Sola Scriptura test of all Doctrine

[BobRyan]

In Acts 17:11 we find this "sola scriptura" model among NT saints "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so"

There you have "non-Christian Jews" listening to the Christian Apostolic teaching of Paul - and then choosing against their own magesterium's leadership - going with Paul based solely on their reading of the text of scripture.

By contrast on this board we find this post

There is no "Biblical POV" it's your POV and how you interpret those passages. We all go by how we understand things in Scripture, no one goes by the Bible alone

What are your thoughts?

Which teaching is true?

I am going with the Bible on this one.

in Christ,

Bob

[historyb]

Sola Scriptura is a non a Biblical doctrine and that one verse does not prove it. They didn't have the NT so stop using it to form your twisted doctrines

[BobRyan]

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" -

That is a principle to live by -

In Mark 7:7-9 we find that the magisterium of the one true church of the time (started by God at Sinai) at the time was engaged in tossing the bible under the bus in favor of man-made tradition.

7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

[historyb]

No it's your interpretation, no where in Scripture will you find Sola Scritura which is a false non Biblical doctrine. Don't even try to cherry pick verses you'll never find it because it does not exist. There is no such thing as a person going by the Bible only, it has to be interpreted and if only passage is uncomfortable they will try to explain it away such as:

⁵³ Jesus said to them,
I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves.⁵⁴ Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them to life on the last day.⁵⁵ For my flesh is the real food; my blood is the real drink.⁵⁶ Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them.⁵⁷ The living Father sent me, and because of him I live also. In the same way whoever eats me will live because of me.⁵⁸ This, then, is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread that your ancestors ate, but then later died. Those who eat this bread will live forever.

John 6:53-58

I know you refuse to take that literally and will say it's symbolic further giving excuses why it is. Yet historic Christianity always took the what Christ said here literally and not until after the Protestant revolt did anyone say such blasphemy

[BobRyan]

1. In John 6 - Jesus said that eating literal flesh is worthless -- it is His Word that actually gives life.
2. In John 6 - Jesus does not "some day in the future my flesh WILL become" something - but rather already IS for He is ALREADY the bread that came down out of heaven in John 6.
3. In John 6 -- not one single disciple bites Christ. If they all did - there would have been no Gethsemane - no cross
4. in John 6 - the faithless disciples conclude that Jesus is talking about eating his flesh and they leave - but the faithFUL disciples stick around for his message where he says "eating literal flesh is worthless" and that "his word" is that which is spirit and life.
5. In John 6 - the faithFUL disciple Peter responds to Jesus "You have the flesh of life" -- oops I mean - they respond "you have the WORDS of Life".
6. In John 1 - Jesus is "the WORD that became flesh"
7. In John 6 Jesus is the "bread that came down out of heaven". referring to the Manna of the OT - 6:50-51.
8. Moses stated in the book of Deuteronomy that the lesson of Manna is "Man does not live by bread alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God". Deut 8:3
9. In Matt 16:11-16 Jesus Chastises his followers for taking the doctrine about bread "too literally" and says that it represents "teaching".

Sola scriptura? you bet!!

in Christ,

Bob

[historyb]

Knew you would come up with excuses. Sola Scriptura heresey - you bet! Twisting Scripture is fun as a protestant!

[RoyS]

Knew you would come up with excuses. Sola Scriptura heresey - you bet! Twisting Scripture is fun as a protestant!

You might want to be careful with generalizations, my friend. There are a lot of Protestants who are here, and have been here over the years. Are you accusing every single Protestant of "twisting Scripture"? Of course, I happen to agree with Bob on this subject, so I'm sure you'll have an insulting remark to toss my way. I seem to remember you spouting similar vitriol against Catholics, during the several times you jumped to the Protestant side of the fence. If you don't have a reasonable, calm argument to present, don't throw insults into the discussion.

[historyb]

There are no insults. We have nothing futher to discuss

[BobRyan]

hb - I have given you a number of points right out of John 6 showing that a sola scriptura solution for John 6 entirely avoids the idea that the disciples were supposed to be biting Christ in literal flesh - at any point in time.

Since you are not responding with substance to any of the Bible points raised I assume you simply do not have an answer.

So we move on to the next point. I know of few Catholics that will argue that the Bible flatly contradicts Catholic faith and teaching. Yet they are almost all opposed to testing that teaching by the Bible - no matter how clear the Bible is on this doctrine.

Do you not see a problem with your position at that point?

in Christ,

Bob

[RoyS]

There are no insults. We have nothing futher to discuss

Twisting Scripture is fun as a protestant!

That, friend, is an insult to every Protestant.