Sola Scriptura is overrated, the first christians didn't need it so neither do we.

[Meowzltov]

That's the fuller explanation of the nature of the Trinity, but the fact that there IS a Holy Trinity is quite definitely laid out for us in Scripture.

Sorry, but simply saying, "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," is not the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals will say the Father, Son, and HS.

 

[SolomonVII]

While I fully accept the Nicene description of Trinity, as anyone here does, I suppose, it is worthwhile pointing out that it is getting caught up in the explanation, much like getting caught up in the details of Transubstantiation, that is where the path to schisms has laid. Who now really comprehends the difference between Monophysites, as the Copts were falsely asserted to be, for example, and what the Orthodox claims was the only, one true formula?
It is all very, very technical, at at the bottom of the controversy was not Scripture, but the same old politics of which 'apostle' is going to be first and who is going to be last; Peter or John, Andrew or Paul, Rome or Constantinople, or Alexandria?

The problem does not lie in Scripture, and never has really. "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is described well enough. It is what has been added to Scripture, or taken away that leads to the house divided scenarios.

Extra scriptural sources of Christianity are overrated. Early Christianity did not need them, and neither do we.

 

[Meowzltov]

While I fully accept the Nicene description of Trinity, as anyone here does

Which means, despite your attempts to minimize it, that you accept Church authority.

 

[SolomonVII]

Which means, despite your attempts to minimize it, that you accept Church authority.

I don't attempt to minimize Church authority.
I sometimes do attempt to ridicule fellow Christians who attempt to usurp Church authority for themselves, who carry either God or Pope in their back pocket so to speak as their own trump cards to try to win the argument without even having to make an argument.

I appreciate the TV drama The Borgias. It really drives home the point I often make that there is no war or controversy in which Catholics are not fighting bitterly from both sides, and not only that but authentically believing that God and Pope and Church are on their side.
That is the kind of 'authority' that I do attempt to minimize.

But accepting Scriptural authority is accepting Church authority, yes indeed.
Scripture is a thoroughly Christian phenomena. Scripture is of the Church.

 

[Albion]

I don't attempt to minimize Church authority.

Yeh, that was quite an accusation, wasn't it?

But accepting Scriptural authority is accepting Church authority, yes indeed.
Scripture is a thoroughly Christian phenomena. Scripture is of the Church.

It's not unusual to have knee-jerk opponents of Sola Scriptura drift into "dissing" Scripture itself in the process. I think you just witnessed that turn of events.

 

[W2L]

If they don't teach us to learn from the spirit, and to be men rather than infants who need human teachers, or if they teach "my church is the true church" doctrine, then they have no authority, because all churches seem to be imperfect, and Christ is the teacher.

 

[Righttruth]

You can get a copy of the New Testament that's translated from the Aramaic and, I believe, the entire Bible as well.

What is the source for translation? My question is whether the Jesus' words and His works recorded in Aramaic available like in Greek? Were they ever recorded about that time? You know Jesus spoke in that language.

 

[Righttruth]

Are you switching to a different objection to Scripture now?

Most of the time, when people say that they've found a conflict, it turns out that there actually isn't one.

We need to look at in all possible angles to hold something authoritative and non-controversial. There won't be any conflict when something is accepted unquestioned.

 

[Righttruth]

This 'what if' scenario is every atheist 'ace' or so they think.

What you need to do is give us the specific verses that you think conflict. That is how one learns and there is much each of us can learn from each other. The Holy Spirit brings people into our lives this way.

Ok. Jesus called Paul to be an instrument or vessel. But Paul self-claimed as an apostle. Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize. Paul stopped baptizing on his own.

 

[Righttruth]

You need to think about who wrote each book of the Bible and what the language they would use to 'WRITE' not necessarily speak (although language is important to the Bible).

For instance, Paul wrote in Greek.

Anyone wrote in Aramaic during that period?

 

[Righttruth]

The Trinity is, in fact, one of the least controversial or disputed of Christian teachings, being accepted by all Catholic churches and all the leading Protestant churches alike.

It's the cults of recent times that are best known for having questioned it, along with a number of other Christian doctrines that have been believed for many centuries.

That means Protestant believe a few things about Catholic doctrines. Why not all? Cult or orthodox, it is the truth that is paramount.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I disagree. The Father, Son, and HS are in Scripture. But One God, Three persons as outlined at Nicea and beyond? Nope.

Interesting. So why did Jesus pray to the Father daily? And why did John the Baptist see a dove come down from heaven when Jesus was baptized? That was the Holy Spirit.

What do you believe exactly? You didn't really say.

 

[Righttruth]

Your criticism of the texts is very post-modern. Hyper-critical parsing of any and all texts make any truth an impossibility.

Time cannot be the criterion to decide on the truth.

And yet in the real world, for the past two thousand years, people have been able to come to basic understandings of Christianity and real communication through the Bible has been functionally possible, in spite of what Post-Modernism cynically describes as an impossibility.Schisms and controversies have abounded, but they have for the main been based in extra-bibical contentions.

Basic understanding cannot be apart from Christ's words.

The Bible is not a simple document, and translation is not a simple task. Translators have gone beyond the original wording of the documents for good reason, in order to try to convey the nuances and idioms of the age that do not necessarily translate word for word into modern languages, or other languages in general.

The trouble starts when it is affected with a bias.

There have been some great and worthy discussions on the precise meaning of even individual words, such as happened in a Stenbeck novel, for example over whether the better translation would be Cain shalt triumph over evil, or he mayest, or several other possible nuances.
This too is part of how the Bible is to be read, and to be understood. The Living Word invites discussion, and argument, and analysis. This is not a limitation of language, but language's greatest strength. Those who desire such an unrealistic precision will opt for the sword which harbors no argument or opposition.The most devout of the faithful do not dismiss translations as invalid outright, but scholarship seeks out different understandings for themselves to come to the best understanding of the text as is possible. And most certainly the most discerning and educated minds will gravitate less to heavily paraphrased texts towards ones in which the text deviates less from the original source material, since such minds are already well enough aware of many of the nuances and cultural meanings that would have been more obvious to native Koine Greek speakers, or whatever the text source may be.

Not much can be gained by brooding over the OT material.

I personally don't find Post-Modernists textual criticisms all that compelling. Cynicism is the antithesis to a live well-lived, imho.

Cynicism and mere acceptance cease their effect when we are aware of the nearness of the truth.

 

[Righttruth]

What do you do when BOTH interpretations make people comfortable? For example, Once Save Always Saved gives people the sense of security that they crave, even though it does away with free will. On the other hand, Free Will give some measure of control, which is nice, even though it does away with security.

OSAS offers false security really that is dangerous to the point of losing salvation. Free will doesn't really give any control nor it offers security.

 

[Righttruth]

Agreed. Not only 'false security' but it utterly contrary to what we are offered in the Bible. One of those 'man made doctrines' that bring about 'separation' instead of unity.

The Bible makes it perfectly clear that one is capable of being a follower one moment and then living contrary to the truth the next. All of us have the potential to 'turn our backs on God or His Son'.

If OSAS were 'truth', then there would be no sense in 'judgement'. Our HOPE lies in salvation, not our 'knowing'. And according to the Bible, which of us is truly able to properly judge anything beyond our capacity to judge?

As the saying goes, "Many will be surprised at who ends up in heaven". And many more will be surprised at how 'doesn't end up there'.

Blessings,

MEC

Right.
Matthew 24
13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think you non OSAS people need to explain the following verses.

Romans 11:29
29 For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.

2 Corinthians 5:17
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

So, then would a new creation be turned back into an old creation again? And then repents and becomes a new creation again? Does this happen over and over and over?

1 Peter 1:18-19
“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect”

So is Christ's blood then perishable? Can it perish and be lost? The Word of God says it is NOT PERISHABLE.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”

Ephesians 1:13–14
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee 14 of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,to the praise of his glory.

Titus 1:2
2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began

1 Corinthians 2:19-20
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price.
http://biblehub.com/greek/5092.htm
There is more, but we can start there.

 

[Righttruth]

I think you non OSAS people need to explain the following verses.

Romans 11:29
29 For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.

2 Corinthians 5:17
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

So, then would a new creation be turned back into an old creation again? And then repents and becomes a new creation again? Does this happen over and over and over?

1 Peter 1:18-19
“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect”

So is Christ's blood then perishable? Can it perish and be lost? The Word of God says it is NOT PERISHABLE.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”

Ephesians 1:13–14
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee 14 of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,to the praise of his glory.

Titus 1:2
2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began

1 Corinthians 2:19-20
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price.
There is more, but we can start there.

I don't want to consider Paul's suppositions. Salvation is not based on one verse or one author. One need to consider all relevant verses to hope for salvation. True believers have hope, not a guarantee of salvation in their pockets. Fruit of the Spirit and transformed life are the signs of salvation.


John 3:
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 15:
1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Born again is not speaking gibberish nor immersion in water for baptism.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What's wrong with it?

I guess it has been a while since I've answered. So I'll give another answer than the socio-religious reason.

The common application of sola scriptura turns the bible into a law, the bible teaches that the law is the power of sin. In any assembly where the bible is held up as a law, I experience a heightened sense of the sin living within the members of my body rising up as if being encouraged.

This kind of goes against the purpose of coming together as saints doesn't it?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The Bereans thought that it was the way to judge what Paul was teaching. That is good enough for me.

So then, Paul's writings can be questioned by virtue of other scriptures?

However, it is important to note that the Bereans had not yet received the Holy Spirit, so this hardly seems a good example for Christians... unless you're trying to cultivate faithlessness.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Agreed. Not only 'false security' but it utterly contrary to what we are offered in the Bible. One of those 'man made doctrines' that bring about 'separation' instead of unity.

The Bible makes it perfectly clear that one is capable of being a follower one moment and then living contrary to the truth the next. All of us have the potential to 'turn our backs on God or His Son'.

If OSAS were 'truth', then there would be no sense in 'judgement'. Our HOPE lies in salvation, not our 'knowing'. And according to the Bible, which of us is truly able to properly judge anything beyond our capacity to judge?

As the saying goes, "Many will be surprised at who ends up in heaven". And many more will be surprised at how 'doesn't end up there'.

Blessings,

MEC

Interesting.

But does God not own us? Were we not bought with a price? A very heavy price?

28 Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. 29 For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience,

There are many verses that show God will not break His covenant with us even if we walk away. Show me any Biblical way that shows in scripture that man can break the New Testament Covenant?

There are many more verses but I will start here