Posted on 03/18/2015 6:21:18 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Who says? Certainly not scripture. Scripture over and over again describes differences in growth of believers. Some are more mature than others. Some have more understanding than others. Some mature while others remain as infants in the faith. They still all put their full faith and trust in Christ alone.
A) It's God 'working through them' in both cases, that's not the difference. One difference is God doesn't give grace to some - He creates them doomed to hell. This is a different view of who God is and whom He saves.
B) Whether one has a choice or no choice (the illusion of a choice) is a major difference.
C) If one believes in Christ, he/she follows his commandments, the first being to love God. Who it is we are commanded to love is different (A)
D) Whether this is a one time choice or ongoing is different.
Is this not an obviously true statement. Can you think of an analogy where it would not be true?
We're not talking about differences in believers, but differences in doctrine based on sola scriptura.
Some are more mature… Some have more understanding…
The doctrine does not vary based on maturity or understanding, there isn't a different doctrine for mature and not mature.
No, that's simply a different view of the mechanism. It's not adding criteria like the Catholic Church does. It's still faith alone in Christ alone.
>>Whether one has a choice or no choice (the illusion of a choice) is a major difference.<<
No difference in what is needed for salvation. Whether one believes they accepted Christ by their own free will or by God's working through them makes no difference.
>>If one believes in Christ, he/she follows his commandments, the first being to love God. Who it is we are commanded to love is different<<
Show me where it says they believe in different Gods.
>>Whether this is a one time choice or ongoing is different.<<
In what way? It's still a belief in Christ alone through faith alone.
Your looking for differences that have no bearing on what they believe is needed for salvation.
No, it's not an obviously true statement. People can differ on whether they believe it's their free will or whether God worked through them. That difference does not affect what is needed for salvation. Neither one of them declare that what they understand must be believed for salvation.
No, we are not. Neither one of them declare those to be "doctrine" that needs to be believed in to attain salvation.
Again that's not the difference - God works through them in both cases. The difference is whether they have a choice at all.
Disregarding this error, can they both be correct?
It is the point of my argument.
Neither one of them declare those to be "doctrine" that needs to be believed in to attain salvation.
We differ on this, but it's irrelevant to my point. Significant differences resulting from sola scriptura are sufficient to show it fails in practice.
Nope! You picking a nits.
Like I initially asked. Show where either one of them declares that their view must be adhered to for salvation.
Remember, the premise is: “Holy Scripture is sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.” Therefore: Significant differences resulting from sola scriptura are sufficient to show it fails in practice.
I believe I showed that the differences doctrine directly affect what is adhered to (about who God is, who Christ died for). You believe I didn't.
However, that's not the debate. It is whether: “Holy Scripture is sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.”
So, again: Disregarding this error, can they both be correct?
Do you mean you believe God has rejected and set aside the Jewish people and Orthodox Christians who have continually followed this tradition for millennia ?
You still haven't shown me where either one of them declares their belief to be a doctrine that must be believed to attain salvation. Until you do you have nothing nor will I continue the nit picking.
It’s rather common knowledge what the people of Israel suffered for disregarding what God set down. Then read the seven letters to the seven churches found in Revelation.
In that I believe you are incorrect - I don't think you get what I am pointing to:
YHWH Himself says Torah is doctrine, and says Torah is good doctrine.
In terms of authority by precedence, Torah is older and therefore carries more authority than any other doctrine, in the same way that Melchizedek (being older) carries more authority than Levi. Unfortunately, in order to trump Torah, one would have to find doctrine older than Torah, which does not exist, with Moses being the foremost progenitor of YHWH's informational system.
In terms of textual authority, There simply is no document more defensible as having come from YHWH than Torah. It's authority is in-built, it's proofs and witnesses are in-built, and the very text itself is protected by encryptions which are undeniably beyond the scope of Man - If there is a document on the planet that can be defended as having come from God, to us today, exactly as it was given, Torah (in the Masoretic Hebrew) stands entirely alone. It is bulletproof.
In terms of clerical authority, again, there can be no clerical authority older than Moses, and in terms of clerical power, Moses is underwritten by YHWH Himself. There is no higher authority.
Sola scriptura is a doctrine of Protestant Christians. Defining sola scriptura as: "Holy Scripture is sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.”
I am not disregarding the whole of Scripture, but the argument for Torah as doctrine is necessarily unassailable, and unarguably true wrt pedigree and authorship. ANYONE claiming doctrinal authority outside of scripture must show a greater surety, pedigree, and power than Torah, and that cannot be done.
Else YHWH's word did in fact return to him empty.
Hence, sola-scriptura must in fact be true... in fact, true from it's very beginning... From Sinai itself.
Shabbat Shalom. I'll see your reply tomorrow.
You did not answer the question.
" Not sanctioned by God they didn't. God has rejected and set aside those who go beyond or pervert His word. Saying they have done it "from ancient times" means nothing."
Do you mean you believe God has rejected and set aside the Jewish people and Orthodox Christians who have continually followed this tradition for millennia ?
You places your bets, you takes your chances. Mine is on Christ alone through faith alone. How about you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.