Circumcision, Act 15, and Sola Scriptura

[Paladin D]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Oct 31 2004, 05:46 PM'] 1st;
you guys need to learn the differance between

I don't need to learn the difference.  80% of the protestants I dialogue with do.  I don't know how many times I have heard "where's that in the Bible?".  That's sola right. [/quote]
That would be [b]solo[/b].

[b]Sola[/b] places the Bible as the central authority, with some consideration of outside sources. Solo is [b]strictly[/b] Bible-only.

Edited October 31, 2004 by Paladin D

[Guest Aluigi]

I thought it was the other way around.

[Guest Aluigi]

no wait, i think you're right

whatever, sola scriptura leads towards solo

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 31 2004, 06:43 PM'] I thought it was the other way around. [/quote]
I'm not sure now, you may be right. Anyone can double check for me?

[StColette]

Sola Scriptura is the use of Scripture as the final authority on all doctrines, which doesn't mean that there can't be traditions but rather those traditions must be approved with Scriptural evidence. I know many Protestants who will accept certain ideas of Early Church Fathers because of their use of Biblical evidence to support their views and traditions. Thus these Protestants actually use outside information such as the Early Church Fathers to prove their point as long as it meets with the approval through Scripture.

Solo Scriptura would in fact be using the Bible as the only means of proving something. Thus they will not use Early Church Fathers to prove their point.

Edited October 31, 2004 by StColette

[Paladin D]

[quote name='StColette' date='Oct 31 2004, 06:52 PM'] Sola Scriptura is the use of Scripture as the final authority on all doctrines, which doesn't mean that there can't be traditions but rather those traditions must be approved with Scriptural evidence. I know many Protestants who will accept certain ideas of Early Church Fathers because of their use of Biblical evidence to support their views and traditions. Thus these Protestants actually use outside information such as the Early Church Fathers to prove their point as long as it meets with the approval through Scripture.

Solo Scriptura would in fact be using the Bible as the only means of proving something. Thus they will not use Early Church Fathers to prove their point. [/quote]
Okiedoke, phew.

[Buzzard]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 31 2004, 03:29 PM'] there are still those fundamentalists who hold to the sola scriptura of the "reformers" (who I consider to be deformers) [/quote]
Thats true,
most of them were not "[i]Reformers[/i]" at all
just rebellious against a corupt priesthood

it should have been called
"[i]The Great Rebellion[/i]"

But irregardless;
it still resulted in giving the Papacy the deadly wound foretold,
on Feb 10, 1798 by the armies of France
[quote]~{Rev.13:3}~
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death;[/quote]

unfortunatly it was only a "Wound" and not a killing blow,
and thru the Ecumemical movement the wound gets healed
[quote]and his deadly wound was healed:
and all the world wondered after the beast.[/quote]
.
but then again it was prophesied that the seed of the woman would "only bruise" the head of Satan
not kill

[quote]~{Gen3:15}~
15   15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed;
they shall [b][color=red]bruise[/color][/b] thy head,

[/quote]
All Satan can do [b]is impead the feet[/b] of those that carry the Gospel
[quote]and thou shalt bruise their heel.' .

~{Romans 10:15}~
as it is written,
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace,
and bring glad tidings of good things![/quote]
.
.

Edited November 1, 2004 by Buzzard

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Oct 31 2004, 05:37 PM'] That would be [b]solo[/b].

[b]Sola[/b] places the Bible as the central authority, with some consideration of outside sources. Solo is [b]strictly[/b] Bible-only. [/quote]
Excuse me, I did mean solo. But they treat it as sola or say it is. At any rate it is how most Protestants speak. Furhter I have never heard anyone who speaks in solotheologese say, well I believe in solo scriptura. So the question is who's definition is correct?

[Buzzard]

Let me give you an example

[b]Tradition[/b] had it that these men names were

Jannes and Jambres


Paul; writting under inspiration
confirmed it


another is[list]Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren,
ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

[b]James Speaking[/b]

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles,
to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this [color=red]agree the words of the prophets; as it is written[/color],
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David,
which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof,
and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord,
and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
[/list]

Edited November 1, 2004 by Buzzard

[God Conquers]

[quote name='Buzzard' date='Oct 31 2004, 07:10 PM'] Thats true,
most of them were not "[i]Reformers[/i]" at all
just rebellious against a corupt priesthood

it should have been called
"[i]The Great Rebellion[/i]"

But irregardless;
it still resulted in giving the Papacy the deadly wound foretold,
on Feb 10, 1798 by the armies of France


unfortunatly it was only a "Wound" and not a killing blow,
and thru the Ecumemical movement the wound gets healed

.
but then again it was prophesied that the seed of the woman would "only bruise" the head of Satan
not kill


All Satan can do [b]is impead the feet[/b] of those that carry the Gospel

.
. [/quote]
Can you explain this a little more fully... maybe on another thread... I'm interested, I've never encountered this before...

Feb 1798? An atheist French army attacks the Papal states, the Pope escapes to Siena.

This is hardly a triumphant (and certainly not unprecedented) event.

Why does it hold such significance to you?

[point5]

bump

[thessalonian]

Anyone else?

[Briguy]

Hi Thess. It took me until now to look at this. At first look I didn't get your argument on the circumcision thing but then I did. It is a good point and certainly valid for the early church, I am just not so sure it is valid for anytime after the original Apostles and Prophets dies. In Ephesians it is written that the body of Christ is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (verses below) and that Gentiles (the rest of the world) having access to God was a new concept, never revealed before. Now, this foundation is not said to be just by the Apostles but by the Apostles and Prophets. You see God revealed certain things to these special few only. Once revealed the only logical thing was for these things to be written down, and so they were. It is humanly impossible to pass spoken things down from people to people as what is said will be changed by the unreliableness and corruptness of man. No, God revealed it and they wrote it down. When the Bible was put together they examined that which was written and decided, through prayer and Holy Spirit guidance what revelations (things that were revealed) needed to be included. Those new and old writing made up our Bible today and it is complete in the sense that it provides us with what we need to be saved, i.e the GOSPEL. The passing down of tradition I believe is in practice, not in doctrine. I believe in very few doctrines in fact. The only one that matters is the doctrine of salvation. Paul gave guidelines for proper behavior and he gave us a “BLUE PRINT” for how a gathered assembly of believers should look. He gave different ways to look at the gospel, i.e. that where circumcision once was the sign, now circumcision of the heart was what mattered. Revelation was given and then written down. What was not written down could be passed on but that is doubtful, because human nature doesn’t allow it. I know also that you are saying that the doctrine still gets revealed. I just don’t see that as needed in this dispensation. We have all we could possibly need, because we have access to the Father. I said this before but I need to say it again. You say the Apostles passed down doctrine/tradition from generation to generation. I believe that the Apostles/Prophets wrote down doctrine/tradtions for all generations to come. Absolute truth is found in God only. God reveled what he wanted us to know, had it written down and preserved for the ages. Man can’t be trusted, as evidenced by all the examples of problems in the earlist churches. No, God left the Bible because he had to for us to get His truths right. (I know my argument is part logic and part scripture but all my arguments are like that)

Have a great weekend and Gob blessings to all,
Brian


Eph 2: (KJV)
[18] For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
[19] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
[20] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
[21] In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
[22] In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Eph.3
[1] For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
[2] If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward:
[3] How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
[4] Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
[5] Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
[6] That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:


Eph. 2: (NASB)
18 for through Him we both have (58) our access in (59) one Spirit to (60) the Father.
19 So then you are no longer (61) strangers and aliens, but you are (62) fellow citizens with the saints, and are of (63) God's household,
20 having been (64) built on (65) the foundation of (66) the apostles and prophets, (67) Christ Jesus Himself being the (68) corner stone,
21 (69) in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into (70) a holy temple in the Lord,
22 in whom you also are being (71) built together into a (72) dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Paul's Stewardship

Eph. 3:
1 For this reason I, Paul, (1) the prisoner of (2) Christ Jesus (3) for the sake of you (4) Gentiles--
2 if indeed you have heard of the (5) stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you;
3 (6) that (7) by revelation there was (8) made known to me (9) the mystery, (10) as I wrote before in brief.
4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand (11) my insight into the (12) mystery of Christ,
5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy (13) apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are (14) fellow heirs and (15) fellow members of the body, and (16) fellow partakers of the promise in (17) Christ Jesus through the gospel,

[thessalonian]

Brian,

I only have a minute and have not read your whole post but if the early Church was not OPERATING BY SS how could they have been teaching it? Was it do as I say, not as I do? I will read your whole post later and do appreciate the effort you have put on this question because I believe it is a large one for SS.

Blessings

[Briguy]

HMMMMMM, maybe my answer was better then I thought.

Sorry about the vast number of spelling errors in my last post, I did it lightning fast and did not proof it properly. I even spelled God wrong and put Gob. Now that is not the spelling error to make!!

Thess. Looking for your response so I can respond. Thanks!

In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

"HMMMMMM, maybe my answer was better then I thought."

????

No, I was just headed out of town deer hunting with my two boys. I will reply shortly.

Blessings

[thessalonian]

Brian,

You are still missing a huge part of my arguement as I quiped above in my brief response.
The issue about the circumcision thing is that it proves in fact that at the time the apostles
were walking this earth they were not in FACT teaching sola scriptura. Your very words saying
that they were not operating in that mode as they had some special revelatoin to them (which I
agree with) codemn the position of sola scriptura. You see they could not have been teaching
SS and writing it as something to be passed, codified in scripture as a doctrinal truth, on the one
hand and teaching that people must hand on doctrine BY WORD OF MOUTH as the vast majority of teaching
for certain in the first 30 years before Matthew's Gospel was first penned, had to have been.
Now if the Apostles had sat down at the end of the collective lives and said guys, we have to write
this all down so that it gets passed on correctly that would be one thing. But it was not all
written down at once but over a span of time. There is no indication that they had any intention
of writing it down so that doctrine no longer had to get passed on by WORD OF MOUTH. Further, the very
scriptures that you use to "prove" that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura could not possibly ]
have been intended for that purpose or have that meaning because by your very own words the Apostles
themselves were transmitting there teachings ORALLY. Thus Paul would have been contradicting
himself if he even once after he wrote those words in 2 Tim 3:16, intending them to mean Sola Scriptura,
spoke another 'verse' that would someday be codified in scripture, orally. If sola scriptura is
not found explicitly in the scriptures then is it self refuting as a circular arguement. It cannot be
the one oral tradition that is allowed as teaching to "prove" that the scriptures are the sole rule of faith.

2 Tim 2:2 says "the things that
you have RECIEVED from me, pass on to faithful witnesses who will teach them to others". Is he talking
about practice and not doctrine here as well? I can't see how. The very means by which you say the Church
determined what was scripture (it happened to be the Catholic Church in fact was the very
means by which men can in fact pass on from one generation to the next the truths of the meansing of the
scriptures and the infallibly correct interprutation of the Gospel. Prayer and the Holy Spirit. It is the faithful
witness of others who pray and have the holly spirit that in fact provides the balance neccessary so that in
fact the Sacred Oral Teachings that Paul so clearly states are to be passed on in 2 Thes 2:15 but you, by your
DOCTRINE of Sola Scriptura must, I am sorry to be so blunt, nullify the word of God with "logic" that does not even
make sense from the text itself. If this is harsh I am sorry I must be that way. But your explanation that what
is spoken of in 2 Thes 2:15 is the very first time I have heard anyone deny that Paul was speaking of doctrine.
All the others of course found a different way to nullify the word of God, force by a false tradition (i.e. tradition of
man) called sola scriptura. I cannot even bear to capitalize it any more. Sorry. The Holy Spirit that you claim
provides you with the truth is not serving you well in denying that Paul is speaking doctrine in 2 Thes 2:15. Or is it
LYING to the other 5 or 6 people whom I have heard give different interprutatoins to this verse that are contrary to yours
and acknowledge that he is in fact speaking of doctrine. In fact I have sent this question out to many pastors and as of
yet not one of them has denied that 2 Thes 2:15 is speaking of doctrine. Somebody's Holy Spirit is lying.
Unless God lies to different people. But you and I know that cannot be what is going on.


A few more points though there is so much more I could say.

I know also that you are saying that the doctrine still gets revealed.

NO I AM NOT IN FACT SAYING THAT. When you say things like this It only proves you are not understanding. The teachings
have been passed down. They were revealed. One thing I would like you to do is look back on my "food for thought - Got Milk
thread". I do not find it likely that the Apostles were being explicit with all doctrine in scripture. Thus it is even more
neccessary that the correct understanding of scripture be passed on.

"I believe that the Apostles/Prophets wrote down doctrine/tradtions for all generations to come. "

Once again, your very admission that they were passing along traditions proves that they could not
possibly have been writing about sola scriptura. I only wish I could get you to admit that this
obvious fact is true. Once again if they, after writing 1 Tim 3:16, saying SS is the way to go
passed on one more oral teaching, then at that point 1 Tim 3:16 was a lie. For they were teaching
one thing and doing another thing that was contrary to the very scripture that Paul wrote. By the way you

"Absolute truth is found in God only. "

Amen. Though I hope you are not saying that the Bible is God.


"God reveled what he wanted us to know, had it written down and preserved for the ages."

Amen to the first part. The second part is false. He had written what he intended to have written
to supplement what was being passed down orally.

"Man can’t be trusted, as evidenced by all the examples of problems in the earlist churches."

Individuals can't. Even a particular Church community can't. That is why the very model of the
Church included councils such as the one in Acts 15 which come together and determine what in
fact is correct doctrine and what are the true books of the Bible. Not some group that splits off
later and says "let's take these 7 books out beause we don't like that they don't go along with
our doctrine".

"No, God left the Bible because he had to for us to get His truths right."

Oh, I agree with this. Things can be tested with scripture and it provides a good stake in the
sand but what you are missing is that you apply the TRADITIONS of your protestant teachings
and Protestant concordances and commentaries to scripture. These of course have some things
correct but it becomes impossible for you to read scripture through the lens of the Church
to which it is written.


"I know my argument is part logic and part scripture but all my arguments are like that".

Well truth is not opposed to reason so I think this is fine. But once again what makes your
reason better than that of the 2000 year old Catholic Church. For my money I am betting that
is where God put those true shepherds he spoke of in Jer 3:15 so that I don't have to trust
in my "own understanding" and can rely on his Church which is the pillar and support of the truth.
I do not see that some Johnny come lately group that thinks it can remove books from the Bible based
on what it thinks scripture says is that Church which is once again "the pillar and support of the truth".
If the Bible were able to stand on it's own without the Church then why didn't God call IT
the pillar and support of the truth?

More later. Thanks for you time.

Blessings

[Briguy]

"holly spirit"????? Thess. are you talking about Christmas here???

OK, that was supposed to be funny. Good post, let me ponder it and get back to you. Thanks for caring enough to write that much!

In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Nov 9 2004, 08:47 AM'] "holly spirit"????? Thess. are you talking about Christmas here???

OK, that was supposed to be funny. Good post, let me ponder it and get back to you. Thanks for caring enough to write that much!

In Christ,
Brian [/quote]
Well you know Christmass is right round the corner.

[Briguy]

From above:

3] How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
[4] Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
[5] Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Paul puts an emphasis that upon reading they would understand. Not to say he would not have spoken these messages and mysteries because he clearly would have. The whole idea of SS is strange to me. SS is just a concept or a title one group gave another group who believed there was no new revelations after the Bible was complete, i.e after the early church leaders had died (the Apostles and Prophets). To me it is not a matter of the Bible proving itself. It is a matter of a circumsized heart. Either I am saved or I am not. I am "in Christ" or I am not. Does the written word contain the "words of eternal life"? I think we both agree that it does. The question here is just because something was done at one time is that a model for what is to come. Clearly doctrine was passed by word of mouth but certainly much was written down as well. The Bible is a compiled work but many other things were written down that we don't know about and others, the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example are proof that logging things was common place. What I am saying is that when God revealed things to the Apostles and Prophets they likely wrote the things down or dictated them to others. They would proclaim these things but also write these things down, more then likely. OK, to the point, Once the Bible was in a completed state, i.e. the writings were gathered into one place, the revelation ended and with it the need for oral tradition. What is in the Bible is a complete guide to God, salvation, and how to live (by serving). We need nothing more. It is logic that proves the Bible is all that is needed, not a verse within the Bible.

Thess., we differ in that you believe that this oral passing down continued throuought the ages, to this day. I believe it was practiced only as long as needed, mainly because the need to write things down is made clear by Paul, Peter and John, etc.... They had to write to the churches, starting with Corinth and explain what was wrong and correct their teachings. Where did these errant teachings come from? Well since there was no NT yet to get correct teachings from, these church teachings came by "word of mouth". Paul and the others corrected with writings what did not get passed down properly. If word of mouth was reliable then all the NT corrective writings would not have been needed. The Bible was put together for the reason of giving "believers" a manual by which to live and serve by, and for non-believers to learn about God's love for them.

If you want to call what I described SS then so be it but I don't see a need to attach a name to the thought.

More to come,

In Christ, who saves,
Brian