SDA

[Karola]

We enjoy "reading that scripture"-- thanks for posting it.

Even the followers of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" would enjoy reading those scriptures.

All of these agree to "sola scriptura" testing as we see in Acts 17:11 and Mark 7:6-13 so we enjoy the fact that the LAW of God found in scripture is written on the heart by the Holy Spirit as Jeremiah points out in Jeremiah 31:31-33.

Are you familiar with honest exegesis when interpreting the text? Have you heard that "context matters"?

So sola scripture is only sola scripture when it suits you? Or when it does not conflict with your denominational beliefs

You can try and explain away scripture if you like, but it is very plainly written. It is not a law written in ink for the believer but one written on the heart by the Spirit of the living God. Which puts you at odds with the foundation of the new covenant.

 

[BobRyan]

So sola scripture is only sola scripture when it suits you?

On the contrary - I enjoy it at all times which is why I noted that fact with the texts you provided. I also noted that a great many non-SDA scholars and Christian groups completely enjoy those texts you gave AND strongly affirm the protestant acceptance of the Bible teaching on "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine. Hence Paul says to Timothy that scripture "not your feelings" is to be used to test all doctrine in 2 Tim 3:16.

You can try and explain away scripture if you like,

On the contrary I keep pointing to it.

Your notion of don't-read-bible just-trust-feelings is not Christ's teaching in John 16:2 and we all know it.

And it is not Christ's practice in Mark 7:6-13 -- there is "trust your feelings - Luke - " in those verses.

The I God "I will write my LAW" on their heart and mind - Jer 31:31-33. Jeremiah wrote that text and intended his readers to know what it means. All Bible scholars agree on that. They also agree that Jeremiah knew that the Ten Commandments were included in that moral law of God.

Hence my reference to the Baptist Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Nothing in the New Covenant says "don't read scripture - -trust your feelings".

But we did find that sort of thing in John 16:2

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
What day did the NT church do that - each week?

In the first century.

Which day did the New Testament church celebrate, in the first and second centuries?

You seem to be struggling with the answer. Are you wishing to use something other than the actual Bible - for the answer?

There is evidence both in the New Testament and in church history. That Christians celebrated Sunday as the day that Jesus rose.

We all agree that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week and that week-day-1 is Sunday -- and now you claim to have some secret knowledge about a weekly week-day-1 meeting in honor of the resurrection. fine -- quote it.

I see "every Sabbath they meet in the Synagogue" to hear Gospel preaching for BOTH Jews and gentiles in Acts 18:4 -- so where is your text??

 

[Karola]

On the contrary - I enjoy it at all times which is why I noted that fact with the texts you provided. I alson noted that a great many non-SDA scholars and Christian groups completely enjoy those texts you gave AND strongly affirm the protestant acceptance of the Bible teaching on "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine. Hence Paul says to Timothy that scripture "not your feelings" is to be used to test all doctrine in 2 Tim 3:16.



On the contrary I keep pointing to it.

Your notion of don't-read-bible just-trust-feelings is not Christ's teaching in John 16:2 and we all know it.

And it is not Christ's practice in Mark 7:6-13 -- there is "trust your feelings - Luke - " in those verses.

The I God "I will write my LAW" on their heart and mind - Jer 31:31-33. Jeremiah wrote that text and intended his readers to know what it means. All Bible scholars agree on that. They also agree that Jeremiah knew that the Ten Commandments were included in that moral law of God.

Hence my reference to the Baptist Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Nothing in the New Covenant says "don't read scripture - -trust your feelings".

But we did find that sort of thing in John 16:2

The lengths you will go to in order to refuse to accept what is plainly written in the bible in order to defend your denominational beliefs!!
1 scripture is to be used to test all doctrine. and your doctrine fails, for it is not a law written in ink according to scripture for the believer
2) So now you accuse me of just trusting feelings by accepting the new covenant clearly written in scripture
3) You accuse me of believing 'don't read the bible'. It is the bible that states the law is not written in ink for the believer
4) Then you come up with a belief that through the law you may or may not become conscious of sin, and you jettison sola scripture, defending your right to do so, due to what you say is RC belief(though they would disagree with your interpretation of their belief) Im sure catholics will be most grateful to you for jettisoning sola scripture out of concern for them, and what you perceive to be their errant beliefs

 

[BobRyan]

It's interesting how even without the Spirit, an Atheist would instinctively know it is wrong to murder ....

but would not know that christians should not bow down before images -- and apparently don't feel bad about taking God's name in vain since they claim it is like taking the Easter Bunny's name in vain.

More scripture -- less creative writing please.

Catholicism is learned behavior,

So is yours. It is pretty hard to find protestants rejecting sola scriptura testing of doctrine. They appear to "instinctively" know that denying the Bible and going by "feelings" instead - is dead wrong.

not instinct, regardless of whether or not they do the above things that you claim.

I think you have ignored the obvious

 

[BobRyan]

Seventh day Adventists were only convicted to observe a specific Saturday sabbath by reading law written in ink.

The lengths you will go to in order to refuse to accept what is plainly written in the bible

Scripture is written with ink. You need a less conflicted POV

God's word states it is not a law written in ink

God's Word is written in ink. God's Word is Law, God's Word is Truth

You have spun a story about God's Word at odds with His Spirit. More Bible less "making stuff up" --

 

[BobRyan]

A great example of a test that does NOT say "do not read the Bible" -- "Do not do what God tells you to do in the Bible".. 'Do not use the Bible to help clarify the LAW of God"

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2Cor3:3[/QUOTE]

 

[Karola]

Scripture is written with ink. You need a less conflicted POV



God's Word is written in ink. God's Word is Law, God's Word is Truth

You have spun a story about God's Word at odds with His Spirit. More Bible less "making stuff up" --

Keep trying anything to avoid accepting the new covenant. Scripture is written in ink, but the law is not written in ink for the believer.
BTW
Have you got a scripture that states:
Through the law you may or may not become conscious of sin ?

 

[Karola]

A great example of a test that does NOT say "do not read the Bible" -- "Do not do what God tells you to do in the Bible".. 'Do not use the Bible to help clarify the LAW of God"

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2Cor3:3

[/QUOTE]
I've got to hand it to you Bob, you are excelling at excuses to avoid accepting what the bible clearly states is the new covenant
By reading the bible I read it is not a law written in ink anymore for believers
And because the law is in your heart, you in your heart want to do what God wants you to do concerning it

 

[Karola]

It couldn't be written any plainer could it:

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2cor3:3

This is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,’ declares the Lord.
‘I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
Jeremiah31:33

This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
Heb8:10

This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.’

17 Then he adds:

‘Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.

 

[Karola]

Paul was just echoing of course the foundation upon which the new covenant stands. It is not a law written in ink for the believer, but one written on tablets of human hearts(and minds) by the Spirit of the living God

 

[Karola]

It always comes back to the same thing. There is no spirit led Christianity in following after the written code.
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Rom7:6

 

[klutedavid]

BobRyan said: ↑
What day did the NT church do that - each week?

In the first century.



You seem to be struggling with the answer. Are you wishing to use something other than the actual Bible - for the answer?



We all agree that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week and that week-day-1 is Sunday -- and now you claim to have some secret knowledge about a weekly week-day-1 meeting in honor of the resurrection. fine -- quote it.

I see "every Sabbath they meet in the Synagogue" to hear Gospel preaching for BOTH Jews and gentiles in Acts 18:4 -- so where is your text??

A very confused reply Bob.

We celebrate the risen Christ on the first day.

Church history records that the first day was celebrated before the New Testament existed.

People can meet in a synagogue to hear the gospel, but so what?

There is a sharp difference between a Jewish day of rest, and celebrating the risen Christ. Two different events, celebrated on two different days.

As I have said before, if you omit three hundred years of church history. Then you do not have a New Testament.

 

[bekkilyn]

but would not know that christians should not bow down before images -- and apparently don't feel bad about taking God's name in vain since they claim it is like taking the Easter Bunny's name in vain.

More scripture -- less creative writing please.

However, if they believed that a one and only true God existed, how many of them would think it was right to be cursing him and bowing down before images of other gods? And they wouldn't need any scripture at all to come to that very reasonable conclusion.

What's going to make them think it's suddenly a good idea to pick one day out of the week to do nothing and then have a 1 out of 7 chance of guessing the right one unless they read it somewhere or someone tells them...or threatens them into doing it?

So is yours. It is pretty hard to find protestants rejecting sola scriptura testing of doctrine. They appear to "instinctively" know that denying the Bible and going by "feelings" instead - is dead wrong.

You are aware that there are denominations that are *not* sola scriptura right?

For example, United Methodists are prima scriptura. While we believe that scripture is the primary authority, we also believe that tradition, reason, and personal experience are also authoritative when they do not conflict with scripture.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your particular interpretation of biblical scriptures doesn't mean that they are denying them. What they are doing is denying *your* interpretation.

You do realize that the Trinity isn't Father, Son, and Holy Bible, right? That it's actually Father, Son, and Holy *Spirit*. If you believe that the Holy Spirit is the same thing as "feelings" you couldn't be more wrong, although there are times when people do feel the Spirit working in their lives.

Atheists wouldn't have the gift of the Spirit though and yet they still do instinctively know that murder being wrong is a universal moral law of God, even if they won't recognize it's of God. Mock it all you want, but they aren't going to suddenly know there is a ritual weekly sabbath day, and which exact day it is, or even be able to reason it out if they decided to believe there was a one true God and wanted to treat him respectfully.

I think you have ignored the obvious

What you have ignored is the context to why particular laws were given to particular people at particular times.

 

[bekkilyn]

A very confused reply Bob.

We celebrate the risen Christ on the first day.

Church history records that the first day was celebrated before the New Testament existed.

People can meet in a synagogue to hear the gospel, but so what?

There is a sharp difference between a Jewish day of rest, and celebrating the risen Christ. Two different events, celebrated on two different days.

As I have said before, if you omit three hundred years of church history. Then you do not have a New Testament.

I'm really beginning to wonder if some people think that new testament scriptures just magically appeared in the Temple or somewhere nearby once Jesus was crucified. That the scriptures weren't written at different times by different people and that they were finally compiled into what we have come to call the bible 300+ years later.

Many Greek converts might have only heard one of Paul's letters and that was the extent of their scripture. What was of primary importance was the ACTUAL EVENT of Christ's resurrection. What is *any* amount of scripture compared to that?

 

[klutedavid]

I'm really beginning to wonder if some people think that new testament scriptures just magically appeared in the Temple or somewhere nearby once Jesus was crucified. That the scriptures weren't written at different times by different people and that they were finally compiled into what we have come to call the bible 300+ years later.

Many Greek converts might have only heard one of Paul's letters and that was the extent of their scripture. What was of primary importance was the ACTUAL EVENT of Christ's resurrection. What is *any* amount of scripture compared to that?

It took a long time for the New Testament letters to be seen as canon, as scripture. People had to decide what was scripture and what was not scripture.

The council of Laodicea announced an official New Testament, but that was not until 363 AD. There was about twenty or so letters that were excluded, from that New Testament list in Laodicea. I have read a few of those excluded letters and have wondered why, one or two of these were not included in the canon.

 

[Karola]

You do realize that the Trinity isn't Father, Son, and Holy Bible, right? That it's actually Father, Son, and Holy *Spirit*. .

I've heard that expression before, and in my view a very relevant one, in view of the fact you either follow after the written code(law written in ink) or the Holy Spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

It couldn't be written any plainer could it:

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2cor3:3

This is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,’ declares the Lord.
‘I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
Jeremiah31:33
.

None of which can be bent to say "don't find doctrine in your Bible"
"the Bible is not to be used for doctrine"
"if it is written in ink don't pay attention to it.

2 Cor 3:3 says "YOU are a LETTER" -- does not mean "you are a person that refuses to read the Bible but just does what FEELs good to them".

Obviously.

Also does not say "people USED to be letters written in ink - but not any more"

Obviously.

It couldn't be written any plainer could it:
.

On that point you are right.

 

[Karola]

None of which can be bent to say "don't find doctrine in your Bible"
"the Bible is not to be used for doctrine"
"if it is written in ink don't pay attention to it.

2 Cor 3:3 says "YOU are a LETTER" -- does not mean "you are a person that refuses to read the Bible but just does what FEELs good to them".

Obviously.

Also does not say "people USED to be letters written in ink - but not any more"

Obviously.



On that point you are right.

Yep, doctrine can be found in the bible, and we can read what is written in ink to find it there, and biblical doctrine states the law for the believer is not written in ink, for that is not where the law is for the believer, according to the doctrine of the bible.
Yep, 2cor3:3 does not say that you can refuse to read the bible. It states the Spirit of the living God writes the law on the heart, it is not written in ink for the believer. That is what you find by reading the bible, not refusing to read or accept it

The bible states concerning what used to be and what now is:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code/law written in ink. Rom7:6

 

[ToBeLoved]

BobRyan said: ↑
I see "every Sabbath they meet in the Synagogue" to hear Gospel preaching for BOTH Jews and gentiles in Acts 18:4 -- so where is your text??

What would you expect in Acts. At that time their weren't a lot of Christians and their were not churches only synogogues.

That's not really a good argument given that Christianity was just blossoming