St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Standing Up]

Did Jesus and/or the apostles command baptism as necessary for salvation-or not?

How would we know?

 

[Standing Up]

Show me the Canon by method of Scripture alone.

Do we agree that the NT apostles spoke first and then wrote?

 

[fhansen]

Ok -- but as some have noted there is a big problem for SS that was brought out long before I ever posted the first thread on the internet - and it was made in the RCC's own commentary on their Catholic Catechism. Someone else brought this up on this thread -- not me.

And IF we can get them to agree not to bring this problem for SS up - any more ... it might be best.

Are you saying it's a problem for SS?

 

[fhansen]

How would we know?

Well, some, going by SS, say they did- while others, going by SS, say they didn't. But the earliest practice-the tradition- of the church, both in the east and in the west, and to this day, says that they did.

 

[Standing Up]

Well, some, going by SS, say they did- while others, going by SS, say they didn't. But the earliest practice-the tradition- of the church, both in the east and in the west, and to this day, says that they did.

There was water baptism no doubt. The issue are the reasons.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So is that interpretation, different from that of many others, an infallible one? I mean, could it just possibly be that salvation really is dependent on Baptism after all, as an act of faith commanded by Christ, at least for those who know of the command and are able to obey it? Or is it "yes and no"-or maybe?

It is as infallible/protected from error as your (or that of your church's) interpretation is that your church is infallible, or that an infallible magisterium is Biblical and essential.

If by infallible your mean it is absolutely impossible to be otherwise, that souls can be in Christ/saved before baptism as sure as that Christ is God, for as in Scripture, its validity is dependent upon the weight of the evidence.

Now if said souls knew and were convinced that baptism is commanded by the Lord but rebelliously refused (versus perhaps feeling as yet unworthy), then that would be a denial of faith, though i would let God judge Salvation Army types who believe that the baptismal intent of confession must be obeyed, if not the ritual.

I waited 6 years before i was baptized as a believer, feeling as yet not consecrated enough even though was living a active faith life and witnessing, and even telling people outside strip joints to repent (feeling convicted of the Lord speak His word though i was much reluctant to do so).

He the promise is positive, "he that believes and is baptized will be saved," (Mk. 16:16) like "repent and be baptized...for the remission of since and and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38) - since being baptized in identification with the Lord manifestly confirms saving faith, not that the act of baptism effects regeneration - but therefore the negative does not include baptism, but "he that believes not shall be damned,'" (Mk. 16:16b) while forgiveness is promises elsewhere simply by believing, and which resulted in the washing of regeneration.

Thus salvation is not dependent on the act of baptism (if so it must be unequivocally so), but on a faith that will effect obedience, which includes baptism which those of obedient faith will obey when convinced it is a command of the Lord for today.

 

[fhansen]

There was water baptism no doubt. The issue are the reasons.

The belief was quite simple and straight-forward.

 

[BobRyan]

The problem was not the Sabbath sabbatical but the refusal to acknowledge what is defined as SS.

The good news is that the RC claim is put out there in a way that should be easy to refute - SS - if it is in fact refutable SS.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Show me the Canon by method of Scripture alone.

If you can't do that, which I asked you to do long ago, because it is a misconception about SS, then I don't have to answer your false question because it is a misconception about Tradition.

You don't know ANYTHING about the Gospel without Oral Tradition, because you can't identify Scripture without Oral Tradition.

Which is indeed a a misconception about SS, in fact that SS means only Scripture can be used, and or that it only pertains to what is formally explicitly stated, is absurd.

But that Scripture teaches that souls can know of a truth that both certain men as well as writings, and a body of them, are of God, and without an infallible magisterium, and even in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture, is clearly true.

And thus in principle Scripture provides for further discernment of writings being of a God and thus for a canon, which is essentially due to their supernatural qualities and attestation, as with men of God. The powers that be are to affirm such, but what is of God remains so regardless.

 

[BobRyan]

The problem was not the Sabbath sabbatical but the refusal to acknowledge what is defined as SS.

Can you point to a flaw in their definition of SS in this statement?

Today at 10:01 PM #938

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The two claims made in that quote of yours - are both factually incorrect.

The Sabbath commandment is quoted from several times in the NT, observance of it is seen "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts AFTER the cross. .

Wrong, as such are not reiterations of the command, or allusions to the church observing it as a command, any more then mentioning our observing cultural days of the week are, as they essentially were do the same, as in Paul preaching on the sabbath in reaching Jews. ( Act_1:12, Act_13:14, Act_13:27, Act_13:42, Act_13:44, Act_15:21, Act_16:13, Act_17:2, Act_18:4) And of course, since men as Paul also chose (as we can) to observe Passover (Acts 18:21) then one can make a case for that as well as the rest of the liturgical Jewish year being commanded.

But the ONE Commandment of the TEN commandments never quoted from at all in the NT - is the command not to take God's name in vain. NO part of that commandment is ever quote. A fact that does not diminish that command since the entire made-up notion of the form "whatever is not repeated must be deleted" is total fluff to start with - and every bible scholar knows it.

Actually we are not restricting the 10 commandments to actual quotes, nor need even reiterations such as "steal no longer," but even commendations for keeping a commanded practice or a condemnation of such will do.

And Ex. 20:7 is a prohibition of blasphemy, and "Do not they blaspheme [speak impiously, defame] that worthy name by the which ye are called?" (James 2:7) is a condemnation that is correspondent to that, as is "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory."(Revelation 16:9)
"And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds." (Revelation 16:11) As well as Rev. 13:6; 16:21

What you can only wish to find besides an actual reiteration of the command to keep holy the 7th day, is a condemnation of the NT church for failing to keep the Sabbath or a commendation for keeping it, but which is utterly absent, even in any epistle or the Spirits critiques of the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2+3. You might as well be looking for a command to submit to the pope.

This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of Faith, and the RCC's own "Dies Domini" both insist that ALL TEN of the Ten Commandments still have binding force on mankind - and all TEN are part of God's continued moral law.

More misrepresentation, as this refers to understanding the 1st day as answering to the 7th day, keeping it in principle, and in fact Christians are to fulfil the righteousness of the whole law, such as "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Corinthians 5:8)

 

[BobRyan]

Wrong, as such are not reiterations of the command, or allusions to the church observing it as a command, any more then mentioning our observing cultural days of the week are, as they essentially were do the same, as in Paul preaching on the sabbath in reaching Jews. ( Act_1:12, Act_13:14, Act_13:27, Act_13:42, Act_13:44, Act_15:21, Act_16:13, Act_17:2, Act_18:4) And of course, since men as Paul also chose (as we can) to observe Passover (Acts 18:21) then one can make a case for that as well as the rest of the liturgical Jewish year being commanded.

In those examples BOTH Jews AND gentiles are coming back for Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel teaching. Not even ONE case of that - for any other day of the week in all of the NT. In any case that is not an example of some other day being the day of worship week after week and the Acts 13, Acts 17:2 and Acts 18:4 examples are not Passover.

In Acts 17:11 we have the "practice" of SS demonstrated for us - not the "command for it". In Is 8:20 we see the "command". Constantly repeating "commands" lest one "delete them" is not a Bible doctrine.

Actually we are not restricting the 10 commandments to actual quotes, nor need even reiterations such as "steal no longer," but even commendations for keeping a commanded practice or a condemnation of such will do.

Fine. "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4.

Not even one such statement of that form - for any other day of the week.

And Ex. 20:7 is a prohibition of blasphemy,

Acts 20:7 "7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

No part of that text is ever quoted in the NT. A simple fact.

By contrast the Sabbath commandment is referenced many times in the NT and quoted at least in part in several places including Rev 14:7

No text at all saying "remember to keep holy - some other day of the week"

 

[BobRyan]

This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of Faith, and the RCC's own "Dies Domini" both insist that ALL TEN of the Ten Commandments still have binding force on mankind - and all TEN are part of God's continued moral law.

More misrepresentation, as this refers to understanding the 1st day as answering to the 7th day, keeping it in principle, and in fact Christians are to fulfil the righteousness of the whole law, such as "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Corinthians 5:8)

Not quite. In the documents mentioned they argue for the continued binding authority - and observance of all TEN of the Commandments as the "moral Law" of God still binding.

your argument that they have "bent" the Sabbath commandment by their traditions - to week-day-1 is not being disputed. The point is that they are arguing for the continuation of all TEN -- rather than "well it is only quoted in the NT so we can ignore it". This is the same argument that the Catholic document makes - that this bending of the commandment is not a sola scriptura argument - but rather an argument from tradition since there is no 'bending' of that commandment found in the NT text.

BobRyan said: ↑
The "Baptist Confession of Faith"
The "Westminster Confession of Faith"
The Catholic Catechism
D.L. Moody
R.C Sproul
Andy Stanley

All of them argue for the continued application of ALL TEN commandments to the saints today - starting in Eden and continued to this very day.

Which brings us back to this post -- by one who is opposing SS.

Yes, and going by Scripture alone the SDAs have it right regarding the Sabbath. Who wouldn't, picking up the bible in some later century without the benefit of tradition, observe Sabbath on the 7th day? But the church that Christ established rested, worshiped, and shared the body and blood on the Lord's Day from the beginning-without historical objection. It's just the way they did it.

And then of course this post reminding us that the point fhansen raises has been out there for a very long time - by those who oppose SS.

Yesterday at 10:01 PM #938

The idea that this key argument they raise against SS - "should not be allowed" -- is a great way to "Solve the problem" if you can get that to fly.

Obviously as you see in the statement they make - it does not deter my affirmation of SS one iota. But still if you check all of the SS threads - I participate but I do not bring this topic up because I know that it is their strongest argument - and only someone in my same "unbent commandment" group (such as Seventh-day Baptists etc) would be able to respond to the point in an SS-affirming way.

 

[sculleywr]

What arrogance! Which is what you should block yourself from engaging in. You have told me nothing (that i recall: show me where you did as being in contrast) about what you claim are completely different definitions (explain if you want to), and the fact is that "Tradition" is effectively used as a blanket cover for claiming innovation is apostolic tradition.

For while your church may claim it only refers to the oral word of God, that it is the oral word of God is based on the say so of the church and its claim to veracity. Thus praying to created beings which is utterly unseen in Scripture and contrary to instructions on addressing prayer to heaven, and to God alone being able to hear and respond to such, is said to be apostolic tradition.

No it isn't. Not in the Orthodox Church. You call it a blanket cover out of ignorance. Because you refuse to actually follow the Traditions or even believe that they are neither completely in Scripture nor completely outside of Scripture. The only Tradition which truly falls outside of Scripture is the Canon of Scripture, because Scripture wasn't delivered to a publisher when John finished writing the Apocalypse.

Also, You pray to someone EVERY TIME YOU MAKE A REQUEST. Any request of another person is a prayer. You pray to the cashier at McDonalds when you order a Big Mac. You pray to the teller when you ask her to deposit a check. You pray to the tech support guy when your computer needs troubleshooting. I have been a recipient of many of those prayers, as I am a tech support guy.

For one, prayer to others is possible because we have a connection to them. Just because they are not on earth does not remove them from the Body of Christ. Any part of the Body of Christ can communicate with any other part of the Body of Christ.

And Scriptures don't forbid it, and if you use the canon of the Old Testament used by the early Church, they even show it happening and being responded to.

The problem is that Protestants have traditions they use, and 95% of Protestants trust more in the traditions they have been taught than the Scriptures they supposedly trust, so much so that when Scripture says something directly contradicting their beliefs, they will rationalize it away rather than face it head-on.

So when I say you are lying, I say it is because you are no longer ignorant against your will, but choosing to remain ignorant and wail upon your pretty little strawman that isn't Orthodox or Roman Catholic Tradition. When you are ready to debate against the actuality of what Tradition is, we could actually constructively discuss it. The problem is, you aren't willing to debate what it is, but rather the propaganda spread by people who haven't spent a single day in an Orthodox or Roman Catholic parish.

 

[sculleywr]

How would we know?

Both written and oral Tradition. You have one piece of the puzzle. The rest is waiting for you.

 

[sculleywr]

Do we agree that the NT apostles spoke first and then wrote?

Nice dodge. Back to the original request: prove the canon by way of Sola Scriptura. This includes the names of the authors.

 

[sculleywr]

There was water baptism no doubt. The issue are the reasons.

And the oral Tradition of the Church includes Baptism as part of the ongoing salvation of man based on the words of Peter both in his first sermon, and in his epistles.

 

[sculleywr]

Which is indeed a a misconception about SS, in fact that SS means only Scripture can be used, and or that it only pertains to what is formally explicitly stated, is absurd.

But that Scripture teaches that souls can know of a truth that both certain men as well as writings, and a body of them, are of God, and without an infallible magisterium, and even in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture, is clearly true.

And thus in principle Scripture provides for further discernment of writings being of a God and thus for a canon, which is essentially due to their supernatural qualities and attestation, as with men of God. The powers that be are to affirm such, but what is of God remains so regardless.

If the Truth could be had and proven by Scripture then there wouldn't be division on nearly every single line of doctrine that can exist. Modalism, for example, is a big part of Charismatic denominations, despite its rejection in the Council of Chalcedon.

However, the Canon, which stands in authority over the Scripture, is Tradition, and not a Sola Scriptura fact. It cannot be derived by way of Sola Scriptura, with Scripture being the highest authority. The Church compiled the Bible, because the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, and is therefore in charge of its contents. The Church was created for the sole purpose of spreading the gospel by ALL means. In a land of high illiteracy, Oral Tradition is the only way in which the gospel can be reliably spread.

Also, it isn't the magisterium that is infallible, it is the Christ, Who is the head of the Church, which is infallible. There isn't some esoteric magisterium. There is simply the Church, as a whole. The decisions of a council are not authoritative because some bishops were there. They are authoritative because the Church herself lifts them up, while robber councils are not authoritative because the whole of the Church discards them.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Wrong, as such are not reiterations of the command, or allusions to the church observing it as a command, any more then mentioning our observing cultural days of the week are, as they essentially were do the same, as in Paul preaching on the sabbath in reaching Jews. ( Act_1:12, Act_13:14, Act_13:27, Act_13:42, Act_13:44, Act_15:21, Act_16:13, Act_17:2, Act_18:4)

In those examples BOTH Jews AND gentiles are coming back for Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel teaching. Not even ONE case of that - for any other day of the week in all of the NT. In any case that is not an example of some other day being the day of worship week after week ...

Wrong, none of those examples are of the church meeting for gospel teaching, and your blithely asserting that Scripture says things which it does not only testifes to you are one whose carelessly invokes Scripture in order to support a desired predetermined cultic conclusion.

Acts 1:12 simply refers to how far Jerusalem is from the mount called Olivet which the disciples traveled, "a sabbath day's journey."
Act 13:14 simply relates that Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Act 13:27 simply refers tp Paul chastening the Jews for not comprehending "the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day."
Act 13:42,44 refer to Paul evangelizing the Jews and Gentile seekers in the same Jewish synagogue on their day of worship, not that of the church as a church having their meetings, which is what you desperately want but cannot find. If i were in Israel a good Baptist would hope to preach in synagogues on the Sabbath, if allowed to.
Act 15:21 simply refers to Moses being read in the synagogues every sabbath day, and does not say being read in the church every sabbath day. Gentiles might go to synagogues but the letter sent by the council and church as per the judgment of James was to the churches, and does not include keeping the 7th day sabbath.
Act 16:13 tells how on the sabbath the apostles went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made and evangelized the women there, not that they we coming back for Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel teaching. We evangelize in open spaces on the Sabbath as well.
Act 17:2 likewise relates to Paul evangelizing on the sabbath in "a synagogue of the Jews," not of the church we coming back for Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel teaching!
Act 18:4 refers to Paul doing the same in the synagogue every sabbath, versus a Christian meetings. "And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.' (Acts 18:6) (And thus was born hyperdispensationalism!)

Thus we have zero mention of the church meeting specifically on the Sabbath, while the only specific day mentioned of a church gathering is the first day, when also the Lord is said (CARM) to have met with disciples after the resurrection:

1. Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1-7, Mark 16:2, 9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1).
2. Jesus appeared to the disciples on the first day of the week (John 20:19).
3. Jesus appeared inside the room to the eleven disciples eight days after the first day of the week. The Jewish way of measuring days meant that it was again Sunday
   (John 20:26).
4. The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, the first day of the week (Lev. 23:16, Acts 2:1).
5. The first sermon was preached by Peter on the first day of the week (Acts 2:14).
6. Three thousand converts joined the church on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
7. The three thousand were baptized on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
8. The Christians assembled broke bread on the first day of the week.
9. The Christians also heard a message from Paul on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Note: the reference is until midnight which is not the Jewish method of measuring days but the Roman system.

In Acts 17:11 we have the "practice" of SS demonstrated for us - not the "command for it". In Is 8:20 we see the "command". Constantly repeating "commands" lest one "delete them" is not a Bible doctrine.

Not sure what your argument is here but there are clearly covenantal distinctions in Scripture, while the holy intent behind them remains and a purpose of grace is fulfilling them. (Acts 8:4)

Fine. "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4.

Not even one such statement of that form - for any other day of the week.

But which is another argument against you, as this refers to a future rest, which the 7th day is typolgical of, and this text is not a reiteration of the 4th commandment for the church to keep, nor a commendation of them for so doing, nor a censure of them for not doing, of which things we have for the other 9 commandments.

Acts 20:7 "7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

No part of that text is ever quoted in the NT. A simple fact.

Which further evidences you lack of a valid argument, for again, a direct quote, full or part, is not necessary to qualify as an expressing confirmatory of a command, as even a condemnation or commendation regarding the keeping of it would do. And as shown, there are many NT texts condemning profaning/blaspheming the name of the Lord, but none for the NT church not keeping the sabbath, nor commending them for so doing, despite numerous examples of sins being rebukes and faults being found and obedience being commended.

And yet on the other hand we have texts chastising believers for observing days, months, times and years, (Gal. 4:10) and of holy days and the sabbath being a shadow of things to come, along with dietary laws and divers washing and temple ordinances. (Col. 2:16; Heb. 9:10) And even affirming those who esteem all days alike, without any qualification. (Rm. 14:5,6) All of which are details of the New Covenant being "not according" to the that given under Moses.

By contrast the Sabbath commandment is referenced many times in the NT and quoted at least in part in several places including Rev 14:7

This also is a specious stretch, for besides the mentioning of the Jewish sabbath not substantiating the church keeping it as a commandment, your "quote" here is a paraphrase of "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea," (Ex. 20:11) and "worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7) parallels other texts which speak of worship of "unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever. (Psalms 136:2-6)" "Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise ...By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psalms 33:3,5,6 ) "In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of the hills is his also. The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our maker." (Psalms 95:4-6)

But do not speak of the sabbath, nor does this text does not mention the sabbath or any day as holy, nor is the church shown observing it as a command or being commended or chastened regarding it, desite your contrived attempts.

 

[Standing Up]

The belief was quite simple and straight-forward.

Well, given Cornelius' experience, it wasn't for "regeneration".