Comments
21 - 40 of 135 Comments Last updated Oct 28, 2013
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think Sola Scirptura is what the Bible teaches, then why is the Church's interpretation wrong? Then you don't believe in Sola Sciptura, you believe in xxx scpriptrua.
Think about has asinine Sola Scriptura has to be. Everybody believe what you want.
If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah....
We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures....
Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.
By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed.
But the Bereans received "the word" (i.e., oral teaching; proclamation) with eagerness. They were open to it (that is why Paul commended them). Then they went to the Scriptures to confirm Paul's oral teaching. In other words, it was a "both / and" methodology. They weren't opposing one thing to the other. Both were true, and their harmony with each other confirmed that. They didn't rule out the possibility that the oral proclamation was true (simply because it was oral); they merely confirmed it from existing written, inspired revelation.
The problem is that you are taking two entirely different eras in time and putting them on equal grounds.

The Bereans knew they could not rely on Sola Scriptura because the Sola Scripture they had contained unfulfilled Messianic prophecies. They knew that the whole story had not been revealed but that one day it would not only be revealed, but documented as well. It just so happened that they lived in the time in which it occurred. But still, they did not go running to the religious authorities of the time and outsource their views of the scriptures to them. They did not appeal to tradition. Instead, they looked at the scriptures on their own, without the “help” of the Jewish leaders.

Today, the only unfulfilled Biblical prophecy deals not with doctrine, but with the second coming.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed my point. Yes virtually all of Paul’s epistles had been written at this time, but Paul does not tell Timothy to preach his (Paul’s) epistles. He tells him to continue to preach from the scripture that existed at the time of his (Timothy’s) childhood and that would be the OT.
Example: Timothy is first mentioned in the Bible in Acts 16. From this, we can see that the events and writing of Acts came after Timothy had already reached adulthood. Because of this, Acts 2:38 cannot be part of the scripture that Paul is telling Timothy to preach in II Timothy 3:14-15 because Acts 2:38 did not exist at the time of his (Timothy’s) childhood.
Even if baptism is in the OT as a type (I do not accept this BTW), it is not taught in it as the means by which we access the blood of Jesus. Yes there are ritualistic washings, but to say that these washings are the equivalent to baptism is to say that the blood of goats and calves is equivalent to the blood of The One.
1. Peter said later that Paul's letters were scripture. Some NT scripture did exist when Paul, Timothy, and Peter were alive. The OT yes, but do not discount the existing NT letters at the time. Historical blunder.

2. Do not discount word of mouth, oral teachings. No one in the book of Acts stuck strictly with OT scripture- they used that OT scripture to point people to Christ, where the actual events were took into account. Acts 2:38 didn't exist in written form possibly, but it no doubt had been repeated for 30 years. If Peter preached it, Paul and Timothy could preach it as well.

3. Baptism in types and shadows is in the OT, and is not limited to ceremonial washings of the priesthood. 2 NT scriptures that show baptism was typical in the OT, and that salvation is indeed involved, is 1 Peter 3 (flood) and 1 Corinthians 10 (Passing through the Red Sea). There are other examples that could be used.

4. False assumption- that anyone is saying OT types are equivalent to baptism or the blood of Jesus. WRONG- types are by design imperfect, simply shadows pointing to the real thing, the antitype. "Types are never perfect".

Go back and read the post I responded to. Your logic is off. A + B does not = C in your equation.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Oct 19, 2013
 
If Timothy preached the path to salvation any different than that found in the OT by either adding to it or taking from it, he preached error, just as the supposed first pope taught error regarding circumcision and was rebuked for it by Paul in Galatians.

If Timothy preached "the path to salvation" from simply OT scripture then he led many astray. I take it you are an OT Christian? Salvation was dependent for all on the coming of the Messiah and a new covenant where sins would be dealt with. That simply was not OT reality. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

William wrote:
"The things that thou hast heard of me, commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach the cross. So he didn't tell Timothy to baptize, lay hands on anybody, or anything about Peter "being in charge", etc.
It would have been better for Catholics and Protestants if 1 Corinthians 1 had been edited to take out Paul's statement about baptism. Then the unrelenting water baptism worship could've been truly legitimized.
Can we get a new translation?
Pulling a Barnsweb?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that you are taking two entirely different eras in time and putting them on equal grounds.
The Bereans knew they could not rely on Sola Scriptura because the Sola Scripture they had contained unfulfilled Messianic prophecies. They knew that the whole story had not been revealed but that one day it would not only be revealed, but documented as well. It just so happened that they lived in the time in which it occurred. But still, they did not go running to the religious authorities of the time and outsource their views of the scriptures to them. They did not appeal to tradition. Instead, they looked at the scriptures on their own, without the “help” of the Jewish leaders.
Today, the only unfulfilled Biblical prophecy deals not with doctrine, but with the second coming.
Just when did the phrase "Sola Scriptura" enter the picture? Seems to me it was about the time prots began creating 40,000 denominations.
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Peter said later that Paul's letters were scripture. Some NT scripture did exist when Paul, Timothy, and Peter were alive. The OT yes, but do not discount the existing NT letters at the time. Historical blunder.
“But continue Dave in the movies which thou hast watched and hast been assured of, knowing with whom thou hast watched them. How that from a CHILD thou hast known those movies which are able to make thee wise as to how to become a millionaire.”

If someone said these words to you, the movies that would come to your mind would include those you watched as a child (E.T., Goonies, Gremlins, etc.), NOT the ones you watched as an adult (Ironman, 300, Old School, etc.). This would not mean that the newer ones did not qualify as movies, it would simply mean that the older ones had sufficient instruction in and of themselves as to how to become rich.

The same holds true for the scriptures that existed in the first century. Certainly the NT scriptures existed, but the scripture Paul tells Timothy to preach from is the scripture with which he (Timothy) grew up with—the OT.
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text> 2. Do not discount word of mouth, oral teachings. No one in the book of Acts stuck strictly with OT scripture- they used that OT scripture to point people to Christ, where the actual events were took into account. Acts 2:38 didn't exist in written form possibly, but it no doubt had been repeated for 30 years. If Peter preached it, Paul and Timothy could preach it as well.
Paul doesn’t tell Timothy to consult the oral tradition. He tells him to consult the scriptures. You’re wading into Catholic waters with this argument.
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>3. Baptism in types and shadows is in the OT, and is not limited to ceremonial washings of the priesthood. 2 NT scriptures that show baptism was typical in the OT, and that salvation is indeed involved, is 1 Peter 3 (flood) and 1 Corinthians 10 (Passing through the Red Sea). There are other examples that could be used.
Paul tells Timothy to preach the OT. Without those NT commentaries on the old, one would never link Noah’s water to baptism. In other words, no one would get baptism out of that by just listening to what Paul told Timothy to preach.
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>4. False assumption- that anyone is saying OT types are equivalent to baptism or the blood of Jesus. WRONG- types are by design imperfect, simply shadows pointing to the real thing, the antitype. "Types are never perfect".
Exactly! If baptism in type is not equivalent to baptism in reality, then we can’t say that baptism is in the OT. Being there in type does not count as being there in reality.
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave P wrote:
If Timothy preached the path to salvation any different than that found in the OT by either adding to it or taking from it, he preached error, just as the supposed first pope taught error regarding circumcision and was rebuked for it by Paul in Galatians.
If Timothy preached "the path to salvation" from simply OT scripture then he led many astray. I take it you are an OT Christian? Salvation was dependent for all on the coming of the Messiah and a new covenant where sins would be dealt with. That simply was not OT reality. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation.
There’s no difference in the way those in the OT and NT access the blood of Jesus. Those in the OT weren’t saved by the blood of bulls and goats. If people could have been saved “the old way” then there would be no need for “a new way”. Galatians 2:21
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
Just when did the phrase "Sola Scriptura" enter the picture? Seems to me it was about the time prots began creating 40,000 denominations.
That post addresses a whole lot of nothing.
William

Talladega, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Oct 19, 2013
 
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Pulling a Barnsweb?
LOL

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
That post addresses a whole lot of nothing.
Au contraire! It cuts right to the quick of 40,000+ prot denominations each with its own interpretation of Scripture. Here in AD 2013, unless some new codex has been discovered, you are arrogantly trying to define theological issues decided centuries ago. Go right ahead but I find your attempt quite silly.
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
Au contraire! It cuts right to the quick of 40,000+ prot denominations each with its own interpretation of Scripture.
You’re overstating the importance of this. What we call Christianity is divided by one issue: baptism.

You have your water-based denominations (Catholic, Church of Christ, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) and you have your blood-based denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Church of God, etc.).

For the most part the blood-based denominations disagree on relatively minor things. In fact it’s not unheard of for the blood-based denominations to hold joint services with other blood-based denominations.

Your water-based denominations on the other hand each claim to have a monopoly on God and His salvation, claim to be the “one true Church” and hold all others with contempt as being apostate.

The dogmatism and division lie on the side of the water-based denominations, not the blood-based ones.
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>...you are arrogantly trying to define theological issues decided centuries ago.
I’m sure the scribes and Pharisees would have said the exact same thing if anyone tried to call them out on their error.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Oct 19, 2013
 
The same holds true for the scriptures that existed in the first century. Certainly the NT scriptures existed, but the scripture Paul tells Timothy to preach from is the scripture with which he (Timothy) grew up with—the OT.

Paul doesn’t tell Timothy to consult the oral tradition. He tells him to consult the scriptures. You’re wading into Catholic waters with this argument.

*Paragraph one- you killed your beginning argument by agreeing that NT scriptures did exist when Paul wrote to Timothy. Two, you're sounding very church of Christ-ish by stating that Paul is telling Timothy to preach from the OT. Is he authorized to preach from any NT scripture, letters Paul wrote? Is he not allowed to quote Peter or any other apostle or brother he has heard?

*Two- Paul indeed wrote about written epistles and oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2. Deny this? Disagree? Again, very coc-ish. Is Timothy denied using "oral tradition" ever since Paul specified SCRIPTURES known since childhood? Why then would he say this in the same letter?

"And the things which you have HEARD FROM ME AMONG MANY WITNESSES, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also". Think he only heard OT quotes from Paul?
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Paul tells Timothy to preach the OT. Without those NT commentaries on the old, one would never link Noah’s water to baptism. In other words, no one would get baptism out of that by just listening to what Paul told Timothy to preach.

Ever hear of indwelling, inspired by the Holy Spirit? And do you think passages like 1 Peter 3 and 1 Corinthians 10 came out of a vacuum? Can you say with 100% assurance that no one taught any such things before it was written down?

Not even all of Jesus' words and works are recorded.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Exactly! If baptism in type is not equivalent to baptism in reality, then we can’t say that baptism is in the OT. Being there in type does not count as being there in reality.

The cross is in the OT as a type. Christ is in the OT in types. Logically using your theory here, neither the cross nor Christ is in the OT. Buffoonery.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

xxx- You’re overstating the importance of this. What we call Christianity is divided by one issue: baptism.

You have your water-based denominations (Catholic, Church of Christ, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) and you have your blood-based denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Church of God, etc.).

For the most part the blood-based denominations disagree on relatively minor things. In fact it’s not unheard of for the blood-based denominations to hold joint services with other blood-based denominations.

Your water-based denominations on the other hand each claim to have a monopoly on God and His salvation, claim to be the “one true Church” and hold all others with contempt as being apostate.

The dogmatism and division lie on the side of the water-based denominations, not the blood-based ones.

Dave- I am sorry, but your assumptions are wrong on this as well. "The blood based denominations disagree over minor things". Joint services. Just this week alone, I have talked to those who are Baptists, that condemn and deny fellow baptists over OSAS. They will not have services with each other; they think each other is lost. The Baptist groups may be the most divided and segregated religious group in America.

Many Baptists say "we are the one true church". All others are wrong. Don't get them started on Calvinists! And don't get many hardline Calvinists started on Armenians! Apostates and false teachers all!

One true church groups and ideas are in EVERY group. Two of the 3 Restoration Movement groups- Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches- deny the "one true church" belief. Hardline coc agree. Many Baptist groups truly are the "one true church" according to them. Fundamentalist Baptists think people who use Bibles other than KJV are going to hell.

Baptism is one of MANY items that divide modern "Christianity". The very terms you use- water based verses blood based- rings of partisan bickering and affiliations. You almost forgot pentecostals- Spirit based denomination perhaps? Some even throw evangelicalism under the bus, stating they want the faith but not the stigma that comes with being a "fundie".

Dogmatism and division comes from and rests on all sides. No different than Washington politicians- for the most part, they all stink, regardless of party.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
Just when did the phrase "Sola Scriptura" enter the picture? Seems to me it was about the time prots began creating 40,000 denominations.
I'm not catholic, but for all the bashers, is there not some truth in this idea? Thousands of groups, thousands of interpretations. Is the Holy Spirit a schizo, or are a bunch of people dead wrong?
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re overstating the importance of this. What we call Christianity is divided by one issue: baptism.
You have your water-based denominations (Catholic, Church of Christ, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) and you have your blood-based denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Church of God, etc.).
For the most part the blood-based denominations disagree on relatively minor things. In fact it’s not unheard of for the blood-based denominations to hold joint services with other blood-based denominations.
Your water-based denominations on the other hand each claim to have a monopoly on God and His salvation, claim to be the “one true Church” and hold all others with contempt as being apostate.
The dogmatism and division lie on the side of the water-based denominations, not the blood-based ones.
<quoted text>
I’m sure the scribes and Pharisees would have said the exact same thing if anyone tried to call them out on their error.
What are you talking about? I was saved by water and in a few hours I will be drinking the blood of Christ which gives me life, according to Jesus.

There are no other "blood-based" communities. The Full Truth exists only in the CC.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Oct 20, 2013
 
"blood based" and "water based" sound like Valspar paint to me.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxx: "Paul tells Timothy to preach the OT. Without those NT commentaries on the old, one would never link Noah’s water to baptism. In other words, no one would get baptism out of that by just listening to what Paul told Timothy to preach."

No it doesn't. Yes is does. Not it doesn't. Yes it does.

I am right and you are wrong. 40,000 variations.
William

Opelika, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MarkEden wrote:
"blood based" and "water based" sound like Valspar paint to me.
Apply both with a holy roller.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Axton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Origin of the Roman Catholic Church 27 min Dave P 120
Catholics (Feb '14) 1 hr Barnsweb 839
Signing off ... for now 18 hr Barnsweb 512
Where did the CoC cowards go? Aug 23 Jimmy Crack Corn 2
Debate: Ferguson - Martinsville, VA Aug 22 Barnsweb 8
what are the differences between orthodoxy and ... Aug 18 Jimmy-Crack-Corn 1
THE IDIOTS of GEW BIBLE STUDY FORUM Aug 17 The Seven Spirits... 5

Search the Axton Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Axton Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Axton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Axton News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Axton
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••