Sola scriptura

amariselle said:

Was not the sacrifice and atoning death of Jesus on the cross sufficient? Or should we rely on various rituals, practices and traditions to make ourselves right with God?

Click to expand...

Those rituals are mostly about what would be called sanctification. In catholic Christian traditions, we are not merely saved from something, we are saved to something.

Sola scriptura may be a misnomer as well as sola fide.

Both of those Solas earned their name to emphasize the fact the Scripture is the highest authority, second to God, and that when Scripture and tradition are in conflict, Scripture has the final word.

Of course, we Protestants recognize the value of tradition as something that can help us spiritually improve, but it is not authoritative in the same way Scripture is.

While there is division over interpretations by various Protestant denominations, they all agree on the Trinity, hold to the same view of salvation in that we are saved by faith alone and cannot earn it and Jesus is the only way to heaven. Scripture alone is efficient when it comes to providing knowledge about salvation.

Most disagreements are over ecclesiology and the role of the sacraments, and eschatology. Even those who hold to baptismal regeneration and those who believe it is merely an outward profession of an inward faith both agree that if someone professes to be a Christian, but refuses to observer the sacraments, his faith is likely not genuine.

You could say Protestantism is gradually becoming more unified. Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists cooperate with each other to advance the Kingdom and the Gospel.

While there are still very many Protestant denominations, they don't emphasize their differences as much as they used to as some denominations have influenced each other. For example, I'm Baptist, but I have adopted some Anglican ideas, mainly with liturgy. There are always, and always have been, fundamentalists that emphasize division and separation from those who don't believe exactly as they do, but it seems like most people don't take them seriously, anyways.

Sola fide is a potential misnomer in that Protestants believe that faith and works are both required for salvation, they just disagree with Catholics and Orthodox about what roles the two play in salvation.

Sola fide is so called as Martin Luther wanted to emphasize that you could not earn salvation and faith is all that is required to be saved. However, a real saving faith will produce good works as evidence that it is genuine and that works are the result of salvation rather than contributing to it.

FireDragon76 said:

Those rituals are mostly about what would be called sanctification. In catholic Christian traditions, we are not merely saved from something, we are saved to something.

Click to expand...

Well, I believe I am "saved to something" as well. Christ perfects this work in me, however, I do not perfect (or sanctify) myself through rituals.

Constantine the Sinner said:

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

Click to expand...

You have either never read scripture carefully, or you have been smoking dope.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Your testimony of trust and faith in God Himself has been good to see over this year.

Especially in sharp contrast to those who trust in man opposed to God,
and those who trust in traditions that contradict God and contradict God's Word.

Shalom to All who love the Truth as you do !

Click to expand...

Thank you Jeff. God bless you.

DingDing said:

You have either never read scripture carefully, or you have been smoking dope.

Click to expand...

Go by what Scripture says - (worse than dope).

No one (even reading all Scripture and memorizing it forwards and backwards in the original languages)
can understand it
unless
the Father in heaven grants it.

Those trusting men instead of the Father in heaven, He don't give understanding to, no matter what they do(unless of course like those the Father gives understanding to, they repent! (Yhwh Willing) ).

Jason0047 said:

First, I do not see the Greek word "paradosis" in Philippians.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3862&t=KJV

Second, the KJV does not have the word "ordinances" within the book of Philippians.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=ordinances&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

Three, besides, I don't believe the KJV has any errors within it. Many have tried to convince me otherwise, but they have failed miserably. For if the KJV had errors within it, then God would not have preserved His Word perfectly like He said He would. For if you cannot trust one word in your Bible than what makes you trust the rest of it? Or do you get to pick and choose which words are correct or false? Seems to me when someone says the KJV mistranslates words is not saying so because they know it because it is a fact that they witnessed firsthand but because they do not agree with a particular truth in God's Word as a result of a personal belief that they are hanging onto that conflicts with it. In other words, believing in the Bible is an all in one package deal. You either believe every word of it is perfect and true or it is all false. I choose to believe all of the Bible is true because of the many evidences that back it up. Yes, I am talking about the KJV in addition to the other languages God chose to preserve His Word thru out time.



Side Note:

While I do believe in using Modern Translations, I do not make them my authority like the KJV. I use Modern Translations sort of like sifting thru the dirt to get to the gold in the KJV and the original languages.

...

Click to expand...

How did I guess that the KJV Onlyist would join this battle. Not only do you have a manmade tradition, but you have the most flawed manmade tradition in the books.

I was actually giving the wrong passage, because my head has been killing me the last few days. It is I Corinthians 11:2, which the ESV properly translates, that the KJV improperly translates.

The fact is that God did preserve His Word. His Word is Christ. He did not promise to preserve every single bit of Scripture in any language, much less a language that hadn't been born. Most Christians that have ever lived in the history of the Church didn't have the KJV, and many of them never had a written language or the ability to read the language they spoke. God's word isn't limited to your translation of the Bible. And the moment you raise a flawed translation to the level of perfection, you create an idol. You no longer worship God alone. You worship a manmade thing alongside God, which is a violation of the first two commandments. There shall be no thing or person next to or equal to God. Nothing is as perfect as God. And that means nothing.

By the way, only one error is needed to prove the KJV is not perfect, and that error would be the idea that Herod would wait for a holiday that wasn't even invented for another 200-300 years to bring out Peter, or that Luke would dare to sacrilegiously refer to a pagan holiday using the name for the most holy day of the Jewish liturgical calendar. One error proves the inerrancy argument of the KJV false, but just for good measure, there's the missing 13th verse in Psalm 145, the use of Latin over a thousand years before Latin was invented to apply a name that was a known and common title for the Babylonian emperor to Satan, and many many others besides.

So I'm sorry, but you have more than one manmade tradition that stand equal to or above the Scripture.

sculleywr said:

And you live in rejection of God's command to gather together with the brethren. You are not free. Any person who lives in defiance of God's command is already chained down. The most effective kind of slavery is the one where the slave thinks he is free.

Click to expand...

Free as a bird brother. Free from the contention that your denomination has with other denominations. NO schism here, just sweet liberty. Whom the son sets free is free indeed. Free to sing praise instead of denominationalism.

Thanks for the clear-headed response, Pilgrim. I can see why you would appreciate the Anglican tradition.

Protestant worship services for the most part seem to treat worship as a package for the Gospel message to be received or accepted, and everything is configured according to a more or less consumerist approach. Even the hymns in Protestant churches are more pietistic and subjective Maybe the only exception are certain Reformed churches. But Reformed churches aren't noted for aesthetics, at least in the American context.

I've been attending a mainline Lutheran church for about a year now (I'm not technically Lutheran). It's OK, it's liturgical by Protestant standards. But this weekend I went back to an Orthodox church and I also visited a Roman Catholic church for the first time and the difference in the dignity of worship between what passes at Protestant churches, even relatively liturgical ones, was stunning. I had almost forgotten what the difference was.

Lately I've been more of a St. James kind of Christian... I think it's important to be a doer not just a hearer, even if I basically do believe in "justification by faith alone" (look at the Good Thief on the cross as a perfect example of this- but even his faith was a formed faith, Jesus wasn't reduced to an accessory for his lifestyle, Jesus was literally his only hope for escape from death.

The various Christian traditions have something to say about our spiritual formation and are not merely externals or vain rituals. Of course I think we should be engaged with the Bible in that process theologically as a touchstone, but I'm a bit put off by the complacency of Protestant culture towards worship and spiritual formation.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Go by what Scripture says - (worse than dope).

No one (even reading all Scripture and memorizing it forwards and backwards in the original languages)
can understand it
unless
the Father in heaven grants it.

Those trusting men instead of the Father in heaven, He don't give understanding to, no matter what they do(unless of course like those the Father gives understanding to, they repent! (Yhwh Willing) ).

Click to expand...

The Father grants to those who seek.

W2L said:

Free as a bird brother. Free from the contention that your denomination has with other denominations. NO schism here, just sweet liberty. Whom the son sets free is free indeed. Free to sing praise instead of denominationalism.

Click to expand...

You are a schism. You divide yourself from the Body and call yourself, alone, the body.

So don't tell me you follow Christ or Paul. Not until you obey Paul's and Christ's command to be part of the Body. Division is what you are doing. Creating your own division means you have no grounds to complain about divisions. You're like Lindsey Lohan condemning someone for doing drugs.

DingDing said:

The Father grants to those who seek.

Click to expand...

No contradiction there.
Or did you mean something else ?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

No contradiction there.
Or did you mean something else ?

Click to expand...

Your earlier post could be taken to mean some kind of calvinist doctrine thing. I don't go for that.

sculleywr said:

So don't tell me you follow Christ or Paul. Not until you obey Paul's and Christ's command to be part of the Body.

Click to expand...

The exact same is could be said to you,
and means even more.
We don't disobey Christ nor the Father (nor Paul who was taught by CHrist).
You do. (being in the so-called "body" you chose to be in,
which IS NOT the body of Christ, you make yourself of no effect
by your own free will and choice.)
IF
you want to be in the body of Christ, and obey the Father and Christ (in line with all Scripture),
THEN tell the Father that and ask HIM IF HE WILL ACCEPT YOU.
(stop rejecting the Father and Christ and His Word.)
THEN
the Father HIMSELF may reveal to YOU what really IS THE BODY OF CHRIST
and
THEN you will know.
BUT it was NOT THE FATHER YOU CHOSE TO BELIEVE !(You admitted this already many times; AND you contradicted the Father's WORD AND JESUS many times.... why? YOU CHOSE to believe men, instead of the FATHER and JESUS)

You got things backwards. DON't believe men first, and then think you can obey the Father and Jesus and be in the BODY OF CHRIST.
BELIEVE GOD FIRST, and SEEK GOD - FIRST. Then you can walk in the BODY OF CHRIST AS A MEMBER according TO GOD and HIS WORD,
instead of according to men and their traditions.

GOD FIRST. Always.

DingDing said:

Your earlier post could be taken to mean some kind of calvinist doctrine thing. I don't go for that.

Click to expand...

No worries. As far as I know calvin never repented of his sin. thus... he was not saved himself.
Perhaps he was. God knows. But we don't have evidence nor calvin's testimony that he was.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

The exact same is could be said to you,
and means even more.
We don't disobey Christ nor the Father (nor Paul who was taught by CHrist).
You do. (being in the so-called "body" you chose to be in,
which IS NOT the body of Christ, you make yourself of no effect
by your own free will and choice.)
IF
you want to be in the body of Christ, and obey the Father and Christ (in line with all Scripture),
THEN tell the Father that and ask HIM IF HE WILL ACCEPT YOU.
(stop rejecting the Father and Christ and His Word.)
THEN
the Father HIMSELF may reveal to YOU what really IS THE BODY OF CHRIST
and
THEN you will know.
BUT it was NOT THE FATHER YOU CHOSE TO BELIEVE !(You admitted this already many times; AND you contradicted the Father's WORD AND JESUS many times.... why? YOU CHOSE to believe men, instead of the FATHER and JESUS)

You got things backwards. DON't believe men first, and then think you can obey the Father and Jesus and be in the BODY OF CHRIST.
BELIEVE GOD FIRST, and SEEK GOD - FIRST. Then you can walk in the BODY OF CHRIST AS A MEMBER according TO GOD and HIS WORD,
instead of according to men and their traditions.

GOD FIRST. Always.

Click to expand...

Congratulations on accusing someone of disobeying Christ without evidence. I believe the Church, not men. There is a difference.

Considering that every single Christian lives according to a tradition, including you, I'm not going to pretend. I won't lie to myself. The existence of Tradition does not mean man first.

sculleywr said:

You are a schism. You divide yourself from the Body and call yourself, alone, the body.

So don't tell me you follow Christ or Paul. Not until you obey Paul's and Christ's command to be part of the Body. Division is what you are doing. Creating your own division means you have no grounds to complain about divisions. You're like Lindsey Lohan condemning someone for doing drugs.

Click to expand...

I'm here aren't I? You are the one divided. You cant slap your chains of oppressive denominationalism on me bro. Its sad that you would tear a persons faith down because its not EO faith. That's just sad testimony.

W2L said:

I'm here aren't I? You are the one divided. You cant slap your chains of oppressive denominationalism on me bro. Its sad that you would tear a persons faith down because its not EO faith. That's just sad testimony.

Click to expand...

Being here doesn't mean you're not divided. You are your own denomination. Stating a fact isn't tearing it down. You commit a sin. This is not gathering together. You will NEVER be able to gather on a computer. Do you think that the early Christians simply sent letters back and forth without ever gathering together, claiming that the sins of the people in the gatherings were too much for them to come together with them? That's true in the same way that I am a moose.

To gather together with the brethren is to go to where they are. If you can't point to where you gather with the brethren on a map, then you don't gather with them.

So when I say you disobey Paul, I say it because you make denominationalism an EXCUSE. Did Paul tell the Corinthians not to gather together because of their denominationalism? No. You cannot complain about denominationalism when you denominate yourself.

sculleywr said:

Congratulations on accusing someone of disobeying Christ without evidence. I believe the Church, not men. There is a difference.

Considering that every single Christian lives according to a tradition, including you, I'm not going to pretend. I won't lie to myself. The existence of Tradition does not mean man first.

Click to expand...

According to the content of your post , you both lied about me and bore false witness about me without any sign of you desiring to do what God says to do.

I had to reject man's traditions (including so-called Church traditions) that still hold you in lies, in order for the Truth to be made known by the Father to me.
He will not reveal the truth to you, or anyone else,
if you keep trusting in the "Church" of men.(flesh and traditions that contradict God and His Word).

yeshuaslavejeff said:

According to the content of your post , you both lied about me and bore false witness about me without any sign of you desiring to do what God says to do.

I had to reject man's traditions (including so-called Church traditions) that still hold you in lies, in order for the Truth to be made known by the Father to me.
He will not reveal the truth to you, or anyone else,
if you keep trusting in the "Church" of men.(flesh and traditions that contradict God and His Word).

Click to expand...

I didn't lie about you. Everyone has traditions. You have traditions. Do you have cultural beliefs? Do you use a translation of Scripture? If you use the Greek, do you use a particular collection of documents? Do you have a canon of the Scripture? Do you interpret the Scripture?

If you answered yes to ANY of those questions, then you have traditions.

And by saying God will not reveal the truth to me, you just made yourself the pope. Congratulations Pope Jeff. May I kiss your ring?

The Church was established by God. Do you dare to say that God can't establish something that lasts as long as He says it will? We can see from the New Testament and early history that they were nothing like what you declare. Paul made several references to tradition in his writing. He commanded Tradition in his writing. Do you deny this? Well of course you do, but that doesn't change the reality that Paul commanded both oral and written Tradition. So you say that we are unable to follow Paul's orders in Scripture, because you obviously believe the oral Tradition disappeared from the face of the earth.