SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Sola Scriptura is logically untenable

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread









 "Look here?"

You look here, you have unmitigated gall, as the blind and decieved follower of what is argubably the most anti-christ of all religious institutions, the "church" in rome, to come onto a Full Gospel Bible believing Protestant forum, foist your apostate and heretical theo-suppositions on said forum and think you won't get a stern rebuke from this poster, think again. Much to my consternation, your being given a pass by most posters here, a pass which I find close to hypocritical.....

and I say that, because if you were a post modern adherent of the "Emergent Church" you would have had ten different posters leaping all over you. If you were a homosexual Episcopal clergyman , or woman, making a post telling us all how we were of a hate-filled nature you'd have 50 posters on you....and heaven forbid you were either a calvinist or arminian expousing your viewpoint, then this thread would explode into a 200 post cyber scrum.

But since you're a poor blind fool trapped in romanism, for some reason I cant figure out. normally Full Gospel Protestants are giving you a pass for your error and blasphemy, which you have done in an agressive manner. You dare say that romanism is the "true Church of Jesus Christ"? Well sir, when you're in hell, you'll be cursing the name of the pope who committed the unpardonable sin of proclaiming himself the "Vicar of Christ" and led you into your error and confusion. For the Love of Christ, flee rome now! The "church" doesnt save you, the Atoning Work of Christ on the Cross saves us, can save you, wake up from your slumber and realize that. REPENT and flee rome, the pope and his priests are liars, they are leading you all straight into hell.

I dont care if nobody else on this forum will tell you that, I will....and you call me a "bully"? You must not know history. romanism and its machinations, its murder's and murderer's, romanism is the real bully and tool of satan, history backs me on that.

Repent before its too late!

[url=http://playmp3.sa-media.com/media/6863/6863.mp3]Fundamentalism versus Apostasy[/url]

 2009/8/23 2:04
MaryJane
Member



Joined: 2006/7/31
Posts: 3057


 Re: "Look here?"

Greetings Brother Neil

I wrote you a pm and I think I made you even more upset then you were. I am sorry for that, Please know that was not my intention. Perhaps my mother being in the Catholic church has caused me to come across as soft on this matter,but that is no excuse. You are correct when you said that the Roman Catholic church is not the true church of Jesus Christ. You are also correct in saying that what has been posted here by Catholic is blasphemy and should be called such. The Catholic church does not save anyone, only Jesus can, He alone is the way to salvation. There are many lost souls who believe the lies of the Catholic church and who follow after dead traditions that are rooted in paganism. I do pray for those who are being deceived by the lies that they might find Jesus, but in the end they are following a false dead religion that will only lead to hell.

To Catholic: your motive seems clear here, you have come and posted to the forums for one of two purposes, one to cause strife or two, hoping to persuade others that what you say is true. Either way I pray you will not be successful. Sadly I know all to well from personal experience that debating with you is pointless and does nothing to further the Kingdom of Jesus.

God bless you brother Neil
Maryjane

 2009/8/23 2:34Profile









 Re:

God bless you dear sister MJ,
much much love in Christ, neil

 2009/8/23 3:00
Laviver
Member



Joined: 2009/1/11
Posts: 98


 Re:

Just a thought to consider. Even if it is conceded that the first church used men in a more autoritative dimension(in whatever aspect or label), we still must consider the state of things in which they did. The first church cannot be a feasible model to base every point of current church activity, method, or practice. They were in a unique place and ime with a unique purpose to carry out. The early church (of Acts) had to build the structure of the church, and so that's what they did.

1 Corinthians 3:10
According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it.

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone

The foundation was laid and therefore "foundation-laying" methods need not be used and really cannot be used. It would take destroying the foundation or beginning in new ground to lay again a foundation.

 2009/8/23 4:18Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA

By STEVE RAY



I read the entire article and observe a couple of things:

1. The Jews that rejected Paul (keep in mind that many did not reject Paul or the gospel for that matter because the early church was almost exclusively Jewish) were resisting the Holy Ghost. This is not an academic issue, but a heart issue.

[color=000066]And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the [u]acknowledging[/u] of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (II Tim 2:24-26 KJV) [/color]

Everyone must [u]acknowledge[/u] the truth when they hear it. This is part of the idea of 'letting God be true and every man a liar.' Men must give their 'amen' to what God says. The unbelieving Jews refused to do that in spite of the manifold way in which Jesus Christ was evidently set forth and crucified among them (Galatians 3:1). Again Paul gives important insight as to their disposition:

[color=000066]In meekness instructing those [u]that oppose themselves[/u]; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the [u]acknowledging[/u] of the truth;[/color]

2. The primary cause of the rise of Rabbinic Judaism was that a particular sect of the pharisees fled to Yavneh (Jamnia) and with the help of Rome stamped out all other competing Jewish sects- including other dissenting pharisees. This was a power move to retain authority.

3. The pharisees could prove a false doctrine from scripture. This is why the final authority must be the [i]rightly divided[/i] word of God. This plays out in Steven's sermon when the religious leaders were 'cut to their hearts.' (Acts 7:54)

[color=000066]He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:11-13 NKJV[/color]

You will search the scriptures from cover to cover and will not find that God handed over the 'authority' to a hierarchy of leaders to interpret the word of God or to issue decrees to His Church. He speaks on a local level to issues at hand within that group if they have 'ears to hear.' There is no need for a bishop or a cardinal or a pope. Jesus Christ deals directly with His people and those to whom He gives revelation of His will are they that are responsible and accountable to God for what they do with that revelation. He did not set up gentile power structures in the churches. We must take seriously the words of the LORD:


[color=000066]But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. [u]Yet it shall not be so among you[/u]; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. Mark 10:42-44 NKJV[/color]


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2009/8/23 4:51Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re: sola the Word of God

Hi everyone,





Quote:
We are told that the Bereans were more noble-minded (open-minded, better disposed, fair)—but more noble-minded than whom? The Thessalonians!




This isn't exactly true.

They were more noble than [b]the Jews of Thessalonica that rejected what Paul preached[/b](see Acts 17:5).


Some of them in Thessalonica did believe(v4), as well as [i]the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few[/i].



Paul writting to the believers in Thessalonica commended them, saying:




"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [i]it[/i] not [i]as[/i] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."


- 1Th 2:13(KJV)



Paul did write to them elsewhere, saying that they should hold to the traditions they had been taught, either by word or by letter from them.

They(the Apostles) were sent by God, and those that are sent by God speak the words of God(John 3:34).


And the Lord Jesus said that those that recieve a prophet, in the name of a prophet, recieve a prophet's reward, and those that recieved them(the Apostles), recieved Him that sent them(Mat 10:40-41).




I wish you all well.


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/8/23 7:07Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7494
Mississippi

 Re: Sola Scriptura is logically untenable

Catholic,

I did not read all the entries on this thread so if what I say has been posted, just know there are more folks that think alike! :-)

When I read your original post my mind went to 2 Peter 1:3,4.

Maybe you can start there and see where you end up?

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2009/8/23 9:48Profile









 Re: "Look here?"

Quote:
You look here, you have unmitigated gall, as the blind and decieved follower of what is argubably the most anti-christ of all religious institutions, the "church" in rome, to come onto a Full Gospel Bible believing Protestant forum, foist your apostate and heretical theo-suppositions on said forum and think you won't get a stern rebuke from this poster, think again. Much to my consternation, your being given a pass by most posters here, a pass which I find close to hypocritical.....

and I say that, because if you were a post modern adherent of the "Emergent Church" you would have had ten different posters leaping all over you. If you were a homosexual Episcopal clergyman , or woman, making a post telling us all how we were of a hate-filled nature you'd have 50 posters on you....and heaven forbid you were either a calvinist or arminian expousing your viewpoint, then this thread would explode into a 200 post cyber scrum.

But since you're a poor blind fool trapped in romanism, for some reason I cant figure out. normally Full Gospel Protestants are giving you a pass for your error and blasphemy, which you have done in an agressive manner. You dare say that romanism is the "true Church of Jesus Christ"? Well sir, when you're in hell, you'll be cursing the name of the pope who committed the unpardonable sin of proclaiming himself the "Vicar of Christ" and led you into your error and confusion. For the Love of Christ, flee rome now! The "church" doesnt save you, the Atoning Work of Christ on the Cross saves us, can save you, wake up from your slumber and realize that. REPENT and flee rome, the pope and his priests are liars, they are leading you all straight into hell.

I dont care if nobody else on this forum will tell you that, I will....and you call me a "bully"? You must not know history. romanism and its machinations, its murder's and murderer's, romanism is the real bully and tool of satan, history backs me on that.

Repent before its too late!

Fundamentalism versus Apostasy



Amen.

 2009/8/23 10:23
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Sola Scriptura is logically untenable

Hello Catholic,

A little background, preliminaries. I was raised a 'Catholic' and have probably a different perspective than more than a few of those who contribute here.

I wanted to lift a section that Robert posted earlier and bring it forward for especial emphasis;

[i]Again Paul gives important insight as to their disposition:

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;[/i]

It really could be shortened to; [i]In meekness instructing[/i] and emphasized ultimately by further reducing it to just [i]In meekness ...[/i]

That is intended to whomever it might apply to.

Quote:
It is not sufficient. And I would submit that the wide variance of opinions held by sincere seekers is proof that it is insufficient.

Why? Because the Scriptures need to be interpreted. And herein lies the problem. Each of us is FALLABLE. And therefore so is our interpretation.

It is amazing to me to see so many who believe that the Holy Spirit was able to preserve the written text of Scripture and yet not believe that He preserved an infallible interpreter of those Scriptures.



It seems this last statement can only be attributed to what the Roman Catholic church [i][u]believes[/u][/i] is that infallible interpreter, namely the pope. But it then begs the question, where is this idea found in either written or 'oral' tradition that it was so?

Moreover, what is the track record of popery down through the centuries? 'Infallible'? If this was true at the onset then there should have been no need for a continued re-writing, clarifying and correcting of the volumes of Catholic canon's\teachings\doctrines etc. It really brings us back to square one and your astute statement that "Each of us is FALLABLE."

Popes inclusive.

So where does it leaves us?

Much gets lost in translation ... And by that I mean more so in the sense of where any of us are coming from. I would make no apology that this statement, from scripture, holds more value and truth than any as it applies here;

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

My perspective is that there is far too much that we do not know and are not intended to know - It puts the necessary distance between us and Almighty God. Bluntly, there is that mystery that is honored and respected, even welcomed that I find curiously circumspect that we mere men would push this out of the way to force our cleverly designed schemes, interpretations as ipso facto ... We talk out of both sides of our mouths by granting that we are fallible and yet go on as if we were infallible in our understanding.

What I haven't seen yet reading through this is the very appeal that Paul used above;

"It is written."

Jesus, more than any appealed to this phraseology and variations of it. Why? Why the emphasis? Why the appealing to it?

I also read the article that was posted on the Bereans. It is interesting what we can hone in on and apply our emphasis to, not any different than what I am doing here, so it is only an observation. Mine would be to emphasize that aspect that stands out to my mind;

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, [u]whether those things were so.[/u]

Since this seems to be the end result of the matter .. Are they so or are they not so? Part of the reasoning in the article that comes to mind is a forgetting of all the other scripture that warns us of the seemingly opposite - Of not trusting every wind of doctrine etc. Really the bridge word seems to be "and" - Ready to accept but not without some due diligence and checking of that which had been written or preserved .. does it square?

The study of the word "written" throughout scripture is telling and seems to answer most of the objections itself. I think there is some simple logic that has some if not most of us appealing to a "sola scriptura" as very logical indeed. Not that it has to be crafted or taken precisely from Luther or anyone else for that matter.

It is obvious enough that things were communicated 'orally' and preserved in written form, not the other way round. And wasn't the chief denunciation from Jesus Himself contained in;

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Really more scripture than I intended and maybe not those that would emphasize the point - Was it not their interpretations themselves that Jesus took umbrage at? However they came about?

Is the issue really what the style of communication is\was or whether or not the point was made and understood?

Is it really any different then than it is today?

The reason that some of us hold strictly to what has been written is more logical than I would forward dogmatic or theological ... We do not and cannot live 2000 years ago. What are we going to appeal to after all? There is a written [i]record[/i] of things that were said [i]then[/i] and further back to that which Jesus Himself and the apostles appealed to in the Old Testament. It's all very simplistic. How we interpret it all is our issue and never-ending debate.

Coming back to your original premise;

Quote:
The Bible never claims to be the only rule for faith and practice. Scripture claims to be God-breathed or inspired. We taught the world to believe this. It claims to be inerrant. We also taught the world to believe this over a millennium before Martin Luther ever came along. It claims to be the Word of God. We also taught the world to believe this.



Your emphasis on "we" colors your premise as biased and that is understandable, I am sure my own comes across just as well, but I am not interested in holding to something just because it is a 'teaching' or even a 'tradition' ... The only thing we have is something [i]comparable[/i], what is it that we can apply the test to if not scripture? At some point the 'canon' had to, of necessity, be closed ... I don't want to open up a whole Pandora's box here with endless questions and "what abouts" (not that I haven't given ample examples myself).

What does it amount to? You see, there is something contradictory about cloaking ourselves in the garb of certain constructs - For yourself as a Catholic Apologist apparently and for others and here there are more than one stripe or flavor if you will ...

Is the attempt to force a construct or is it really an attempt to understand where we are coming from? If it's the former, then the expectation is going to be met with a natural resistance, if the later is really true than there is no reason for any nastiness or perceived motivation. I see no reason why these things cannot be discussed without accusation and conjecture.

I must come back to what seems to be the crux of your premise;

Quote:
It is amazing to me to see so many who believe that the Holy Spirit was able to preserve the written text of Scripture and yet not believe that He preserved an infallible interpreter of those Scriptures.



Truly, isn't the onus on yourself then to provide something factual that supports an 'infallible interpreter'? Where does it come from? What supports it both in scripture and outside of it? To me, the reasoning becomes circular ... whether it's quote unquote 'oral', tradition or scripture it should reconcile itself. The cart before the horse or the cart after the horse is really just semantics. It is either so or it is not so, true or not true and it doesn't matter one iota what 'title' or heading, what lense it's viewed through.

Since I have gone on this long ... Fenelon, Familiar with him? I think in some way's I have met some silent resistance here over the years simply appealing to him. And that is due to his "Catholic" attributes, but I am less interested in the garb then what the man had to say and whether that can be reconciled with what is understood at the root or the heart of the matter.

All that only to say that this is a very vast and wide set of resources available here, I can only hope that you might avail yourself of it, maybe be challenged by it ... I think most of us who participate here are really sincere at getting to the bottom of matters.

A warm welcome to you.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2009/8/23 11:15Profile









 Re:

Why do you people keep calling the catholic religion
the catholic church?
It is not a church, it never has been, never will be.
You know what the church is, the body of people
who have been purchased by the blood of Jesus.
On the other hand the catholic religion is a man
made institution and although a few believers may
attend it's functions the catholic religion itself
cannot be the church.
It does dot meet the requirements of the meaning of the word church or Ekklesia in Greek.

For you Greek Scholars
"The New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 1577

in a Christian sense

1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

 2009/8/23 15:27





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy