The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

Sola Scriptura is hardly SOLID ground Bob, this portion of the BB proves that! Just look at the many Bible commentaries in you local Christian Bookstore...Just look at the thousands of Protestant denominations...

I don’t understand how you Bob can claim Sola Scriptura when the very theological threads regarding “soul sleep” and the End Times you participate in are hotly disagreed upon by you and others, namely ED and DHK.

Whose right Bob? Is it you, ED or DHK? All of whom appeal to Scripture as their source of Authority.

There was NO Bible as we know it today that the Early Apostolic Church appealed too. Sure there were letters circulating, but there were no Lifeway bookstores.

Christ didn’t promise a written book to guide His Church! Christ said He, through the Holy Spirit would remind His Apostles ALL things, not a book where any, Tom, Dick and Harry could interpret for themselves.

For me, as an Orthodox, it’s me, the Lord, the Bible AND the CHURCH. NOT me, the Lord and the Bible and my own wild interpretations.

Holy Scripture without Holy Tradition to interpret it by is useless and Holy Tradition without Holy Scripture to interpret by is useless. Both go hand in hand…

ICXC NIKA
-

 

So look at the different denominations. So what! Some have fell into modernism. We don't have time to look at those who have fallen away from the Word of God. Look at Orthodoxy and the RCC. They have fallen so far away from Christendom that there is no resemblance of Christianity left in them. When the RCC was "invented" Christianity was paganized and paganism was Christianized, and it has continued that way ever since that day.

That is the essence of soul liberty. It is what the RCC and the Church of England (in the history of England) took away from Bible believing Christians. After two reigns of monarchs from the Church of England, a Catholic monarch, Queen Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) went and tried to exterminate all who would not become Catholic, no matter what religion they were. She only reigned five years fortunately, and then met an untimely death. What did she do? She took away the soul liberty of every individual in England.--the mindset of the RCC to this day.

Freedom of religion is the right to believe what one believes is right regardless of our differences. That right the RCC would take away, and has by peril of the sword in the past away. They still would if they could.

Nonsense, there has always been God's revelation available to mankind in whatever century you look, starting from Adam onward. Man has never been without the revelation of God. And that revelation does not come from Tradition but from the very mouth of God. "Thus saith the Lord," "For it is written," are such common phrases found in the Bible, they can't be mistaken or avoided. Scripture was inscripturated soon after it was written from 50 AD onward. It is only the RCC and Orthodox view that cling to a warped Catholic view that they claim that they "made" the Bible. Hogwash!

In John 16:13, when Jesus promised to his apostles to guide them into "all truth" it was a reference to guiding them into the truth of the written Scripture--a book. No one today can claim to be omniscient--having all truth. That is not what the verse is speaking about. It is speaking about all inspired truth of the Bible that the Holy Spirit would give them when the time would arise that it would be necessary for them to pen. All Scripture is inspired by God.

It is apparent that you do not even know what a church is. Look it up in the Greek. The Orthodox was never found in the Bible and can't be traced back to it either.

Would you like Charles Taze Russell to interpret your Scripture for you too. Why not? What is the difference. He is a man just like the men in your Tradition. Your tradition is meaningless--full of man-made error. Only the Bible is inspired. It alone is authoritative. And that is the basis for sola scriptura.

 

If disputes about the UNDISPUTED source (Scripture) are used by the RCC and others to prove the "insufficiency" of scripture -- then by that level of reasoning these SAME disputes over the much disputed yet fallible ECFs and man-made traditions are even MORE proof of the "insufficiency" of tradition.

I don't see how you can appeal to "the existence of dissenting views" as PROOF against INFALLIBLE scripture and yet not accept that same problem as times-ten proof against tradition!!

In Acts 17:1-4 we see "hotly disagreed upon" truths proclaimed by Paul from scripture alone showing the Jesus is the Messiah.

In Acts 17:11 those same hotly debated truths are fully validated sola scriptura.

In your argument the very EXISTENCE of differing views in Acts 17:1-3 negates the possibility and viabiliity of the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing doctrine - and yet we see right there -what you are saying does not exist.

Read Acts 17:1-5 and Acts 17:11 instead of ignoring those details about the scriptures they were appealing to -

The failure of man-made tradition occurs when we see that they WERE able to use scripture as the infallible source for establishing doctrine and testing it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

OK, then don’t address the issue that Sola Scriptura has done more harm than good. Who’s the new ‘born again’ believer supposed to believe the Bible toting ‘soul winning’ IFB knocking on the door or the Bible toting Mormon knocking at the door all appealing to Scripture as their authority?

I’m not defending the Western Church, but the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church was not ‘invented’. Rome for your information was already one of the five great ecclesiastical centers of the Early Church era…please get informed DHK…I’m embarrassed for you.
That is the essence of soul liberty. It is what the RCC and the Church of England (in the history of England) took away from Bible believing Christians.

After two reigns of monarchs from the Church of England, a Catholic monarch, Queen Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) went and tried to exterminate all who would not become Catholic, no matter what religion they were. She only reigned five years fortunately, and then met an untimely death. What did she do? She took away the soul liberty of every individual in England.--the mindset of the RCC to this day.

Freedom of religion is the right to believe what one believes is right regardless of our differences. That right the RCC would take away, and has by peril of the sword in the past away. They still would if they could. [/QUOTE]
Rant away about the Roman Catholic Church…I’m not Roman Catholic

First, the era the Bible’s Canon was established, there was NO “Roman Catholic Church”, there was but ONE Church…The Church Christ sent His 11 at the time out to establish as He (Christ) the corner stone which would be the Foundation and Pillar of Truth.

Revelation to man ended with Jesus DHK…sorry to inform you, but anything new in regard to revelation YOU may think was revealed to you today, if that revelation doesn’t stand up to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition…your revelation is heretical.

Christ didn’t leave a written manual to guide His Church…Christ Himself through His Holy Spirit is what guides His Church…Christ said it will be HE that will remind His Apostles of ALL things…not a Book. Not one individual Apostle, but ALL, meaning collectively as we see the Council in Acts.

I’m sure penning Scripture was a part of that, but not solely DHK…who DHK interpreted the Torah for the Jews; the individual Jew himself at his coffee table watching Fox News?

Lots of things DHK was revealed to the Apostles that wasn’t recorded and even St. John said that ALL the books in the world couldn’t contain what Christ said and done…Read your Bible DHK.

Who DHK determined which letters was authentic and not counterfeit DHK? I hope you don’t believe that only 27 letters existed. And all Churches had these 27 letters and none of the counterfeits.

OH and a fundamentalist Baptist Church can trace their heritage back to the Apostles? What a fantasy world you live in.

This is just too Funny…I walk into any Lifeway Bookstore and see shelves upon shelves of Bible commentaries all pushing their interpretations…or shall we say…man made Traditions. Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, J. Vernon McGee, Scofield…all these men and more DHK interprets the Bible for YOU and it is through men as such that YOU DHK, build YOUR tradition off of.

A little bit of his interpretation and a little bit of this one’s interpretation and just a smidgeon of this guys interpretation and wha la…I got myself a new denomination…I’ll call it a reformed Church.

And YOU as a pastor are doing the same to your congregation. You are teaching and preaching YOUR Tradition to them…if not then why preach DHK? If the Bible is all one needs, why not give out Bibles and let each one interpret the Bible for themselves?

Can tradition become corrupt? Sure, look at the Roman Catholic Church…As I was studying the Roman Catholic Church there were a few things that didn’t set well with me…those things, were shown to me in Scripture, but I couldn’t find those in the Early Church Traditions, only did they surface in Tradition well AFTER the split of 1054.

True

It is authoritative when one has the right interpretation and what DHK is that measuring stick?

Based on whose interpretation? Back to square one…

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Your question was “What about all the different denominations?” That is what I just responded to. In response to that, you accuse me of not addressing the question of sola scriptura. You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? A direct answer to your question, or an avoidance to your questions (rabbit trails) and stay on the subject of sola scriptura no matter what you say. I’ll just ignore what you say and preach sola scriptura, ok? I really thought you wanted an answer to your question however.
How could sola scriptura do more harm than good. How could listening to God do more harm than listening to a messenger of Satan? Paul warns about listening to messengers of Satan who are disguised as messengers of light. So how do you know? I know that I am listening to God when I am reading and studying His Word. You cannot say the same as far as your tradition is concerned. Therefore sola scriptura does more good than harm.

Here is the good:
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--The Holy Spirit which dwells within every believer, illuminates the believer’s mind that he might know the Bible—that which is freely given to him of God.

Here is the bad:
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
What is the difference? Most evangelicals know that they are saved and have the Holy Spirit in them, and are therefore able to understand them and come to the same relative conclusions about the Bible as Mike has so many times pointed out.

Most who are not evangelicals are not saved and do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and cannot understand the Bible. The Bible doesn’t make sense to them. And neither does sola scriptura for that matter. The Bible could never be their authority for it is foolishness unto them. As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

But to the average evangelical, who loves the Word, the Word is His delight, and in the Word does he meditate in day and night. It is his guidebook in life; a lamp to his feet, a light to his path. It is his only authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. There is no other authority that matters to him.
“William Bradford, the governor of the Plymouth Colony of pilgrims, insisted, ‘Those who believe in the Holy Scriptures are bound to observe its teachings. Those who do not are to be bound by its consequences.’"
-- Larry Burkett, What Ever Happened to the American Dream, p. 43.

--The unsaved man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God (the Bible). To him the Bible is foolishness. Neither can he know or understand it. He is spiritually discerned.

Why should you be embarrassed for me? I don’t have it wrong. The RCC didn’t come into existence until the time of Constantine in the fourth century when Constantine made so-called Christianity at that time a state religion. That became the “real” Catholic Church as we know it today. At that time he introduced many of the same idols that the Catholic Church still retains to this day. It is Christianity paganized. But that is not Christianity at all, is it? And the fourth century is not all that early either. The invention of the RCC and its doctrines has been a progressive movement ever since the time of Constantine. Even as recent as 1950 did the RCC accept the assumption of Mary as official doctrine into their church.
There was a church at Rome. Paul wrote to it. Notice that there was no mention of Peter in his letter. It was a church that was independent of all others. There was no hierarchy in place. The Bible indicates that rather bluntly. And that is our authority; not history revised by the RCC.

That which applies to the RCC for the most part applies to the Orthodox. As you admit yourself the split wasn’t until the eleventh century so up until then all the doctrines were the same. Your objection then, that you are not RCC holds no water. Change your name to Orthodox. You are still under the same basic umbrella, and for centuries believed the exact same thing.

No, the “church” age didn’t even begin until Pentecost. So even there you are wrong. As you stated but failed to comprehend in your own words—Christ would be the Foundation and Pillar of the Truth. It is future. That would not happen until Pentecost. Besides that I have to laugh. You have a bunch of different quotes all mixed up and are trying to force a meaning into it (perhaps one of many verses; I don’t know) that isn’t there. So let’s look at the verse that seems to be in question:

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
[FONT=&quot]--What is Paul speaking to Timothy about? He is speaking of how he ought to behave. Where? In the house of God or in the local church—the one in Ephesus, where he was the pastor. It was the pillar and ground of the truth (for Ephesus). It was the duty of the local church in Ephesus to be the ground, the foundation of the truth. The church was built on the foundation of Christ (1Cor.3:11). It was the duty of that local church to be a pillar of the truth—to hold up the truth of the Word of God; to hold up the name of Christ in Ephesus. The whole illustration was an allusion to the great Temple of Diana which had many pillars in it and for which Ephesus was famous for. Timothy would relate well to this picture. Every Biblical local church is both a foundation and a pillar of the truth!


[/FONT]

 

In Acts 17:1-4 we see "hotly disagreed upon" truths proclaimed by Paul from scripture alone showing the Jesus is the Messiah.

In Acts 17:11 those same hotly debated truths are fully validated sola scriptura.

In your argument the very EXISTENCE of differing views in Acts 17:1-3 negates the possibility and viabiliity of the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing doctrine - and yet we see right there -what you are saying does not exist.

If disputes about the UNDISPUTED source (Scripture) are used by the RCC and others to prove the "insufficiency" of scripture -- then by that level of reasoning these SAME disputes over the much disputed yet fallible ECFs and man-made traditions are even MORE proof of the "insufficiency" of tradition.

I don't see how you can appeal to "the existence of dissenting views" as PROOF against INFALLIBLE scripture and yet not accept that same problem as times-ten proof against tradition!!


Quote:

In Acts 17:1-4 we see "hotly disagreed upon" truths proclaimed by Paul from scripture alone showing the Jesus is the Messiah.

In Acts 17:11 those same hotly debated truths are fully validated sola scriptura.

In your argument the very EXISTENCE of differing views in Acts 17:1-3 negates the possibility and viabiliity of the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing doctrine - and yet we see right there -what you are saying does not exist.

 

I’m not making the argument Bob that Holy Scripture is some how sub-par and we shouldn’t view Holy Scripture as authoritative. Goodness Bob, I’ve never in all my days as a Protestant seen Holy Scripture reverenced as much as I do at every Divine Liturgy!

So what the Jews disagreed with Paul, heck even the Jews disagreed with themselves concerning the Resurrection of the dead. Whenever Paul got himself into a jam, it was usually due to the Resurrection of the dead. I’m being persecuted b/c of the resurrection, Paul would often cry.

Anyway, Paul preaching Jesus as the Messiah was NO new revelation Bob, this FACT was nothing new to the Church. The Jewish authorities had issues with it, but not the Church. It was Paul that went into a Jewish synagogue and started preaching Christ. Paul didn’t walk into a New Testament Church. Make sure we’re on the same page here.

There was NO New Testament Bible during ACTS that preached Christ the Messiah and Christ Crucified. Sure there were OT Scriptures that pointed to a coming Messiah, but was OT Scripture enough Bob? Apparently NOT Bob as you rightly pointed out in Acts 17. IF Scripture was clear and Sola Scriptura rang true, there’d been no “hotly debated issue” with the Jewish authorities.

What Paul was preaching and what the Church held to universally, that Christ was the Messiah, measured up to what the OT Scriptures spoke of. Perfect harmony! No problem here in the Church Bob. But to the Jewish authorities…problem…

Holy Scripture without a measuring stick to guide us…ie: Holy Tradition is useless and Holy Tradition without the measuring stick to guide us…ie: Holy Scripture is useless. Both cannot wittness without the other.

Hope that helps

ICXC NIKA!!!!
-

 

…again we’ve covered the differences between Tradition (big “T”) and tradition (small “t”) before, so please reply and I’d be happy to differentiate the two again.

I’ve said before that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition work hand-in-hand. Therefore neither proves the other as ‘insufficient’ as both are witnesses to the other.

Referring back to your example of Acts 17, IF OT Scripture was sufficient, why did the Jewish authorities disagree with Paul? Were the Jewish authorities ignorant of OT Scripture???? OR were they ignorant of the Church’s view of Christ the Messiah as the Churches Traditional teaching…remember, no NT to preach Christ as Messiah and Christ Crucified, during ACTS.

Not to sound like a broken record, but again your silver bullet of Acts 17, failed to hit its mark.

The Jewish authorities had the OT in their temples. They read from them, prayed from them and chanted the Psalm from them…they knew their OT.

Paul knew the OT as well, but Paul didn’t walk with Christ during His ministry. When Paul preached Christ the Messiah, I’m confident that Paul not only appealed to OT Scripture, but also to the witness of the Apostles themselves (Holy Tradition). Paul didn’t reach in his Levis Blue Jeans and whip out the New Testament and preach from John’s Gospel.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

The ONE true Church started by God at Sinai continues into the pages of the NT and is eventually replaced in form by the church.

But the people of God exist in all ages.

The fact that those who worship the One True God in Acts 17 "dispute" with Paul in vs 1-5 is not an argument against "sola scriptura" for disputes do nothing to reduce the fact that the scriptures are infallible and are to be used for "doctrine and correction and instruction" - as we see them doing in Acts 17:11.

The "NT text" existed the moment it was written - but as ou note this is not the text used by Paul in Acts 17:1-4 nor the text used by the worshipers of the One True God in Acts 17:11.

Which is even more devastating evidence that "sola scriptura" IS a reliable method availalbe even to non-Christian followers of the ONE true God.

And yet we see it used OUTSIDE the church in Acts 17:11 as the perfect authority to TESt the statements of Paul.

How much more INSIDE for those who accept scripture as "sufficient" (1Tim 3:16) and inspired to be used for doctrine and correction.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I don't see how you can appeal to "the existence of dissenting views" as PROOF against INFALLIBLE scripture and yet not accept that same problem as times-ten proof against tradition!!

1. You keep arguing that the "existence of dispute" disproves the source is "sufficient".

But using your logice the Word of God spoken in person Eve in the Gen 2 is "insufficient" since Satan disputes it and convinces Eve to doubt and reject it.

"The existence of opposition" does not prove the source to be "insufficient".

2. Finally as I keep saying - in the case of scripture we have an UNDISPUTED infallible authority - in the case of the flawed and fallible interpration of ECFs we have a FALLIBLE source. The appeal to a FALLIBLE source as the solution to "debates" about an INFALLIBLE source can nevee succeed. It goes the wrong direction.

in Christ,

Bob

 

And just who Bob interpreted the OT Scriptures for the Hebrew people? Funny, I don’t remember reading that the Hebrew people ran down to their local corner Lifeway Center and purchased themselves a nice leather Torah, complete with commentary from Moses…

Hmmm…wasn’t Paul the same Paul that persecuted the Christians? Where do you think Paul learned that Christ was the Messiah? Sola Scriptura anyone????

Not to be nit picky, but its 2 Timothy 3:16 and the verse says nothing of scripture being “sufficient”, only that Scripture is “profitable" or useful. Something can be profitable without being sufficient. In other words, it can be a necessary condition without being a sufficient one. In fact, that is what the Orthodox Church would say. Scripture is necessary because it is the written revelation of God himself. But that does not mean that it is sufficient for every purpose.

Let’s try and be honest Bob…

ICXC NIKA
-

 

So you are going for the "scripture is insufficient" argument by bending 2Tim 3?


15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

You ducked this point -- no answer?

 

Truly your argument has now run aground. Are you really trying to argue the case that in Acts 17:11 INSTEAD of "studying the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken by Paul were so" and then finding that they WERE so - accepted Paul...

That what they REALLY did is "stop reading just run to your Hebrew priest and leaders who all tell them Paul IS telling the truth as they WOULD have found it in scripture if only they could read scripture -- so go ahead and accept Paul?"

You are going to make the wild argument that their Jewish magesterium was instructing them to read scripture in a PAUL IS CORRECT kinda way?? When the Jewish leaders of Acts 17:1-4 clearly were AGAINST it???

You are now clinging desperately to a failed position.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I believe that we now have "a Kodak moment" in the case of A.D's argument.

 

First Bob, what’s your definition of Sola Scriptura? That may help.

I as a Baptist was taught Scripture alone. Scripture explains Scripture. Yes Scripture can explain Scripture, but anybody can pull various Scripture verses together and form a theological doctrine…look at the SDA’s, Mormons and the JW’s. There HAS to be a measuring stick!!! OR we run into heretical doctrines.

Now where do we see in Acts, where the Jews used Scripture ONLY? No where Bob.

Fact is Bob, is that Paul and Silas both REASONED with them and SOME believed.

Did Paul hand the ones that eventually believed the OT Scriptures and proclaim sola scriptura…that the Scriptures would speak for themselves and simply walk away?

NO, Paul REASONED with them, meaning Paul explained to them or INTERPRETED the Scriptures for them the resurrected Christ. Paul’s interpretational reasoning was based off his personal training he received from the Apostles themselves after his conversion. THEN and ONLY then did Paul go out and proclaim the Gospel message.

Paul described himself as a Pharisee, and was well educated, therefore he was well versed in the Scriptures, YET Paul still didn’t see the Christ as the Messiah as he was persecuting Christian’s from Scripture.

You are suggesting Bob that the OT Scripture is clear as a bell regarding Christ as the Messiah, but clearly it’s NOT.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

So D28guy claims the following proves Sola Scriptura, but interestingly is that subject of the verse was taught what to believe and thus what he was taught is measured (here’s the measuring stick) by Scripture.

So to recap…the subject of said verse was told to continue in the things he had learned and that what he was being taught is known in Scripture. So what the subject learned is that of the Christian Tradition of the resurrected Christ.

The subject now interprets Scripture through the lenses of Christianity Tradition and no longer through the lenses of Judaism Tradition.

Thanks D28guy!:thumbs:

ICXC NIKA!!!!
-

 

D28guy,

Haven’t we already been down a road similar to this, with you claiming Scripture to say, what Scripture clearly doesn’t say?

Now, please show the class the Bible verse that says explicitly that Scripture is sufficient. To make it clear D28guy, the class wants to see the WORD sufficient.

ICXC NIKA
-

Oh and I too choose to believe God and HIS Church, whom God is with and has promised to be with until the end of the ages and to protect against the gates of Hell.
-