to their own bias" does it?

Rather the text shows that they are testing Paul's statements against scripture. these are not Christians so they are not biased to believe "we are wrong and Paul is right" as their starting point.

Neither are they biased to suppose that the start-up religion must be the right one.

According to Luke the issue is not "interpret according to your starting preference and bias" but rather - the text is a judge - is the rule, the standard, the authority.

Sort of like we see in Mark 7:6-13.