It appears to me that Sola scriptura is basically Sola-Paul for Protestants. Jesus promised of the Holy Spirit, not new writings that deviate from His words. Relying on deleted, added, manipulated, mistranslated, etc. of versions of the Bible is disputable.
Sola scriptura has no strong and reliable foundation!
- Thread starter Righttruth
- Start date
Calvinist Dark Lord
Regular Member
- Apr 8, 2003
- 1,589
- 468
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 27,504
- 45,436
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi JJ, if memory serves, RT (and other ANTI-Pauline types) do not hold as Scripture any portion of the NT that has the stench of the Apostle Paul or his influence on it in any way. They normally filter out other verses and passages as well, from Acts and even from the Gospels, which do not suit their presupposition, so that actually makes their "ultimate authority" .......
... oh yeah, themselves!"Sola Paul" .. I don't know anyone who holds the Apostle Paul's writings as Scripture who, at the same time, denies the Gospels as being the same, so the "Sola-Paul" thing does seem a bit odd RT
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes.
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. <---> 1st John 2:24
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2015
- 11,556
- 5,728
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi JJ, if memory serves, RT (and other ANTI-Pauline types) do not hold as Scripture any portion of the NT that has the stench of the Apostle Paul or his influence on it in any way. They normally filter out other verses and passages as well, from Acts and even from the Gospels, which do not suit their presupposition, so that actually makes their "ultimate authority" .......
"Sola Paul" .. I don't know anyone who holds the Apostle Paul's writings as Scripture who, at the same time, denies the Gospels as being the same, so the "Sola-Paul" thing does seem a bit odd RT
Thanks. Understood.
Upvote
0
- Sep 24, 2010
- 5,709
- 3,505
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
......and your "appears to me" belongs solely to you. The Bible is a contextual whole from beginning to end. There are no contradictions. Nothing can be added to it or taken away from it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 28, 2011
- 3,865
- 1,769
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Non solum Scripturae. Non solum papa. Nisi per Spiritu Sancto.
Upvote
0
There are conflicting theories based on biased banking of one author. For ex: faith alone by Paul and faith with works by James
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
The NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousands of times to show that it supported what they said and that they didn't deviate from it. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans we praises because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if it is true, so that is the same approach we should take whenever anyone teaches us anything about the Bible.
Upvote
0
The final yardstick happens to be the words of Jesus. Not some rank outsiders who have deviated. If they complement, it is OK. That is what one should do to filter out all writings of the NT especially of Paul's
Upvote
0
Calvinist Dark Lord
Regular Member
- Apr 8, 2003
- 1,589
- 468
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The Fail is strong with this one.
Wrong again. It is merely your own private interpretation of what scripture does and does not consist of.
You offer a parody of Sola Scriptura to disprove it.
Upvote
0
TurtleAnne
Active Member
This is a new subject altogether for me, that I stumbled upon today as it came up in another thread, but in trying to understand it and doing some searches in that effort, I found some verses in 1 Timothy.
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
So far in my understanding (still very much so a work in progress), this part seems key to understanding where Paul was coming from in some of his other writings. It seems (to me) like the message he was conveying is that prior to coming and sacrifice of Christ, the peoples of the OT times had to rely on "the law" as given to them by God. However after Christ came to the earth and was sacrificed for our salvation, "the law" was replaced by grace and faith and the teachings of Christ.
So going all the way to present day, there are people who have accepted Christ as their savior and have been spiritually saved, and they are following the faith, grace and teachings under Christ. Then there are people who have not yet been saved, have not yet accepted Christ as their savior. So just like the peoples of the OT time who did not have Christ (since Christ had not been sent to the earth yet), and therefore had to rely on "the law" as it was then, people after Christ had been sent to the earth and died for our sins, yet people who had/have not yet received Christ as their savior, would also need to still be relying on "the law" of the OT times.
This makes sense, yes? Christ changed quite a few things when He died for our sins, but that doesn't mean that everyone had/has received Christ as their savior yet. While significant things had changed, each individual was/is still responsible for embracing that transition by embracing Christ as their personal savior. Prior to that, the individual has not made the transition on a personal, spiritual level, and so "the law" still applies.
So for example when Paul was writing instructions to Corinth, it was meant to address several issues that the Corinthian people were having, so perhaps it is because they were having so much confusion and so many issues, that Paul attempted to steer them towards "the law" to play it safe for them until they were to get their issues sorted out.
Does that sound about right, or no?
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
So far in my understanding (still very much so a work in progress), this part seems key to understanding where Paul was coming from in some of his other writings. It seems (to me) like the message he was conveying is that prior to coming and sacrifice of Christ, the peoples of the OT times had to rely on "the law" as given to them by God. However after Christ came to the earth and was sacrificed for our salvation, "the law" was replaced by grace and faith and the teachings of Christ.
So going all the way to present day, there are people who have accepted Christ as their savior and have been spiritually saved, and they are following the faith, grace and teachings under Christ. Then there are people who have not yet been saved, have not yet accepted Christ as their savior. So just like the peoples of the OT time who did not have Christ (since Christ had not been sent to the earth yet), and therefore had to rely on "the law" as it was then, people after Christ had been sent to the earth and died for our sins, yet people who had/have not yet received Christ as their savior, would also need to still be relying on "the law" of the OT times.
This makes sense, yes? Christ changed quite a few things when He died for our sins, but that doesn't mean that everyone had/has received Christ as their savior yet. While significant things had changed, each individual was/is still responsible for embracing that transition by embracing Christ as their personal savior. Prior to that, the individual has not made the transition on a personal, spiritual level, and so "the law" still applies.
So for example when Paul was writing instructions to Corinth, it was meant to address several issues that the Corinthian people were having, so perhaps it is because they were having so much confusion and so many issues, that Paul attempted to steer them towards "the law" to play it safe for them until they were to get their issues sorted out.
Does that sound about right, or no?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
