Circumcision, Act 15, and Sola Scriptura

[Guest Aluigi]

Martin Luther believed in Sola Scriptura. It is a step in the right direction that present day protestants move away from that and make this solo scriptura where other stuff can be used it's just not infallible. there are still those fundamentalists who hold to the sola scriptura of the "reformers" (who I consider to be deformers)

[Paladin D]

That's pretty amazing [b]Thessalonian[/b], never really thought about it that way before.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Buzzard' date='Oct 31 2004, 04:17 PM'] 1st;
you guys need to learn the differance between[list]Sola-Scriptura
[*]and
Solo-Scriptura
[/list] [/quote]
I agree, there are differences between the two.

[thessalonian]

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.

[thessalonian]

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? If it's not explicitly stated they don't believe me. By the way, I had a response to this question from a Protestant pastor today. I will send it out to a few more and see what they come back with. He basically said, well they weren't doing sola scriptura then. It was scripture + apostles. To which of course I have to ask if everyone carried a pocket apostle around instead of a new testament. He said eventually everything got written down. That's an explination of course but not a very good one. It would be impossible for them to have taught sola scriptura at that time even though noone was abiding by it. Well were teaching SS but don't really do it until we all get dead and gone. Of course we won't be able to write a teaching on it because then John won't be able to teach the things he's dragging his feet on about writing down. So did John mess up in not including in teaching about SS in his last paragraphs. BTW that verse about not adding anything to this book doesn't cut it since those last were were not bound to the other books of the Bible at the time, but only apply to the BofR.

[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?