|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 21:19:04 GMT -5
Sorry to interrupt... First of all, how do you know who Jesus is in this verse? How do you know what salvation is in this verse (saved from what? saved for what?) peace teresa Please, if you're going to drop pearls like that, by all means interrupt! That's an outstanding point! How does one know what Salvation is if they don't have the rest ot the teachings in the Scriptures? And, what about when Scriptures seem to contradict themselves? Without the "fullness of The Faith", one is prone to misinterpreting a scripture as the sole foundation for a Doctrinal belief because it is taken out of context. "That's why" Doctrines were established, to avoid these types of confusions. And...my question remains: What about works in relation to Salvation? Their not mentioned in that Scripture, but we know that they are necessary because this is said in other Scriptures. Which one(s) does a Bible literalist choose to believe and how does he come to this decision? By the guidance of The Holy Spirit? So the Holy Spirit rejects the other Scriptures?  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 21:57:09 GMT -5
O.K. Peter was in Babylon....What is your point? My point is that Peter was never in Iraq. But now, because of how you personally choose to interpret the Scripture (literally), you are stuck with that belief. actually I do care if Peter was ever in Iraq or not, so I am stuck with nothing and of course i choose to accept the bible literally any other way would be a false way of receiving it. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 21:59:49 GMT -5
Sorry to interrupt... First of all, how do you know who Jesus is in this verse? How do you know what salvation is in this verse (saved from what? saved for what?) peace teresa Please, if you're going to drop pearls like that, by all means interrupt! That's an outstanding point! How does one know what Salvation is if they don't have the rest ot the teachings in the Scriptures? And, what about when Scriptures seem to contradict themselves? Without the "fullness of The Faith", one is prone to misinterpreting a scripture as the sole foundation for a Doctrinal belief because it is taken out of context. "That's why" Doctrines were established, to avoid these types of confusions. And...my question remains: What about works in relation to Salvation? Their not mentioned in that Scripture, but we know that they are necessary because this is said in other Scriptures. Which one(s) does a Bible literalist choose to believe and how does he come to this decision? By the guidance of The Holy Spirit? So the Holy Spirit rejects the other Scriptures? Everything that the two of you mentioned, who is Jesus, what we are saved from, how we are led to salvation through the Holy Spirit ect...are truths found in the Bible. You are proving my point not disproving Sola Scriptura |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 22:36:02 GMT -5
Everything that the two of you mentioned, who is Jesus, what we are saved from, how we are led to salvation through the Holy Spirit ect...are truths found in the Bible. You are proving my point not disproving Sola Scriptura Jumping topics here aren't we? Show me in those two lines you chose the Doctrine of Salvation. The complete set of beliefs. You said that you get all you need from those two verses. Now you're saying "the Bible". Now, you're adding the Bible to the 2 verses. That's different from your initial statment that you get everything you need from those two verses. And, if you've answered me already, pardon me for asking again, but what about the relation of works to Salvation? It's not mentioned in those verses you chose. Do you then ignore works as necessary for Salvation since their not in those two verses you base your whole belief on Salvation on? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 22:36:56 GMT -5
My point is that Peter was never in Iraq. But now, because of how you personally choose to interpret the Scripture (literally), you are stuck with that belief. actually I do care if Peter was ever in Iraq or not, so I am stuck with nothing and of course i choose to accept the bible literally any other way would be a false way of receiving it. So, according to you, Peter was in Iraq. Ok. And, we have to eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood then to be saved, right? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 22:37:54 GMT -5
Everything that the two of you mentioned, who is Jesus, what we are saved from, how we are led to salvation through the Holy Spirit ect...are truths found in the Bible. You are proving my point not disproving Sola Scriptura Jumping topics here aren't we? Show me in those two lines you chose the Doctrine of Salvation. The complete set of beliefs. You said that you get all you need from those two verses. Now you're saying "the Bible". Now, you're adding the Bible to the 2 verses. That's different from your initial statment that you get everything you need from those two verses. And, if you've answered me already, pardon me for asking again, but what about the relation of works to Salvation? It's not mentioned in those verses you chose. Do you then ignore works as necessary for Salvation since their not in those two verses you base your whole belief on Salvation on? So to believe the Bible and only the Bible you can only take one verse at a time? I can use scripture and only scripture to prove all the doctrine of salvation. I do not need to go out side of scripture to learn the entire doctrine of salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 22:40:06 GMT -5
actually I do care if Peter was ever in Iraq or not, so I am stuck with nothing and of course i choose to accept the bible literally any other way would be a false way of receiving it. So, according to you, Peter was in Iraq. Ok. And, we have to eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood then to be saved, right? You have obviously misread my post I dont know and dont care if Peter was ever in Iraq or not. and you are the one that believes we must eat actual flesh and drink actual blood to be saved not me. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 22:46:01 GMT -5
What if I can teach the entire doctrine of salvation only using scripture then what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 22:48:17 GMT -5
Yet you used scripture to support everything you said. What I refuse to accept is when people teach things and have no scripture that supports said teaching. You mean like The Holy Bible? Show me where in The Holy Bible The Holy Bible is taught? "It" is "not" in The Bible...not once is it mentioned.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 22:53:10 GMT -5
Yet you used scripture to support everything you said. What I refuse to accept is when people teach things and have no scripture that supports said teaching. You mean like The Holy Bible? Show me where in The Holy Bible The Holy Bible is taught? "It" is "not" in The Bible...not once is it mentioned. 1st off double talk only confuses the ignorant, you are dealing with the wrong guy. 2ndly to answer your question 2nd Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Call it the Bible call it The Word of God, call it scripture as the scripture does, it is all the same to me. I put my trust in God and His Word, not traditions of man. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 22:54:17 GMT -5
So once again, what if I can teach the entire doctrine of salvation only using scripture, then what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 23:13:23 GMT -5
1st off double talk only confuses the ignorant, you are dealing with the wrong guy. 2ndly to answer your question But the Bible didn't exist when Paul wrote that, did it? So he couldn't have been talking about books that hadn't been written, right? That would include the Book of Revelation since it was written after Pauls writings. And...what does the Bible say about adhering to traditions passed down by The Apostles (who were men)? 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. And who do you think God chose to create The Holy Bible? (it didn't fall out of the sky as a completed book) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 23:18:30 GMT -5
So once again, what if I can teach the entire doctrine of salvation only using scripture, then what? Then you would contradict your own words where you said that all you needed was in those two lines. You can retract that statement now if you'd like. But if you have to use the Bible to prove your belief as to what the Doctrine of Salvation is, then you don't get all you need from those two lines you chose to quote. Also, not everything that Jesus said is "in" the Bible. You do know that, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 23:21:30 GMT -5
You mean like The Holy Bible? Show me where in The Holy Bible The Holy Bible is taught? "It" is "not" in The Bible...not once is it mentioned. 1st off double talk only confuses the ignorant, you are dealing with the wrong guy. 2ndly to answer your question 2nd Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Call it the Bible call it The Word of God, call it scripture as the scripture does, it is all the same to me. I put my trust in God and His Word, not traditions of man. By the way, The Holy Bible isn't mentioned in that Scripture you posted...it only talks about scripture, but not The Holy Bible (which is literally a collection of books). |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 23:35:37 GMT -5
1st off double talk only confuses the ignorant, you are dealing with the wrong guy. 2ndly to answer your question But the Bible didn't exist when Paul wrote that, did it? So he couldn't have been talking about books that hadn't been written, right? That would include the Book of Revelation since it was written after Pauls writings. And...what does the Bible say about adhering to traditions passed down by The Apostles (who were men)? 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. And who do you think God chose to create The Holy Bible? (it didn't fall out of the sky as a completed book) I have no problem with the teachings of the apostles, but just because the catholic church say such and such was taught to us by the apostles does not make it so. Like the trinitarian formula of baptism, you would say that the Apostles passed that down when in actuality the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. They did not use the trinitarian formula. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 23:36:55 GMT -5
So once again, what if I can teach the entire doctrine of salvation only using scripture, then what? Then you would contradict your own words where you said that all you needed was in those two lines. You can retract that statement now if you'd like. But if you have to use the Bible to prove your belief as to what the Doctrine of Salvation is, then you don't get all you need from those two lines you chose to quote. Also, not everything that Jesus said is "in" the Bible. You do know that, right? I retract the statement how about that.... However I do not have to outside of scripture to teach it. By the way I originally gave four verses, but I could explain everything about the doctrine of salvation by using scripture alone. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 23:39:49 GMT -5
1st off double talk only confuses the ignorant, you are dealing with the wrong guy. 2ndly to answer your question 2nd Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Call it the Bible call it The Word of God, call it scripture as the scripture does, it is all the same to me. I put my trust in God and His Word, not traditions of man. By the way, The Holy Bible isn't mentioned in that Scripture you posted...it only talks about scripture, but not The Holy Bible (which is literally a collection of books). Like I said call it whatever make you sleep at night, matter of fact lets stick with scripture, after all isn't the doctrine you protest call Sola scriptura? Scripture Alone, so yeah lets call it scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 23:43:49 GMT -5
Then you would contradict your own words where you said that all you needed was in those two lines. You can retract that statement now if you'd like. But if you have to use the Bible to prove your belief as to what the Doctrine of Salvation is, then you don't get all you need from those two lines you chose to quote. Also, not everything that Jesus said is "in" the Bible. You do know that, right? I retract the statement how about that.... However I do not have to outside of scripture to teach it. By the way I originally gave four verses, but I could explain everything about the doctrine of salvation by using scripture alone. Nah...good enough for me. Now we can get back to my origional question... Show me where the "Doctrine of Salvation" is in The Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 23:45:57 GMT -5
Just so there is no confusion, give me a outline on what you call the doctrine of salvation, and i will give you scripture that will support this doctrine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 23:47:05 GMT -5
By the way, The Holy Bible isn't mentioned in that Scripture you posted...it only talks about scripture, but not The Holy Bible (which is literally a collection of books). Like I said call it whatever make you sleep at night, matter of fact lets stick with scripture, after all isn't the doctrine you protest call Sola scriptura? Scripture Alone, so yeah lets call it scripture. The term or belief "Sola Scriptura" appears no where in the Bible. So you are teaching a Doctrine that is "outside" of The Bible. |
|
