A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!
- Thread starter Jason0047
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I do agree the issue of "sola scriptura" is very important topic I myself have always wondered about certain books we have or do not have in our bibles one that is so widely popular is the copy of Danial we have all come used to using which is the Theodotion translation,, Theodotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,,that is it replaced the copy that was in the LXX Book of Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (under manuscripts),,and there has been many who have tried to organize or re-organize the differences comparative study of the Theodotionic and Septuagint translations of Daniel .. "so which one should we determine is the actual sola scriptura"?,,,,
I should have included this link or another,but in the section "incorporation from Theodotion" of when the orriginal from LXX was discarded and Theodotions inserted into our bibles,,, Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is your proof of that one?
Now for starters, prove that in AD 100 The Corinthian Church used Acts of Peter as Scripture. And prove that the majority of the congregation did so.
Then take each year after that & prove it for each year 101, 102, 103, etc., for you said "consistently." Now give us 2 reliable contemporary witnesses for each year. Either do that or retract.
That corruption can't last thousands of years is absurd. When did satan ever go out of business? How did Islam continue?
Thomist, anyone can up & claim anything the want. But the above is just you saying things. Let's see the proof for each of your claims. Give 2 reliable contemporary witnesses for each assertion. Prove it for 100 AD, 150 AD, 200 AD, 250 AD, 300 AD. There have ever been heretics around.
Now opposed to what you say above, the Lord Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice." It is clear that whenever a prophet gave the Word of God the people were responsible to accept the prophecy. Peter endorsed Paul as scripture -- not waiting 300 years.
Do you really think that the bishops = elders of the 7 Churches in Asia Minor who received the Revelation from John, rejected it for 300 years??? Absurd. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the 7 churches! So you think they all ignored that. You give not a shred of evidence for that one.
God's word is ever opposed by satan's agents, and there were many of his agents in the early church. Maybe Diotrephes of 3 John rejected it; but what does that prove?
The fact is that God's people accepted His Word when they got it, and didn't wait 300 years (long after they were dead) to accept it.
Now for starters, prove that in AD 100 The Corinthian Church used Acts of Peter as Scripture. And prove that the majority of the congregation did so.
Then take each year after that & prove it for each year 101, 102, 103, etc., for you said "consistently." Now give us 2 reliable contemporary witnesses for each year. Either do that or retract.
That corruption can't last thousands of years is absurd. When did satan ever go out of business? How did Islam continue?
Thomist, anyone can up & claim anything the want. But the above is just you saying things. Let's see the proof for each of your claims. Give 2 reliable contemporary witnesses for each assertion. Prove it for 100 AD, 150 AD, 200 AD, 250 AD, 300 AD. There have ever been heretics around.
Now opposed to what you say above, the Lord Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice." It is clear that whenever a prophet gave the Word of God the people were responsible to accept the prophecy. Peter endorsed Paul as scripture -- not waiting 300 years.
Do you really think that the bishops = elders of the 7 Churches in Asia Minor who received the Revelation from John, rejected it for 300 years??? Absurd. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the 7 churches! So you think they all ignored that. You give not a shred of evidence for that one.
God's word is ever opposed by satan's agents, and there were many of his agents in the early church. Maybe Diotrephes of 3 John rejected it; but what does that prove?
The fact is that God's people accepted His Word when they got it, and didn't wait 300 years (long after they were dead) to accept it.
In the past this was not the case (because the Spirit has poured out signs and wonders at Pentecost and upon the apostles), but this is not the case today because all truth (added words) from God have been closed with the book of Revelation. For we are not to add or take away from the prophecy of this book. Revelation is the close or end of your Bible. Revelation 22:18-19 is a "double fulfillment" type passage just like Hosea 11:1 is a double fulfillment type passage (i.e. speaking of both Israel coming out of Egypt at the Exodus and speaking about Jesus coming out of Egypt in the New Testament). For Revelation 22:18-19 applied to the book of Revelation at the time of it's writing until the Bible came into existence. For the uneducated reader who picks up a Bible for the first time is unaware that the Bible is 66 individual books and will understand Revelation 22:18-19 as applying to the Bible as a whole because Revelation was meant to be the close of the Bible or written Word of God that we have today. The book of Revelation is not meant to be separated from the Bible we have today. It is the end, which closes the entire Bible.
Note: I speak more about these "double fulfillment" type passages in #2 (II) on Revelation 22:18-19 within my OP.
As for no new signs or revelations being added to the Bible, I would check out this article here:
Signs and Wonders Heresies
(Note: The author or this website may express views that may not reflect my views or beliefs; I am merely agreeing with the truth presented within this particular article).
Note: I speak more about these "double fulfillment" type passages in #2 (II) on Revelation 22:18-19 within my OP.
As for no new signs or revelations being added to the Bible, I would check out this article here:
Signs and Wonders Heresies
(Note: The author or this website may express views that may not reflect my views or beliefs; I am merely agreeing with the truth presented within this particular article).
Last edited:
For the most part I am in agreement. But I still disagree on the point that the Bible is not the authority of my life entirely thru and thru. Can I build a house for the poor by reading the Bible? No. Can I read the Bible on how to fix a man's flat tire on the side of the road? No. These things are good and loving that the Bible would call me to do. However, God does not necessarily call me to learn in how to build houses or to fix flat tires within His Word. It is not a command or a requirement by God. If I happen to know these things, then I can do all things thru Christ which strengthens me. What God ultimately requires of me is to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations and to help those who are less fortunate (Loving God and loving all others - Including my enemies) (Walking in His love and righteousness). So if I want to learn how to build a house or fix flat tires, I can do so as a way of giving glory to the Lord, but God is not specifically commanding me within His Word to do that (Anymore than God is commanding me to figure out in worrying about my financies; For we are to seek ye first the Kingdom of God and then all these things will be added unto you).
What is God's Word is a matter of self-evidence basically.
To determine what is God's Word,
First Trust the Lord Jesus as Savior so that you are born again & become a Child of God (a sheep of the Shepherd). Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ & you shall be saved. Then as a sheep it will be true that "My sheep hear My voice," and the sheep do not endorse the voice of strangers. Further, upon believing the Child of God receives an anointing.
Second, Read! Read for example, the apocryphal additions to books in the OT. The Child of God perceives that God is not speaking there.
It is self-evident to the Child of God That the Bible is God's word and that the fakes are not His Word. Particularly a fake is exposed by contradicting the Bible.
As to the LXX, that is basically what the Greek OT is called, a translation of the Hebrew. God gave it in Hebrew. The Hebrew has been translated to English. The LXX is not the issue.
To determine what is God's Word,
First Trust the Lord Jesus as Savior so that you are born again & become a Child of God (a sheep of the Shepherd). Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ & you shall be saved. Then as a sheep it will be true that "My sheep hear My voice," and the sheep do not endorse the voice of strangers. Further, upon believing the Child of God receives an anointing.
Second, Read! Read for example, the apocryphal additions to books in the OT. The Child of God perceives that God is not speaking there.
It is self-evident to the Child of God That the Bible is God's word and that the fakes are not His Word. Particularly a fake is exposed by contradicting the Bible.
As to the LXX, that is basically what the Greek OT is called, a translation of the Hebrew. God gave it in Hebrew. The Hebrew has been translated to English. The LXX is not the issue.
Did Jesus and the apostles argue over what was authorative Scripture or not? No. They knew what was Scripture and what was not Scripture and quoted it with authority and power. My point being is that you are walking by sight and not by faith when you seek to look at old manuscripts and or historical documents to confirm your faith. But faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. In other words, you still do not know what the Word of God is yet (if you doubt what is in God's Word). This makes it sound like you are still seeking. Still wondering. Maybe there is more words of God? That is the danger. New revelation. For everyone out there is having dreams and visions. Everyone out there is declaring such and such writings are inspired, too. But all these things under close examination next to the written Word of God cannot stand. God is not powerless to provide His Word for us today. For those believers who died in Revelation had died for their witness for the Word of God (i.e. the Bible) and for Jesus Christ. They were not still seeking for the Word fo God. They were giving testimony to it already.
Last edited:
my heart is overjoyed to read this from you... I feel like I'm getting to understand you better... so, you see the spirit as guiding Christians back then, into all truth... but not now... so, you probably already know this, but just in case you don't: i think the vast majority of Christians today believe they are guided by the spirit, either individually or because they are part of the body of Christ, which is guided... But again, glad to have heard that from you!
lol,I think I agree(?),,,the point is though in the modern bibles that we use the LXX is not the (source) of the book of Danial. In about 200-300 ad they decided not to use the version from LXX and began to use the translation from Theodotion instead. This is why I stated this that is if sola scriptas was intended to be used(I think so) and Jesus quoted from this when he said what he did about the abomination of desolation's then he was making this statement referring from the version he had then "either the Hebrew or LXX",,so does it make a difference if Theodotion's words it different and say for instance if the k.j.v. uses theodotions version do we actually understand what was written in the original LXX or the M.T. that is after Christianity began the Jews set together their cannon(they had no reason to do this before),but because of the rise of Christianity took out any of the books that referred to Jesus/virgin birth ect. and changed the wording in the ones they kept.
Now so letters books that we consider not scripture also mention this taking place,and many spoke of the Septuagint as not correctly translating completely accurate,and the fact that around 250 ad the m.t. text was altered to cleanse it of references of Jesus virgin birth (scroll don to "christian use" in link) Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . So the matter is not "new" Christians from the 1st and 2nd cen. noticed that Theodotion and Aquilla had begun to re-translate many different scriptures to cleanse the Messiah=Jesus out of their scriptures and so began to write back and forth about it,trying to warn other Christians,so if the copies of the book of Danial that are in all of our modern bibles were also translated by Theodotion and it was proven by the second century that he and Aquilla had intentionally altered the scriptures in other books shouldn't it make sense that the differences between LXX and Theodotions translation are altered the same?
Now so letters books that we consider not scripture also mention this taking place,and many spoke of the Septuagint as not correctly translating completely accurate,and the fact that around 250 ad the m.t. text was altered to cleanse it of references of Jesus virgin birth (scroll don to "christian use" in link) Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . So the matter is not "new" Christians from the 1st and 2nd cen. noticed that Theodotion and Aquilla had begun to re-translate many different scriptures to cleanse the Messiah=Jesus out of their scriptures and so began to write back and forth about it,trying to warn other Christians,so if the copies of the book of Danial that are in all of our modern bibles were also translated by Theodotion and it was proven by the second century that he and Aquilla had intentionally altered the scriptures in other books shouldn't it make sense that the differences between LXX and Theodotions translation are altered the same?
