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.
This has nothing to do with sola scriptura, your just trying to some how justify your Churches unbiblical doctrines
Which version?
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.
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.
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.
.
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.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."
Those who are against Paul are against him because his teachings are against what they want to do and/or believe.
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.
Love those quote in your signature.Ah, but true sola scriptura puts the kaibosh on annihilationism. I truly hope Erose gets that thread going!
How many versions are there?
What in Scripture supports the current understanding of what writings are Scripture?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?
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.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.
Which version?
What in Scripture supports the current understanding of what writings are Scripture?
Bill,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?
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?
And it is against orthodox mainstream Christianity.Those who are against Paul are against him because his teachings are against what they want to do and/or believe.
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?