Debunking Popular Lies About Premillennialism

Harbingers Daily ^ | 5/17/24 | Jonathan Brentner

[ebb tide]

So are you another bible cherry-picker?

[Big Red Badger]

Snarky Name callers don’t impress me.
Followers of Jesus that have the Word of God in there Head and Heart that have the Holy Scriptures at Hand to Check themselves DO!
.

[ebb tide]

So you do reject John 20:23?

Yes or No?

[metmom]

What’s rejected isn’t the Scripture but the Catholic misinterpretation of it.

Which is the same for many other verses the Catholic church misinterprets to support either it’s alleged *sacred tradition* or predetermined doctrine that they fish to find verses to try to support, like all the nonsense about Mary.

[PeterPrinciple]

https://www.preparingforeternity.com/biblevscat.htm

don’t forget the 10 commandments work around.

[fidelis]

LOL. Sure, metmom. Just for you.

[ebb tide]

What’s rejected isn’t the Scripture but the Catholic misinterpretation of it.

So why don't you tell us the Prot interpretation of Scripture?

Whose sins are you forgiving or retaining?

[Big Red Badger]

And So Now You Challenge Me with Your Cultic absurdity.
.
There Is No Truth In You,
You are of Your Father the devil.

[ebb tide]

And So Now You Challenge Me with Your Cultic absurdity.

I'm merely asking whether you accept or reject John 20:23.

You still haven't given me an answer, but I'm not expecting an honest one from either of you.

[Big Red Badger]

You choke on a Gnat
But swallow a CAMEL!
.
You’ll have No Sign but the
Sign of Jonah.

[fidelis]

It is you that are wrong. None of what you set forth amounts to saying that the Bible alone is sufficient for all a Christian needs to know. Being commended for doing something is one thing; saying that it establishes a rule of faith is an entirely different thing. If "the Bible Alone" is such a foundational doctrine, it would be explicitly stated in the Scriptures themselves. It just isn't, and you know it. Every time this comes up, no one can produce a single verse to prove it.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Says the dude who believes:

1. In Mary Worship (Exodus 20:3)
2. In a place called “Purgatory” (Hebrews 9:27)
3. Priests must not marry (Titus 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:4)
4. Extra fake and made up “traditions” (see my post above)
5. Apparitions of “saints” (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

In other words....
You don’t believe The Bible and take man’s word over God’s.

Sad and pathetic and very Pagan.

[kosciusko51]

What does Sola Scriptura Mean?

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that "scientific truth," for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a "more sure Word," standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is "more sure," according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."
—Westminster Confession of Faith

This excerpt is taken from John MacArthur's contribution in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

[metmom]

Thank you.

Irrelevant arguments against things people never said nor claimed about the Bible do not invalidate the theology that Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation for the unbelievers and for the Christian in growth and maturity into Christlikeness.

[fidelis]

Thank you for your polite and well-formed explanation. It still, however, does not point to a verse or passage found in the canon of Scripture that explicitly requires that the Scriptures are our sole rule of faith. The citations from Deuteronomy and Revelation are only referring to those books (indeed, the passage from Deuteronomy would, if understood in the way you stated, would preclude everything written after the time of Moses).

The citation from 2 Peter does not mention the Bible at all, but only mentions "the prophetic word" which does include the Scriptures (at that time only recognized as being contained in the Old Testament), but can also refer to the teaching of the Apostles and other prophets in the early Church.

Since there is no clear biblical warrant for Sola Scriptura, defenders of it must resort to justifying it in the words of men rather than the Scriptures themselves. Again, if Sola Scriptura was meant to be our sole rule of faith, such a critically foundational doctrine would be explicit in the Scriptures themselves. But it is not.

[kosciusko51]

You may believe that, by the ex nihilio assertions that Rome claims in no way validates it's position.

[kosciusko51]

But, not by...

[fidelis]

You may believe that, by the ex nihilio assertions that Rome claims in no way validates it's position.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're trying to say. Perhaps you can clarify.

[ealgeone]

Been addressed in a separate thread.

[fidelis]

...the theology that Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation for the unbelievers and for the Christian in growth and maturity into Christlikeness.

Which the Bible nowhere teaches, of course.