Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
True, but others read these posts, too.. I could not care less whether you think that definition of Sola Scriptura is correct.
We do not know that, and there is more than one way to define the principle, just as there are different ways to word the meanings of many other Christian doctrines.Since both you and I know that you will never provide your precise definition of Sola Scriptura,...
Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism,[1] that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.[1]
Again, most amusing.True, but others read these posts, too.
We do not know that, and there is more than one way to define the principle, just as there are different ways to word the meanings of many other Christian doctrines.
I think having protestants themselves argue about what SS is is better proof that it is a man made doctrine.Again, most amusing.
First you say “that definition of Sola Scriptura is not correct”.
I respond with “OK provide your definition”.
Do you respond with an actual definition? Of course not. Only more “well you see there are different ways of defining it” smoke and mirrors.
Hell will freeze over before you provide a definition, because both you and I know plenty well that if you provide a definition, it will be easily refuted.
OK. Let's take this as the definition then. You stated that "All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source."
Must a Christian believe that the Bible contains only the 66 books that Protestants commonly accept as the Bible? Yes, or no?
If the answer is "yes" then you must show where that belief is "found in Scripture" just like you wrote above. So please give me the chapter and verse that teaches that the Bible contains only those 66 books.
If the answer is "no" then the Scriptures are not "sufficient to function as the rule of faith" per your definition above, because in that case any Tom, Dick, or Harry, even a member of your church, could come along and decide for himself that the first chapter of the Quran and the book of Mormon are part of the Bible, and there would be nothing you could do to prevent him, since in this case your canon would not binding on the Christian conscience.
So even exactly as you define it, Sola Scriptura remains refuted. Smugly writing things like "Normal conflation of two unrelated issues, by a member of the Roman Church" and other irrelevant things does not change that.
Have a nice day.
Would someone who is not born again really care to read the scriptures?
Do you have any basis from research into animal agriculture for the claim that animals are killed as humanely as possible? If hunted or slaughtered? And can you suggest any way that you might be killed humanely? And going on about plants being killed does not doing anything for your argument, there is nothing against eating food from plants and nothing in the Bible suggests anything about any suffering from plants, and they do not bleed, or try to flee, or have any brain or any nervous system for any response. Your argument for plants comes from somewhere else, which you don't say. Yet a lot more plants are killed for our demand for animal agriculture. Rain forests are being destroyed right now for more land for animal agriculture, with more feed for that.
There is nothing about humanism in this communication from me, we each are supposed to answer to our conscience, and there are scripture passages which show these things. Nothing is showing "all foods are clean". That is showing an interpretation, without the context. God did not have a change of mind, God never did. God does not change. The will of God does not change.
Your interpretation is what you are believing.
The context in Mark 7:
"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said,‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God) then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
“What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
In the beginning what God's word tells us is that everything in this world of God's creation was perfectly according to God's will. It is certain that much less of this world now is according to God's will, with the curse from sins which are disobedience to God spreading, but disturbingly having the way of living as meant according to God's perfect will, as it was, is not even desired by any generally, not even Christian believers, who are told to pray for God's will on earth as it is in Heaven, while they really just picture what they themselves want regardless of what is shown of God's will to start with.
Elimination of using meat and products from animals could really save our world from the disastrous end we are facing. The awareness of this should go to others.
Earthling Ed: Vegan Educator & Public Speaker
Avoiding Climate Catastrophe: Global Elimination of Meat Production Could Save the Planet - NewsBreak
So now there is great destruction to this earth for things as we want in our lives, and that God hates the destruction to this earth does not mean anything to most. If we lived in the way shown of God's will for us from the start, we would not be contributing to that destructiveness that we can't see how to change as it is. And it will involve, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, and we would not put any limits to hold any of it to (Galatians 5:22-23).
I find the healthiness of this way with just food from plants and some vitamin supplements without processed foods that is avoiding or able to reverse cancers also deals with avoiding other health issues and problems, which are all diet related, certainly includes circulatory issues that lead to heart attacks and strokes, and high blood pressure. And besides abuse to animals, animal agriculture is involved with starving people and ruining the environment. This has abundant evidence and these things just are not according to God's will for us. There is curse to us and our world with insistence on what we choose in serving our belly.
pescador said:Anybody can go through the Bible, add their own predetermined thoughts, and come up with false doctrine. But that doesn't make it true. All it does is reveal the intent of that person to make the Bible conform to their thoughts.
Regarding the death of animals... do you have an estimate of how many, many thousands of "innocent" animals were killed in sacrifice to appease God and feed the priests? Why were lambs killed for the Passover and their blood smeared on the doors of people's homes? You no doubt find this repulsive, but that's between you and God. Why don't you ask Him why He had so many, many animals killed???
You specifically wrote "Nothing is showing "all foods are clean". That is showing an interpretation, without the context." Jesus declared all foods clean (a verse that you conveniently left out). Mark 7:18-19, "He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)" Read that again! That is what the Bible says about which foods are permissible: all of them!
Also, you asked if I have any basis from research into animal agriculture for the claim that animals are killed as humanely as possible? There is ample basis for this, but I'll leave you to do your own research. I have raised animals for food and also hunted. I know the facts about animals slaughtered for food, following the USDA requirements; I know what I'm talking about.
Your interpretation is what you are choosing to believe. But it's not in agreement with what Scripture clearly says in both covenants. Should I believe what God's Word clearly says about the killing of animals or what you claim that it says.
BTW, I hope you enjoyed eating eggs for breakfast. How does consuming the unborn fit into your thinking?
You are the one who claimed that all animals, whose products you use, are killed as humanely as possible, with no evidence available for showing that. This is what should be shown, for the sake of righteousness that Proverbs 12:10 shows is desirable. Most of us were told that animals whose products we use had a happy life and were killed humanely, and we believed it, when we were young, or else stopped eating meat. But this is said though there is no verification. The response shows you still have not looked into it. So how is Proverbs 12:10 applied?
I can't show what I have from research of how animals are treated in animal industry. It is so bad that posts with links to it that I submit all get deleted. It is that bad. So I can't just post it and I don't want any of my posts to be deleted, except for those I ask to have deleted, so you will have to really do the research yourself. But if you are hunting anyway, I don't expect honesty about it from you. Anything you do counts as being humane. Nothing that I understand for being humane. USDA requirements being followed does not show there is humane treatment, that Proverbs 12:10 shows is called for.
You were adding your own predetermined thoughts for the belief you promote. You were showing your one verse without context, and I was not "conveniently" leaving that verse out which you were already using to show the passages before it and the passages after it to show the context. That is the context which you ignore, to have your interpretation of it for your predetermined thoughts for the belief that you promote. Foods are declared clean without regard to rituals, such as ritual washing. Jesus was critical of changing rules from God right in the very scene that you determine means that Jesus meant he changed rules for it to be alright to eat anything at all. So if we ate babies you can't fault that.
And saying plants suffer as much is something that is not at all from the Bible, though you claimed it. With nothing to show for it. Disregarding with this that animal agriculture uses a lot more plants, and forests are cleared for it. Continuously.
I know that billions (thousands of millions) of animals are bred, and are slaughtered, every year, for the demand going on for their products. It is not a natural scale, there is nothing godly with it. Sacrifices were never on that scale. Sacrifices, of animals and humans, were already happening in the ancient world. God was not being appeased with that, you have no scripture to show for that, but there are passages showing God never needs that from us. Why presume I have not asked God about the sacrifices? I then see God's perfect will, Genesis 1:29-31, as it is in Heaven, while we who are believers should pray for God's will on earth as it is in Heaven, and it should start with us if we really mean it. God shows suffering of any should not continue. So sacrifices were continuing before Christ came to help those of Israel who were supposed to be God's people to see the need of redemption through atonement that could only be through Christ. No animals needed to be killed for us after Christ came and accomplished what was needed.
And why conclude anything about me continuing to eat eggs?
Environments in the natural world are being ruined, and destroyed, from continued animal agriculture. Fish are rapidly diminishing in the overfished seas and oceans.
And it is supposed to be believed that God is alright with any of this? Revelation 11:18.
There are always more things in the Bible, that remain neglected that need to be found for finding more for coming to godliness according to rule of faith. I won't say the things in this post are all of it, I know already about more of such things besides these, though it is sure that there are more things to find, even though I read through the Bible over and over.
Clearly you don't understand the principle of sola scriptura. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. It says nothing about the origin of the Scriptures, most of which existed long, long before "Holy Tradition".
Tradition is Teaching and even in the OT tradition yielded writing, some 200 years in some cases.
The Bishops of the Churches who were already teaching, asked the Gospels be written down.
Every Epistle was an answer to a question of what was already taught.
Lastly the Pope declared the scriptures as is "were to be believed"... per his choice per his chair.
Otherwise St Clement the 1st would have been included which was on Peter's chair in the early century while St John was still alive.
However; the Pope decided to just put in the Apostles and those whom they ordained.
Because Mark and Luke were ordained by the Apostles...
You are the one who claimed that all animals, whose products you use, are killed as humanely as possible, with no evidence available for showing that. This is what should be shown, for the sake of righteousness that Proverbs 12:10 shows is desirable. Most of us were told that animals whose products we use had a happy life and were killed humanely, and we believed it, when we were young, or else stopped eating meat. But this is said though there is no verification. The response shows you still have not looked into it. So how is Proverbs 12:10 applied?
I can't show what I have from research of how animals are treated in animal industry. It is so bad that posts with links to it that I submit all get deleted. It is that bad. So I can't just post it and I don't want any of my posts to be deleted, except for those I ask to have deleted, so you will have to really do the research yourself. But if you are hunting anyway, I don't expect honesty about it from you. Anything you do counts as being humane. Nothing that I understand for being humane. USDA requirements being followed does not show there is humane treatment, that Proverbs 12:10 shows is called for.
You were adding your own predetermined thoughts for the belief you promote. You were showing your one verse without context, and I was not "conveniently" leaving that verse out which you were already using to show the passages before it and the passages after it to show the context. That is the context which you ignore, to have your interpretation of it for your predetermined thoughts for the belief that you promote. Foods are declared clean without regard to rituals, such as ritual washing. Jesus was critical of changing rules from God right in the very scene that you determine means that Jesus meant he changed rules for it to be alright to eat anything at all. So if we ate babies you can't fault that.
And saying plants suffer as much is something that is not at all from the Bible, though you claimed it. With nothing to show for it. Disregarding with this that animal agriculture uses a lot more plants, and forests are cleared for it. Continuously.
I know that billions (thousands of millions) of animals are bred, and are slaughtered, every year, for the demand going on for their products. It is not a natural scale, there is nothing godly with it. Sacrifices were never on that scale. Sacrifices, of animals and humans, were already happening in the ancient world. God was not being appeased with that, you have no scripture to show for that, but there are passages showing God never needs that from us. Why presume I have not asked God about the sacrifices? I then see God's perfect will, Genesis 1:29-31, as it is in Heaven, while we who are believers should pray for God's will on earth as it is in Heaven, and it should start with us if we really mean it. God shows suffering of any should not continue. So sacrifices were continuing before Christ came to help those of Israel who were supposed to be God's people to see the need of redemption through atonement that could only be through Christ. No animals needed to be killed for us after Christ came and accomplished what was needed.
And why conclude anything about me continuing to eat eggs?
Environments in the natural world are being ruined, and destroyed, from continued animal agriculture. Fish are rapidly diminishing in the overfished seas and oceans.
And it is supposed to be believed that God is alright with any of this? Revelation 11:18.
There are always more things in the Bible, that remain neglected that need to be found for finding more for coming to godliness according to rule of faith. I won't say the things in this post are all of it, I know already about more of such things besides these, though it is sure that there are more things to find, even though I read through the Bible over and over.
pescador said:I will not discuss this issue with you any more. You can eat what you want according to your interpretation of Scripture and I will happily eat what I want according to my interpretation of Scripture.
If you want to feel holy because of some law you think you're obeying go ahead. I won't judge you if you do that because your faith won't let you enjoy God's gifts.
Jesus clearly said that all foods are permissible: " He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)" Mark 7:18-19
Also this: "But you who eat vegetables only—why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything—why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God." Romans 14:10
FredVB said:I would not say that scripture alone is the rule of faith for us. Faith is really personal and it is in relationship with Christ and with Yahweh through Christ. Yet in the development of the relationship with spiritual growth that believers should have, which would show, the primacy of the scriptures, which does really have basis, should form, and what is believed have basis in scriptures, while our Christian faith is not in a vacuum and we should see how what things are said in the Bible apply to the reality around us and in our world.
Where is that evidence that early believers were all still involved in animal sacrifices? I would show it was really otherwise.
Personal faith which has those in repentance coming to Christ through whom they are reconciled to God and coming to trust the Bible for the word of God to them are both important, and it is spiritual deprivation to not have either one or the other. Relationship with God is truly important and it is indispensable to a believer's life, truth that is needed is with having the Bible to go to.
Being fully compassionate beyond other people, Christ was not eating flesh of killed animals. Many followers then after that observed to not eat any flesh of animals, and there really was the tradition passed down that they learned this from Christ their Lord who did not eat of that, while this was still not a requirement for coming to saving faith which is with repentance. It is known from documents that there were apostles, and James the brother of Christ, who avoided having meat. Temple was still attended, which could be done without sacrifices, and there were sacrifices or offerings permitted without those being animals, as well.
Tradition is Teaching and even in the OT tradition yielded writing, some 200 years in some cases.
The Bishops of the Churches who were already teaching, asked the Gospels be written down.
Every Epistle was an answer to a question of what was already taught.
Lastly the Pope declared the scriptures as is "were to be believed"... per his choice per his chair.
Otherwise St Clement the 1st would have been included which was on Peter's chair in the early century while St John was still alive.
However; the Pope decided to just put in the Apostles and those whom they ordained.
Because Mark and Luke were ordained by the Apostles...
Of course, that claim about the bishops isn't accurate.Good Day, Warrior Angel
"The Bishops of the Churches who were already teaching, asked the Gospels be written down."
Do you have a primary Historical source for this?
Once again, sola scriptura. Everything else, as above, is added on.
Of course, that claim about the bishops isn't accurate.
We know the answer to that question, of course, but that isn't the point.Who decided what were the scriptures?
We know the answer to that question, of course, but that isn't the point.
BEING THAT WE ALL AGREE, whether we're Catholics or Protestants, that we have the Bible and that it is divine revelation...what could conceivably be the equal of God's own word given by Him to his people?? Well, nothing.
Isn't the question here asking whether Sola Scriptura is the authority...or not?Who decided on what is from the Apostles and what was not?
Who decided what should Be in scriptures?
Who said it was Divine scriptures and must be believed?
Isn't the question here asking whether Sola Scriptura is the authority...or not?
If it is, just as the title of the thread suggests, our concern is in its authority rather than how it came to be authoritative. We all know that the Bible IS God's word, don't we?
In almost every post, I've mentioned that the Bible is divine revelation, which is something that virtually every Christian denomination agrees to.It cannot be authoritative without an authority to state such.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?