Those who denounce Paul

[Erose]

This has nothing to do with sola scriptura, your just trying to some how justify your Churches unbiblical doctrines

It has everything to do with it. The problem is you don't see it. Sola Scriptura taken to the extreme forces one to question everything on its merits of being Biblical or not. The very fact that Scripture doesn't state what writings are Scriptural, establishes a very severe problem with Sola Scriptura.

 

[Erose]

Maybe one day you might come to understand what Sola scriptura really is.

Which version?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Hentenza

Maybe one day you might come to understand what Sola scriptura really is.
​

Which version?

How many versions are there?


http://www.christianforums.com/t7592969-7/#post58573659
Sola Scriptura..."norma normans"

Originally Posted by Ignatius21

This thread is a spin-off from a discussion that started some time ago, and eventually led to a very focused discussion with a Lutheran who proposed a very precise definition of what sola scriptura (hereafter, SS) is, and what it is not.
I will attempt to do my best to interact with it. He mentioned in a past thread that he had converted from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism...from not-SS to SS. I, myself, recently converted from Presbyterianism to Orthodoxy...from SS to not-SS. So perhaps we passed each other on the way
​

The definition of what SS is and is not, together with examples, are here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/.

I would encourage everyone who responds to this thread: please do not respond unless you have read this proposed definition in its entirety. Thoughtful posts require thoughtful ...and respectful...responses.

​

.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Well, I know a frequent poster on the Unorthodox Theology forum that uses Sola Scriptura to justify Annihilationism. He is incensed that he can't post about Annihilationism on GT and feels insulted that his views are not consider orthodox. Sola Scriptura is behind his views and he has what he thinks is flawless scriptural logic to backup his views.

As a matter of fact Hentenza knows who I'm talking about, he had a very intense debate with this Annihilationist over the course of a week or so before throwing up his hands and giving up. Nothing can get through this Annihilationist's sense of having flawless scriptural logic to support his views as a result of embracing the principles of Sola Scriptura.





.

 

[Metal Minister]

The problem with your point here, is that just like the other "common doctrines" of Protestantism, one finds differing shades of gray, in interpretation. Sola Scriptura is not excluded from this, any more than the other Solas are.

Maybe this would be an interesting thread in itself. When I have more time I believe I will start such a one.

I would greatly love to be involved so I may correct your misunderstandings on the Sola's. Pm me with a link when you do.

 

[Metal Minister]

Well, I know a frequent poster on the Unorthodox Theology forum that uses Sola Scriptura to justify Annihilationism. He is incensed that he can't post about Annihilationism on GT and feels insulted that his views are not consider orthodox. Sola Scriptura is behind his views and he has what he thinks is flawless scriptural logic to backup his views.

As a matter of fact Hentenza knows who I'm talking about, he had a very intense debate with this Annihilationist over the course of a week or so before throwing up his hands and giving up. Nothing can get through this Annihilationist's sense of having flawless scriptural logic to support his views as a result of embracing the principles of Sola Scriptura.

.

Ah, but true sola scriptura puts the kaibosh on annihilationism. I truly hope Erose gets that thread going!

 

[from scratch]

It's pretty obvious that if Paul wasn't in the scriptures there will be a massive change in the understanding of the gospel and Christian living so what do you make of the people who denounce Paul and claim that there was many errors in the passages he partaken in the bible and to the others that claim that he was a false apostle and what is your take on Paul?

To back-track. Recently I've got into a small discussion or a light-debate with someone about the law and the teachings of Paul. Basically this person has said that we are to follow the Ten Commandments and that there is no "new law" and that the "old law hasn't been done away with" as Paul and the writer of Hebrews stated against. This person has also claimed that Paul had no right to change anything written in Scriptures and then this person has also claimed that Paul was a follower of the original law. These are some notable quotes from the person: "Paul isn't my Deity. He didn't try to be either." "The problem is with translation and traditions of men. They sucked me in, too, for a long time. If you will get online and research the ways language translations and traditions of men are twisting Paul's words, you will, I believe, learn a lot."

Here these claims are from 2 different groups. They have toned down considerably over the last 5 years. IMHO they should be ignored as preaching a false gospel of works. They're noted for statements that the law must be observed to get and possess salvation. If that were true than salvation isn't a gift. They'll also deny the Gospels and even Moses as being correct and truthful. One should read many of the old threads in the archives.

 

[from scratch]

Those who are against Paul are against him because his teachings are against what they want to do and/or believe.

and Amen!

 

[yogosans14]

It has everything to do with it. The problem is you don't see it. Sola Scriptura taken to the extreme forces one to question everything on its merits of being Biblical or not. The very fact that Scripture doesn't state what writings are Scriptural, establishes a very severe problem with Sola Scriptura.

Luke 4:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

If a doctrine (ie Purgatory) doesnt match up with the Word of God, then its not biblical. See how simple it is?

 

[from scratch]

Ah, but true sola scriptura puts the kaibosh on annihilationism. I truly hope Erose gets that thread going!

Love those quote in your signature.

 

[Erose]

How many versions are there?

How many shades of gray are there?

From my experience in debates on this topic in these forums, I'm starting to get the feeling, that it depends on how many Protestants there are. Much like Sola Fide. It gets to the point that it ceases to be debatable because the meaning of the definition flows depending on who and how many folks get involved in the debate.

 

[Erose]

Luke 4:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

If a doctrine (ie Purgatory) doesnt match up with the Word of God, then its not biblical. See how simple it is?

What in Scripture supports the current understanding of what writings are Scripture?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Since I think we can all trust that the original apostles were acting on Christ's behalf, then we must trust that Paul was also. If he were a false apostle, then why would the others support him as indicated in the scripture below..? If they were supporting a fake, then these apostles would also be called into question.. which means pretty much the entire NT could be termed bogus..

Acts 15:24-27
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

I guess they would say Luke, not being one of the original 12, and Paul's traveling partner, would, of course, write about Paul favorably.

But the Paul haters shouldn't be taken seriously. They're heretics.

 

[Assyrian]

Paul's idea that the law of the Spirit of Life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death Rom 8:2 and Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law, sounds a lot like John's new commandment... that we love one another 2John 1:5 and James' law of liberty James 1:25 or royal law... You shall love your neighbour as yourself James 2:8

 

[BBAS 64]

Which version?

The historical Cristian one, and then deal with the presup you have been told to carry Sola Roma.

You have choosen to carry it because Rome told you to more name it claim it stuff from them.... I understand you have just made a mistake you are only human and do err.

Then we can talk.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

What in Scripture supports the current understanding of what writings are Scripture?

Good Day, Erose

Silly question, explain what you think sola sciptura means....

The contents of Scripture is an historical question, one that Rome has been wrong on after Trent.

Here is one that works,

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.


Now if you can work in that context we can discuss....

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

To denouce Paul is to deny the historical Christian view of his primary role for the church.

I know Peter had a hard time, but that says more about Peter than it does Paul. I feel for Peter's inablity and his struggles to understand, and I am sure he missed the blessing at some level.


Chrysostom (349-407): You see, people who after these events sin in the same respect will not have the same sentence meted out to them, something we can learn briefly from the world’s teacher — I mean blessed Paul

Augustine (354-430): Well then, are we going to say that the apostle Paul did not have all these gifts? Who would dare to say that? After all, by the very fact that he was an apostle, he had the gift of apostleship. But he also had the gift of prophecy. Was this not his prophecy: The Spirit clearly says that in the last days some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceiving spirits, to the teaching of demons (1 Tm 6:1), and so on? He was also the teacher of the nations in the faith and in the truth

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) calls the Apostle Paul “the great teacher of the world”: Even the great teacher of the world who is wont to style himself last of saints and first of sinners, that he might stop the mouths of liars was compelled to set forth a list of his own labors; and in shewing that this account of his sufferings was of necessity, not of free will, he added “I am become a fool in glorying

 

[Erose]

The historical Cristian one, and then deal with the presup you have been told to carry Sola Roma.

You have choosen to carry it because Rome told you to more name it claim it stuff from them.... I understand you have just made a mistake you are only human and do err.

Then we can talk.

In Him,

Bill

Bill,

I have to be honest. Your post isn't coherent enough for me to respond properly. Can you clarify you thoughts just a little bit?

 

[BBAS 64]

Bill,

I have to be honest. Your post isn't coherent enough for me to respond properly. Can you clarify you thoughts just a little bit?

Good Day, Erose

I have provided a short definition of what Sola Sricptura is....

I know as a Roamn Catholic you belive for all matters of faith the Chruch has the right to bind youi to what they tell you is true.

You like some of that denomination chosse to buy into their name (authotrity for the Roman church), and they they claim that authority.

You have made an asset to that (name it claim it trick), but you (IMO) have made a grave mistake in doing so. You are indeed human and can err in the decisions you make.

In Him,

Bill

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Koakku

It's pretty obvious that if Paul wasn't in the scriptures there will be a massive change in the understanding of the gospel and Christian living so what do you make of the people who denounce Paul and claim that there was many errors in the passages he partaken in the bible and to the others that claim that he was a false apostle and what is your take on Paul?

​

Those who are against Paul are against him because his teachings are against what they want to do and/or believe.

And it is against orthodox mainstream Christianity.
They should be put in the same camp as the JWs and Mormons, who are also considered unorthodox Christians.....IMHO

http://www.christianforums.com/t7770292/
What Gospel did Paul preach?




.