A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t think baptism is essential in the sense that I do not consider those who have different views as not my brothers and sisters in Christ. Do I consider it important? Of course! I wouldn’t join a church that didn’t practice infant baptism.

Sola-

Since you reference “essential” and by extension non-essential doctrines, this brings me to another question I would like to ask which goes to the heart of sola scriptura and Protestantism:

Would you please provide us with a list of “essential” doctrines that all believers in Christ must agree to in order to be considered members of the one, invisible, spiritual church of Christ?

Please provide the book, chapter and verse where this list is to be found. Heck, I don’t mind if you pull something together from multiple books provided that you use the Bible Alone as the basis for its formation.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The point is that you believe that infant baptism is okay and the others say it is not, even heretical. Both of you rely on Scripture alone. How do I know which of the two is right and which side I will chose to believe?

How do you know whether God is pleased with those who believe baptism is not necessary for salvation, especially if He revealed it? How do you know that denying the necessity of baptism for salvation will not incur eternal damnation?

God Bless,
Michael

Please note: I did not cut and paste the following from a website; I have been putting this paper together as an adaptation of several talks given by John Martignino.

If there is only one, invisible, “spiritual” church, then that church must contain the Baptist is believes with no uncertainty that baptizing babies is wrong, the Presbyterian who believes that baptizing babies is okay but that it’s purely symbolic, and the Episcopalian who believes that baptizing babies is the right thing to do and that baptism washes away original sin. These doctrinal differences are irrelevant in this type of church.

Does the bible give us any clues as to whether doctrine matters? Yes!“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine.” (1 Timothy 1:3)“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1)“so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14)“he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9)Clearly, from the Bible, we can see that doctrine is very important. Why? Because doctrines and dogmas are the truths of the Christian faith revealed by Jesus Christ. However, most Protestants believe that conflicting doctrine can and does exist within the one true church. They won’t phrase it that way, but this is exactly what they believe: that conflicting doctrine is acceptable within the body of Christ, the church. How do they justify this belief? By dividing their beliefs into essential and non-essential doctrines. The Baptist will say to the Presbyterian, “Well, at least we agree on the essentials or the “main things”. This means it is okay to disagree on the non-essentials. Is this correct? What does the Bible say about this? Ask to see the list of “essential” doctrines found in the Bible…there is none! So, who gets to decide which doctrines are essential and which aren’t? Doesn’t this sound like some people are trying to justify all of the division within the Body of Christ and to justify not making a true attempt at reconciliation or reunification?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does the Bible have anything to say about whether there are essential or non-essential doctrines?
“But he answered, “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4)

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)

“Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
Here Jesus states that every word, every iota, every dot is essential and that not even the least of these commandments will be relaxed. Does this sound like Jesus believes there are non-essential doctrines? No! All doctrine matters.

Well, if it is not possible to say that doctrine does not matter, then the other option is to say that conflicting doctrine is acceptable. Again, what does the Bible tell us?
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26)
Can the Spirit remind them of times when Jesus contradicted himself? No!
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13)
Can the Spirit have taught different people different things? No!
"For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6)
Can God change just for the purpose of allowing conflicting doctrines to be held within His one church? No!

The Church, therefore, must have a visible body. For the Catholic, the Church is both visible and invisible. In the passage quoted from Matthew above, the Church must be visible if anyone is to take their disputes to it. We know the Church is the Body and fullness of Christ, and Christ is its Head. As Paul wrote to the Ephesians:
“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” (Ephesians 1:22-23)
Now please consider:
“you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)
If you can’t know the truth, and ALL of the truth, with certainty because partial or conflicting doctrine is acceptable, then how can you be set free?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Principle #8: Jesus established one, visible church characterized by doctrinal unity

Since the other two options have been shown to be false, then the third option must be true.· The Bible shows us that Jesus established one and only one church.

· The Bible shows that this church is not an invisible, “spiritual” church; it is a visible church.

· The Bible shows that doctrine matters and does not conflict.

· The Bible shows that this church was founded upon the Apostles and that it is the “pillar and bulwark” of the truth.

· This Church must contain the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best, since they have not maintained doctrinal unity with this one church.

Here is what the Bible says about doctrinal unity:“Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul.” (Acts 4:32)

“I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)

“whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27)

“The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:22-23)
Jesus wants us to be one just as He and the Father are one. Do you think that Jesus and the Father disagree on any doctrine - even the non-essential ones? Can you see Jesus complaining to the Father, “Dad, those dang Episcopalians are out baptizing babies again” and the Father responds, “Well, son, they’re supposed to.”? Do you think that Jesus believes that communion is actually his body and blood, but the Father thinks it’s just a symbol. No. They agree on all doctrine, and we are called to the same unity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Principle #9: In order to protect the truth, Jesus gave authority to the church

In order for the Church to fulfill its function as the “pillar and bullwark” (1 Timothy 3:15) of the truth, the Church must have authority with which to speak to and teach those who are seeking truth. How can we be sure that the Church has this authority?"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:15-18)Jesus tells you to take your unresolved disputes to the Church as the last “court of appeal” for disciplinary matters. He does not tell you or your brother to consult the Bible to determine what should be done; the Church is the final arbiter. If anyone refuses to listen to the Church, there is no further appeal; he is to be thrown out. Why does the Church have this final say? Because Jesus told the Apostles that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

If the Church is to speak with any effectiveness at all to the world about the truth on matters of faith and morals (not astronomy, biology or economics, etc.), then it must be able to do so with authority. Therefore, Jesus established a Church that can teach authoritatively regarding these truths. How can the world find the Church unless they can see it?

Principle #10: The authority of the church is Apostolic Authority

The Church’s authority is unique in that it is derived from the authority of the Apostles themselves. Apostolic Authority flows from the Authority of Jesus and the Father."Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-19)“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ “ (John 20:21)

From this, we can see that God the Father has given all authority to God the Son who in turn bestows this authority upon His own disciples and sends them out to preach the truth to all the world. Thus, we can see that the Apostolic Authority of the Church is God-given. But how closely should the Church be identified with Christ? Jesus Himself specified how we should receive those sent by Christ:“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Principle #11: In order to lead people into all truth free from error, Jesus established a church that is infallible

If we hear Jesus when we hear His Apostles, then we can be sure that the Apostles are speaking the truth. However, there are even more scriptural reasons for us to be confident that the Church founded by Christ is prevented from teaching anything that conflicts with the truth. Taking a second look at the verses quoted from Matthew 28 above:“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ “(Matthew 28:18-19)

Focusing on the last phrase, we can see that Jesus has promised that He will remain with the Church “always, to the end of the age.” With Jesus remaining with her always, how can the Church go wrong when teaching the truth about Christ Himself? But there’s more:"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Jesus promises to send the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, to remain with the Church forever, to teach her leaders all things and to remind them of everything Jesus had taught them. It is this sure guidance of Jesus and the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. But do we really need someone to teach us the truth or can we pick up the Bible and interpret it correctly for ourselves?“Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians] reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” (Acts 8:30-31)
In this passage, the Ethiopian Eunuch, an important and educated official of the Ethiopian government, is reading the book of Isaiah, but he cannot understand what the prophet is saying. He asks, Philip, one of the Apostles and leaders of the early Church, to teach him the truths found in the passages before him. Like the Ethiopian official, we also need clear explanation of the proper meaning of the Bible, and the Church provides that in its role as teacher of the truth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Was this a one-time incident that only involved single person who did not know of the events that had been happening in Jerusalem? Well, Peter spoke further regarding private interpretation of scripture:
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20 NIV)
This quotation actually contains one of the most obvious examples of the bias found in the New International Version because the translators chose the words “ the prophet’s” to deflect the focus away from the implications that we cannot interpret scripture properly apart from an infallible Church. This is seen clearly in a more accurate translation reads:
“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (1 Peter 1:20 RSV – Catholic Edition)
Peter gives additional warning about misinterpretation of scripture in his second general letter when he wrote:
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-17)
If the scriptures are difficult to understand and subject to misinterpretation, how could anyone understand the truth that Jesus wants everyone to receive? Echoing the words of Jesus, the Apostle John wrote:
“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us.” 1 John 4:6
From this, we can see that there was a group of men who could be listened to with confidence. Peter also spoke of these reliable witnesses who spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit when he wrote:
“It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.” (1 Peter 1:12)

 

[RNRobert]

Excellent posts, Randy! http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e98/CaptainIncognito2006/smileys/thcb459cc5.gif

But of course, what do we know, we’re only Catholic fundamentalists!

 

[SolaScriptura]

There are many Protestants who see the arguments on infant baptism as being way beyond credulity.

Yeah, but it is beyond doubt that a biblical argument can be made for giving children of adults in covenant with God the covenant sign. This precedent is clearly established. So immediately the onus is on the credo Baptist to prove this principle has been abrogated. There is no principle whatsoever for the Immaculate Conception and furthermore there is direct evidence against it. You know there is a verse that says, “All have sinned …”. There is no evidence for anyone being infallible except those who are inspired by God. Catholicism admits the Pope is not inspired so and the Tradition of the church is against it.

Papal infallibility I infer from the promise Jesus made in Matthew 16:18-19 and the fact that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

I concur with both of those verse, but neither one says anything about a Bishop in Rome having the gift of infallibility. Care to make a real argument for that?

The Marian dogmas I infer from Genesis 3:15, the first chapters of the Gospel of Luke, John 2, and John 19:26. This is reaffirmed by the constant teaching of the Church Fathers concerning Mary being the New Eve.

These are not arguments, furthermore even if the Church fathers believe Mary was the New Eve it is non sequitur to say that leads to the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption. As a matter of fact some of them explicitly deny the Marian Dogmas.

There are few churches that believe that baptism is necessary for salvation? Lutheran and Church of Christ are just two examples. Their membership, however, is large and they both uphold Sola Scriptura.

Lutherans and Church of Christ are two out 33,000, right? Furthermore, Lutherans still consider Baptists as their brothers and sisters. You did say you listen to The White Horse Inn, right?

The point is that you believe that infant baptism is okay and the others say it is not, even heretical. Both of you rely on Scripture alone. How do I know which of the two is right and which side I will chose to believe?

If you think critically about your arguments you would realize they equally apply to your position. Watch this:
You say that Tradition teaches the Infallibility of the Pope, the Eastern Orthodox say it does not. Both of you rely on Scripture and Tradition to reach your conclusion. How do I know which of the two is right and which side I will chose to believe? Or here is another one. Out of all the churches which claim they are the true church, you picked Rome. How did you determine Rome is right and the rest were wrong? How did you decide which side to chose? Answer those question from your own perspective and you will probably come up with the right answer.

How do you know whether God is pleased with those who believe baptism is not necessary for salvation, especially if He revealed it? How do you know that denying the necessity of baptism for salvation will not incur eternal damnation?

How do you know God is pleased with you worshipping the Host when many would say it is not the body of Christ? How do you know this is not idolatry and will not incur His divine wrath?

We could both play this game all day and night.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Principle #12: Jesus established a church for all time by means of Apostolic Succession
These reliable men, the Apostles, who were chosen and sent by Jesus and the Holy Spirit have passed on their God-given authority to other men from one generation to the next from their day all the way down to our own. This “handing on” of Authority is known as Apostolic Succession.

From here, we establish the Papacy and the assurance we have in knowing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God because an infallible Church tells us that it is so.

 

[BobCatholic]

It all comes down to interpretation of scripture.

Who’s interpretation of scripture should we hold to?

A self-proclaimed sola scripturist’s interpretation?
Or the interpretation of the Twelve Apostles?

Man-made tradition? Or Apostolic Tradition?

I know who has the original Gospel (Gal 1:9) so I stick with them.

Besides, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[RNRobert]

It all comes down to interpretation of scripture.

Who’s interpretation of scripture should we hold to?

A self-proclaimed sola scripturist’s interpretation?
Or the interpretation of the Twelve Apostles?

Man-made tradition? Or Apostolic Tradition?

I know who has the original Gospel (Gal 1:9) so I stick with them.

Besides, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

Hi Bob!

I posted your “four infamous questions” here, but SolaScriptura dismissed them, saying that “Sola Scriptura presupposes the existence of Scripture.” Apparently I’m just a “Catholic Fundamentalist wannabe apologist” (Hmm… perhaps I should put that in my signature!)

 

[BobCatholic]

Hi Bob!

I posted your “four infamous questions” here, but SolaScriptura dismissed them, saying that “Sola Scriptura presupposes the existence of Scripture.” Apparently I’m just a “Catholic Fundamentalist wannabe apologist” (Hmm… perhaps I should put that in my signature!)

I’m not surprised.

it is one of many reasons sola scriptura can’t be practiced

sola scripturists can’t answer the questions without either

1. being forced to give up the man-made tradition “sola scriptura” or
2. looking at the true historical method the 4 questions WERE answered and finding something they didn’t expect

Either which way, that man-made tradition is toast.

 

[Reformed1]

It all comes down to interpretation of scripture.

Who’s interpretation of scripture should we hold to?

A self-proclaimed sola scripturist’s interpretation?
Or the interpretation of the Twelve Apostles?

Man-made tradition? Or Apostolic Tradition?

Is there a way to document and trace such things as the immaculate conception, the assumption, papal infallibility, etc. to the apostles?

If so, can you please provide some type of proof that the apostles taught such “traditions” as are found in the Catholic church today? Did Paul have any clue that Mary was sinless or of the treasury of merit?

 

[BobCatholic]

Is there a way to document and trace such things as the immaculate conception, the assumption, papal infallibility, etc. to the apostles?
If so, can you please provide some type of proof that the apostles taught such “traditions” as are found in the Catholic church today? Did Paul have any clue that Mary was sinless or of the treasury of merit?

This has been documented.

However, it is not sufficient to overcome Korah’s rebellion, unless one decides to reject a man-made tradition known as sola scriptura.

Since this topic is about sola mirrora, err, sola scriptura, let’s stick to that topic.

Can you prove that sola scriptura can be practiced?

First, let’s find a definition of sola scriptura that all sola scripturists hold to. If this is a true doctrine of God, and it seems that all sola scripturists hold to this, they must have an accurate definition or else we got relativism.

 

[Reformed1]

This has been documented.

However, it is not sufficient to overcome Korah’s rebellion, unless one decides to reject a man-made tradition known as sola scriptura.

Since this topic is about sola mirrora, err, sola scriptura, let’s stick to that topic.

Can you prove that sola scriptura can be practiced?

I’ve never seen it documented. In fact, it appears that there are quite a few Catholic “traditions” that can’t be traced back any earlier than a few centuries after the apostles.

Why can’t sola scriptura be practiced and exactly what do you think SS is?

 

[BobCatholic]

Why can’t sola scriptura be practiced and exactly what do you think SS is?

Sola scriptura (“Bible only”) cannot be practiced.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?

What is sola scriptura?
Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used”
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a firm definition to take hold.

1. You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words
2. You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.

Hmm…Scripture…Tradition…Magisterium. That sounds like the Catholic Model instead of sola scriptura

Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[RNRobert]

Sola scriptura (“Bible only”) cannot be practiced.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?

What is sola scriptura?
Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used”
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a firm definition to take hold.

1. You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words
2. You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.

Hmm…Scripture…Tradition…Magisterium. That sounds like the Catholic Model instead of sola scriptura

Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

Excellent post! When I was a Baptist, I was a strict Sola Scripturist, nothing outside the Bible. When I first started on this forum 2 1/2 years ago, I met a Lutheran who version of Sola Scriptura accepted the authority of the ECF and early councils, but rejected the later councils because he felt they went against Scripture. In the long run, however, his definition of SS was the same as mine- We only accepted something if it fit *our *interpretion of Scripture. Frank Schaeffer (an Orthodox Christian) said it best: “Sola Scriptura is simply the first verse of ‘I Did It My Way.’”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is there a way to document and trace such things as the immaculate conception, the assumption, papal infallibility, etc. to the apostles?

If so, can you please provide some type of proof that the apostles taught such “traditions” as are found in the Catholic church today? Did Paul have any clue that Mary was sinless or of the treasury of merit?

You know, I sometimes wonder if this is not the exact opposite way of going about things.

By Looking at a leaf and asking for proof that the branches, trunk and roots exist?

Doesn’t it make way more sense to determine if the Church is infallible first? After that, all other debate is moot.

 

[Joseph_Smith]

To really understand why scripture is to be used as the authority over the church and it practices really stems from who authored the scripture. The word tells us that that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. The word also tell us that scripture is given by insperation of the HOLY SPIRIT. Christ told us that he would send us the Holy Spirit. The helper the one who would lead us into all truth and knowedge and understanding. So the Auther of the scripture is the HOLY SPIRIT who is GOD. And as that is the case his word is given for sound doctrine and correction and rebulk for the church and the people of the church. As the scriptures tell us.
So the only reason people would not want to use Sola Scripture as a standard is to practice what is not in the scriptures as provided by the Holy Spirit. You could also use it to justify sin or a pagan practice or to promote doing something God hates.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Notice the importance of hearing the word of God. Actually Jesus is the word of God and there is no error in him. He is both the logos and the ramos word. The revealed revelation of him comes thur the writen word and thru obidence. But first you have to put his word with in your heart. He speaks thru his word. In the old testiment God said a people who are not my people have become my people and i have become there God and they shall have no need for a teacher for i shall be there teacher. He was refering to the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord Jesus which live in christians, and reveals the word to us. Thus we have God as a teacher, What does he teach with, the Holy Scriptures.
Peter said you are a spiritual house, he was refering to the temple that is your body in which the spirit of the son and the holy spirit reside. Your high priest is right there inside you if you are born again. And the treacher is right there also. That is why Jesus said he will never depart from you. He lives in you. Jesus speak thru scripture often, but also he speak thur the things of a person life.
The affects of not holding to Sola Scriptures can be seen in the jehoviah witness and the mormans. Who have used the scriptures to promote none logical claims, jesus is michael and angle, You will get to go to the stars and become mother and poppa gods ect. They even denounce the cross. These are called cults by most churchs because they do not hold scripture as a authority over the claims of men.
God has told us the reasons we hold to Sola Scripture only you can chose to follow his instruction. You have your responsibility in your faith to make sure it lines up wih the word of God. And you will be judged on weather you did or did not do that. We are judged on all things. The scripture of God is a map of the chruch and of the salvation that Jesus has provided to the whole world. People can’t be saved by a church. They are saved as a result of hearing the word of God taking it into there hearts and answering the Holy Spirit who calls them to salvation. You notice we are not needed for salvation other then to get the word out. The word is what is missing in the world. That is the churchs Job to uplift christ and to Get the word out.
Getting the word out is preaching the gosple. It is lifting up Christ and his gosple to a dieing world that they may recieve salvation. This command is not about building a church it is about building the kingdom of believers. These many churches are just stepping stones in growing in Christ. But make sure you are going to you church to Grow in Christ and in obidence to his word.
So a hundred people in WW2 went into a prisoner of war camp and had one bible and all 100 got saved. How did that happen Grace. Sola Scripture. Jesus is the WORD become flesh. That is what happened with those 100 people, the writen word of God became flesh to them they got filled with grace by reading the word of God and my meditating and by asking Jesus for salvation. This happens every day. The word of God becomeing flesh to people all over the world. Amen, praist his name. He alone is worthy of all praise and honor and glory. So how does the word of God become flesh to you unless you are reading it and studying it and walking out your faith?