• 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.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Featured Sola Scriptura defined....

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by BBAS 64, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    740
    +227
    Catholic
    Private
    When did I say he shouldn't?

    When did I say He did?

    I do/did? Could you show the post where I supposedly have done so?

    Now can we get back on the topic of Sola Scriptura. (the bible alone)

    Using the Bible as your sole source, could you please show where in the Bible it say's that the Bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?

    Let me remind you on what you said back on post # 249:

    I would also hope that you will try staying true to what you also said in post #249:

     
  2. tulipbee

    tulipbee Worker of the Hive

    +263
    Christian
    Private
    this is bad news for the late roman denomination but extreme good news for the protestants: • What is the so-called "heptadic" structure that Dr. Panin discovered? Simply stated it is this: genuine Scripture, both Hebrew and Greek. where the numbers equivalent with the letters are added up properly. at some point: word, sentence, paragraph, or chapter, will always be divisible by the number seven! And, beyond this, utilization of "place numbers" determines punctuation as well as proper chronology of the various books. This mathematical phenomena occurs and reoccurs only in Holy Scripture and thus rules out all that is spurious. For instance, the "Apocrypha", the fourteen books written during the 400 year "inter-testament" period between Malachi of the Old Testament and Matthew of the New, have no numerics whatsoever and are thereby revealed as being merely of man. Numerous Greek classical writings have also been checked with no evidence of Bible numerics found. Thus Dr. Panin determined that Scripture and only Scripture has this numeric "signature of Divinity" within it. found at: BIBLE NUMERICS EXAMINED -- PART 2

    too bad you just got refuted. we're tired of your lies. good day
     
  3. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,554
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    That is an excellent thought from you and His name is Emmitt.

    You are more than welcome to pray for his family but there is no need to pray for him. He choose to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and as a saved man was received into the throne room of heaven when he took his last breath here on earth.
     
  4. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,554
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I had known and have done work on NUMBERS in the Scriptures a few years ago, but I was not aware of the information you posted, then YES your comment would be totally correct. Thank you for the information and I will do some research on this!!!

    It did not take long. A wealth of information is available at ............
    BIBLE NUMERICS EXAMINED -- PART 2

    Another is............
    Dr Ivan Panin - Bible Numerics research
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  5. tulipbee

    tulipbee Worker of the Hive

    +263
    Christian
    Private
    It might show that the extra books are really really really really really very faraway from God's inspired word. the extras are so uninspired that its really bad. its an embarrassment to the late Roman denomination. I thank the protestants for continuing their faithfulness to Jesus.
     
  6. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,554
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I guess that you can see that I am not the only one that has noticed your penchant for playing with words and trying to make them say what you want them to say.
    That process my friend IS NOT debating.

    Now for you question of..............
    "Using the Bible as your sole source, could you please show where in the Bible it say's that the Bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?"

    How many times do you need that answer to be given to you??????

    The last answer was comment #345 where I went into great detail JUST FOR YOU.

    It then has nothing to do with the question you have asked but instead it is YOUR failure to either understand the answer or your inability to accept it.

    Rom. 3:28-30........
    "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

    Verse 30 goes on to say......
    "since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

    Rom. 5:1.......
    "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;"

    Gal. 2:16.........
    "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

    Now, it is against my better judgment to do this, but ONCE AGAIN I am going to give you Bible lesson. Please copy and print it and place it right about YOUR computer screen and every time you think about asking a Protestant the question of where in the Bible is "Faith ALONE screen, stop, look and read this again.

    Now then, please do not take my word for this. Look it up in Strong's or any Lexicon you choose to use and you will find that in the Greek language the words faith and belief are the same, both coming from the same root word. The absence of anything other than belief/faith in all Scripture verses describing the requirements for our salvation implies that we’re saved by faith alone.

    For example, in both John 3:16, and John 3:36, Jesus said that.......
    "everyone who BELIEVES in the Son will have eternal life."

    Please look that up. Isn't that exactly what Jesus said??????

    Now look at John 5:24 where the God-Man, Jesus Christ said .................
    “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and BELIEVES him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.”

    Again......is that what YOU read? Is that what Jesus said?
    Allow me to continue this for YOU.

    Please, with YOUR Bible open, look now at John 6:28-29 where Jesus was asked what work God requires of us. He said..........
    “The work of God is this, to BELIEVE in the one He has sent.”

    May I say to you that this was a very specific question and JESUS gave a very specific answer.


    Now. again, reading from YOU very own Bible in John 6:40 he said.....
    “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and BELIEVES in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

    In all these opportunities to do so, the Lord didn’t add anything to BELIEF as a requirement for salvation. Hopefully YOU did as I asked and read from YOUR Bible and you just saw how simple this teaching is.

    It was the same with Paul. In Ephesians 1:13-14 he said our salvation is guaranteed when we believe. Since at the moment of belief we had done nothing else it means our salvation is guaranteed based solely on our belief.

    In Ephesians 2:89 he made it even clearer. He said we’re saved by grace through faith, and not by works. Grace is an unmerited favor that comes through faith and nothing else.

    In Rom. 3:21-22 he said we have a righteousness from God that comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, and in Rom. 4:5 he said......
    “To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked his faith is credited as righteousness.”

    Our righteousness is from God and comes through faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else.

    And in Titus 3:4-5 he wrote.....
    “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done but because of His mercy.”

    These verses provide conclusive evidence that our salvation is based only on what we believe. In other words we’re saved by faith alone.

    Now then, once again your question has been answered. You have hopefully printed my answer and placed where you can read it. Before you post a rhetorical question that challenges the Bible you have in front of you, let me ask you how you can not understand what the Bible says??????????

    Now allow me to say this to you in the nicest way that it can be said to you my friend.
    If you do not understand what YOU have just read it is because YOUR acceptance of Catholic dogma is more important to you than is the Word of God which YOU just read.


     
  7. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,554
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    You are correct. Let me also add that anyone who supports the acceptance of the Apocrypha books...........has not read them!

    They are not only "NOT Inspired" they are not Biblical and are actually OCCULTIC.

    Allow me to give you an example. The Book of Enoch is one of the obvious.

    Enoch 40:9-10..........
    "seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is RAPHAEL....: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’

    Who in the world is RAPHAEL AND PHANUEL??????

    The Bible never mentions an angel named RAPHAEL or PHANUEL, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. What blasphemy! Without going any further than these 2 verses we see that the statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.

    We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel.

    The Bible says clearly that..........
    "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

    Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone. Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19); therefore, we must be diligent to guard and defend against LIARS and imposters who would lead people to believe otherwise. 1st John 2:22 clearly indicts all Christ-deniers as LIARS, guilty before God.

    I am amazed that anyone who calls themselves a Christian can read this nonsense and still call them selves a Christian.
     
  8. Phil 1:21

    Phil 1:21 Well-Known Member

    +4,337
    Christian
    Married
    FWIW, Enoch is not one of the deutercanonical texts in the Catholic Bible.

    Below from Deuterocanonical books - Wikipedia

    The Catholic deuterocanonical scriptural texts are:
     
  9. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,554
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    According to ............The Apocrypha Index

    The Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible These are books which are included in some version of the canonical Bible, but which have been excluded at one time or another, for textual or doctrinal issues. These are called 'Deuterocanonical', which literally means 'the secondary canon.'
    [​IMG] The Forgotten Books of Eden [1926]
    A collection of OT pseudepigrapha, specifically:
    The First Book of Adam and Eve
    The Second Book of Adam and Eve
    The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
    The Psalms of Solomon
    The Odes of Solomon
    The Letter of Aristeas
    Fourth Book of Maccabees
    The Story of Ahikar
    The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
    Testament of Reuben
    Testament of Simeon
    Testament of Levi
    The Testament of Judah
    The Testament of Issachar
    The Testament of Zebulun
    The Testament of Dan
    The Testament of Naphtali
    The Testament Of Gad
    The Testament of Asher
    The Testament of Joseph
    The Testament of Benjamin
     
  10. Phil 1:21

    Phil 1:21 Well-Known Member

    +4,337
    Christian
    Married
    Found in some canons? Yes, but not in the Catholic canon. I haven't read Enoch (haven't read Lord of the Rings either), but I have read the Catholic Bible, including the books and portions of books canonized after Luther swung his hammer. Honestly, they're much ado over nothing.
     
  11. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +28,462
    Anglican
    Married
    Yes. And that is why they have been controversial since the time of Christ. If any doctrine actually were dependent upon something found in the Apocrypha, perhaps that would be different.
     
  12. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +10,322
    Non-Denom
    Agreed. Our Catholic friends really strain at gnats in their attempts to magnify the significance of the deutercanonical books.
     
  13. Phil 1:21

    Phil 1:21 Well-Known Member

    +4,337
    Christian
    Married
    Like quoting 2 Maccabees to justify the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences when neither are mentioned directly or indirectly in the text.
     
  14. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,554
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Isn't that because there is no other place to find their teachings on such issues?
     
  15. Phil 1:21

    Phil 1:21 Well-Known Member

    +4,337
    Christian
    Married
    It's not even found there. Their "proof text" is some people praying for the dead. Nothing about a pit stop for some slow roasting before going on to heaven.
     
  16. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +28,462
    Anglican
    Married
    ...or described or approved of.
     
  17. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    740
    +227
    Catholic
    Private
    Lol! It might also show that many many many many Early Church Fathers, (Catholic) that were only a generation or two from Jesus and the Apostles "did" consider the deuterocanonical books as inspired. Not only that, there are also many Protestant Historians that 'did not' think the deuterocanonical books were really really really really really far away fromGod's inspired word. For example, Protestant historian JND Kelly writes in his book Early Christian Doctrines:

    As I stated before, we have the early Church Fathers, and their views on the deuterocanonical books. I ask that you and your new found buddy..... Maj1 take special notice on how the Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books along with the protocanonicals as well as the dates.

    The Didache: "You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [ca. A.D. 70]).

    Pseudo-Barnabas: "Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' [Isa. 3:9], saying, 'Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us' [Wis. 2:12.]" (Epistle of Barnabas 6:7 [ca. A.D. 74]).

    Clement: "By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12]" (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

    Polycarp: "Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!" (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).

    To quote a few. Not to mention Irenaeus; (190 a.d.), Hippolytus; (A.D. 204), Cyprian; ( 252 a.d), the Council of Rome (382 a.d.), The Council of Hippo; canon 36; (393 a.d.), Augustine (395 a.d.), The Council of Carthage; (canon 47 [A.D. 397]), The Apostolic Constitutions; (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [ca. A.D. 400]), Jerome; (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]), Pope Innocent I; (To Exuperius 7 [A.D. 405]), and the African Code; (canon 24 [A.D. 419]).

    What I find ironic,,,, is that you (and maj1) reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that you appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. But you seem to rather take the "fallible" research of a man (Ivan Panin) that wasen't even born until fourteen hundred years after the Council of Carthage! But hey..... believe what you want.

    History disagrees with you.

    Lol!......If you are refurring to the Holy Catholic Church, you are much mistaken. Unlike your sect with a proable history of a hundred years or less, (if your lucky) the 1.2 billion member Catholic Church has been around for 2000 plus years and has never been late for nutin........ especially.... Bingo! :)


    As do Catholics!
     
  18. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    740
    +227
    Catholic
    Private
    I know... I know... you found yourself a new friend. Let's just see how good of a friends you'll be when the two of you inevitably disagree on a certain bible passage or doctrine. (something non-denominational sects are so famous for.) IOW..... dis-unity.

    Hmmm... you are entitled to your opinion, dosen't mean it's right though.

    When you can answer it 'honestly'.

    I can appreciate the 'great detail' you put in just for me Maj1, but unfortunately for you, not one of the scripture passages you quoted on post # 345, or this post states the the bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. So please try again. I also couldn't help but notice that you completely ignored my comment on post #355 reguarding this 'implied truth' you speak of. Hence:

    Or the question I have asked you for about 10 or 15 times that always seems to get's ignored:

    How come?

    Lol!!! Right back at ya!!

    Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”:

    Gen. to Rev. – Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

    Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 – those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

    Matt. 28:20 – “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

    Mark 16:15 – Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

    Luke 1:1-4 – Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

    John 20:30; 21:25 – Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

    Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 – these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

    Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

    Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

    1 Cor. 5:9-11 – this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

    1 Cor. 11:2 – Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

    Phil. 4:9 – Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

    Col. 4:16 – this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

    1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

    1 Thess. 3:10 – Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

    2 Thess. 2:14 – Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

    2 Thess. 2:15 – the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

    2 Thess 3:6 – Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

    1 Tim. 3:14-15 – Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

    2 Tim. 2:2 – Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

    2 Tim. 3:14 – continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

    James 4:5 – James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

    2 Peter 1:20 – interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

    2 Peter 3:15-16 – Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

    2 Peter 3:16 – the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

    1 John 4:1 – again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

    1 Sam. 3:1-9 – for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

    1 Kings 13:1-32 – in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

    Gen. to Rev. – Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

    I know it's a lot to take in Maj1, but unlike you, I know it was "NOT" against my better judgment to do this.

    Peace be with you
     
  19. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Newbie

    +2,047
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    How could one make the argument that the bible doesn't mention such angels when the book itself in certain biblical canons (Coptic) refers to the angels? Is the presumption that there cannot be original elements in certain biblical books that any of the others refer to? The naked Man in Mark is not mentioned in any of the Synoptics, does this cast doubt over Mark's Authenticity or Canonicity?

    I won't defend 1st Enoch since it's not in my bible but perhaps a more in depth study might be more worthwhile than a single quotation as if that represents the entirety of the book. Much in the same way we would expect others to treat what we recognise as biblical carefully, shouldn't we do the same for books we disagree with and don't include in our respective canons?

    Also, what is particularly occultic about the Maccabees or Wisdom of Solomon/Ben Sirach?
     
  20. tulipbee

    tulipbee Worker of the Hive

    +263
    Christian
    Private
    rather turn to jesus than ecf
     
Loading...