Bible Alone and what does it really mean?

[Salmon]

Umm…you are making up your own definition for “Bible Alone” (Bible Alone is undefined since it is not even a complete sentence) and then knocking down your definition. I think the name for that is “strawman”.

Other than that carry on.

With all due respect, it appears that Daniel is not constructing a straw man and knocking it down. He is looking for an understanding of what “Bible Alone” constitutes in the modern world and the inherent limitations of such a perspective.

Then again, I may be totally off base.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[shawn34_a]

Where do you get this from, because the Bible doesn’t tell us such.

The Bible may not mention the importance of sandals or one’s robe. Now using other materials to understand their significance clarifies their importance, but is not necessary to the text nor does it change its meaning.

Actually, using other materials to draw an understanding can change the meaning of a passage ENTIRELY. I respectfully disagree with this.

Prima scriptura accepts canonized scripture foremost, but implies that their are other guides for what a believer should believe and how we should live. This is the Catholic perspective.

That is not entirely accurate. I’m not ignoring you, but to give a complete answer to the Catholic perspective would be too lengthy and peripheral to the topic of this thread. If you want a good discussion that would do this topic justice, then it should be dealt with on a separate thread.

I disagree with this notion. We are called to be disciples of Christ. To do so is to live according to Christ’s teachings which is laid out for us in the Bible.

You are, of course, free to disagree with anything, and so long as you support it intelligently and respectfully (which so far you have) then I do not begrudge you that right. However…Who or what says it has to be “laid out for us in the Bible”? I am in agreement that we are to live according to Christ’s teachings, but where do you get the notion that the Bible contains the totality of Christ’s teachings, because the Bible does not make that claim, which is a real problem if one is to claim “Bible alone”.

We know that from the NT that Jesus Christ is either defined or described as be the Word, truth, light, and etc, the key being the Word.

Couple examples.
John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 17:17Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

We agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God. In Colossians we learn that the fullness dwells in Christ and warned about abiding to worldly traditions and etc as mentioned below. Ecumenism very well could fall under this.

Col 2:8Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

Sola Scriptura does not derive new philosophies, traditions, and etc from the text that’s used to place obscure things in proper context. Prima scriptura can do this and its typically associated with Catholic doctrine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura

What do actually do you feel that you cannot learn from the Bible alone? I’m Catholic myself. However the more I read the Bible and understand the scripture, the less I agree with Catholic doctrine. Jewish jurisprudence sheds light on and reconciles a lot of difficult scripture.

 

[mozart-250]

With all due respect, it appears that Daniel is not constructing a straw man and knocking it down. He is looking for an understanding of what “Bible Alone” constitutes in the modern world and the inherent limitations of such a perspective.

I am told the historic meaning of Sola Scriptura is all that is necessary for salvation is plainly revealed in Scriptures. I would agree with this

Today “Bible Alone” (or its equivalents) seems to be whatever your denomination says it is. There is no universally agreed upon definition here.

This is from the online statement of faith of my church.

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I would agree with this (although if I were to nitpick I would substitute inerrant for infallible…the Bible technically does not have the ability to be capable or incapable (incapable of error implies a process not a document).

 

[shawn34_a]

Paul said, “fulness of the word of God” Not just “fulness of the gospel”. I would take what Paul meant to be fulness of all doctrine. Where does Paul say that he wrote down the fullness of the word of God? or the Fullness of all doctrine?

And, if you contend that he wrote down the fullness of all doctrine, then why is not the New Testament plain enough, not to have contradictory interpretations of doctrine? One groups says, speaking in tongues is proof of salvation and that if you don’t speak in tongues you are not saved ( pentecostals ), another group says that tongues is not for today at all ( cessionists ), another group says that speaking in tongues is just one of the spiritual gifts ( charismatics ). One group says that today we only speak in tongues of angels, another group says we must speak only in human languages. I could go on about contradictory interpretations for pages.

Where in scripture, old testament that is do you find the festival of lights?

factmonster.com/spot/hanukkah.html

There is a dedication to the second temple and the eating of the Passover beginning with Ezra 6:13. Lights specifically are not mentioned, but how does that pertain to Christians with the New Covenant. It does not as do not many of the Jewish traditions.

I know that in a couple locations people speak in tongues that the Holy Spirit descended upon.

Acts 2:11Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.

There are other passages.

The other stuff I mentioned in my previous posts.

 

[mozart-250]

BTW

Quote:
B. Sola Scriptura means:

The Bible alone without creeds. (ie Apostles creed, Nicene creed.)
The Bible alone without councils. (ie Ecumenical Councils.)
The Bible alone without church canons. (ie Canons of Dort.)
The Bible alone without statements of faith. (most churches create one.)
The Bible alone without oral tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without church tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without a “church interpreter”. (Catholic, Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses all say only the church can correctly interpret the Bible, not the individual.)
The Bible alone without individual illumination of the Holy Spirit. (Evangelicals, Baptists, Charismatics and Calvinists believe they are personally guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret the Bible.)
The Bible alone without modern day prophecy and inspiration. (Pentecostal, Charismatic and most of the 19th century cults, (Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists) all claimed to have living prophets.)

I am quite sure this is from a Church of Christ site (not mainstream). I say this because I found on the same web page…locate a “Sola Scriptura” church near you and the address it brought up was the address of a “Church of Christ” church. Deceptive since they don’t mention who they are.

 

[shawn34_a]

BTW

I am quite sure this is from a Church of Christ site (not mainstream). I say this because I found on the same web page…locate a “Sola Scriptura” church near you and the address it brought up was the address of a “Church of Christ” church. Deceptive since they don’t mention who they are.

Don’t the Church of Christ believe that the 2nd coming of Christ has already occurred? I believe they do.

 

[Harland]

Does the four gospels ( editions ) contain all that Jesus did and taught? or do they contain some of what he did and taught?

Does the NT contain all that the apostles taught? And, is that teaching clear enough that anyone siting down to read the NT can understand fully its meaning without differing on what a text means?

No. The bible doesn’t contain all the teachings of Christ or the Apostles. The bible even says it doesn’t contain everything. That is why we have the Church and Sacred Tradition.

Maybe I misread the post. I under stood Shawn to imply that because the word gospel appears in Paul’s Epistle they already had the gospels but the word gospel just means good news. That is how I read Paul’s meaning. He wasn’t talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s gospels. Remember, they were looking for Jesus’ to return while they were still alive, much as some are looking for His return momentarily. But that is another thread. So there wasn’t an imperative to record Jesus teaching because they all knew Jesus or someone who personally knew him. So they had first or second hand knowledge. Not like us today living 2000 years after the fact.

That is what I was trying to say. I hope I have made my thoughts clearer.

 

[shawn34_a]

No. The bible doesn’t contain all the teachings of Christ or the Apostles. The bible even says it doesn’t contain everything. That is why we have the Church and Sacred Tradition.

Maybe I misread the post. I under stood Shawn to imply that because the word gospel appears in Paul’s Epistle they already had the gospels but the word gospel just means good news. That is how I read Paul’s meaning. He wasn’t talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s gospels. Remember, they were looking for Jesus’ to return while they were still alive, much as some are looking for His return momentarily. But that is another thread. So there wasn’t an imperative to record Jesus teaching because they all knew Jesus or someone who personally knew him. So they had first or second hand knowledge. Not like us today living 2000 years after the fact.

That is what I was trying to say. I hope I have made my thoughts clearer.

Yes, the word gospel means “good news.” However it’s generally a reference to the teachings of Christ for Christ is the Word or “good news.” Obviously not all of the disciples could teach from the written word for it was not until 40 ad that the gospels began to appear text. But just because it was not recorded doesn’t mean that they were not teaching from the gospel for the apostles were witnesses to the word.

We do know for certain that not everything was recorded for many signs were not.

John 20:30And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

2nd point - The apostles were not expecting the restoration of the God’s kingdom for it was made clear to them in Acts 1:6

Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

And in Matthew 24:2-3 he gives the apostles some forewarning of when he can be expected.

2 “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

3Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

It was the church of Thessalonica which was preparing for the second coming. In Thessalonians 1:1-2 Paul basically tells them that no one knows the time or day, but they are to be prepared by living according to the gospel.

1But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. 2For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

There is a dedication to the second temple and the eating of the Passover beginning with Ezra 6:13. Lights specifically are not mentioned, but how does that pertain to Christians with the New Covenant. It does not as do not many of the Jewish traditions.

I know that in a couple locations people speak in tongues that the Holy Spirit descended upon.

Acts 2:11Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.

There are other passages.

The other stuff I mentioned in my previous posts.

1 Mac.4:55-59

55
All the people prostrated themselves and adored and praised Heaven, who had given them success.
56
For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar and joyfully offered holocausts and sacrifices of deliverance and praise.
57
They ornamented the facade of the temple with gold crowns and shields; they repaired the gates and the priests’ chambers and furnished them with doors.
58
There was great joy among the people now that the disgrace of the Gentiles was removed.
59
** Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev. **

Then why did Jesus celebrate Jewish Tradition here?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

BTW

I am quite sure this is from a Church of Christ site (not mainstream). I say this because I found on the same web page…locate a “Sola Scriptura” church near you and the address it brought up was the address of a “Church of Christ” church. Deceptive since they don’t mention who they are.

If you do your research, the modern Bible Alone theory comes from the Christian Connection Movement which influnced the Restoration Movement and influnced directly the Adventist Movements, which indirectly influnced Baptist and other protestant groups of today – the common solgan “No creed but the Bible”.

Frankly, I simply googled Bible Alone and opened three or four sites and simply posted their definitions to show that Bible Alone is defined differently, less restrictive or more restrictive depending on your denominiation. The quotes were simply random sites.

So, if one wants to defend the doctrine of Bible Alone, they need to start with an authoritive definition from an agreed upon authoritive sources.

 

[shawn34_a]

1 Mac.4:55-59

55
All the people prostrated themselves and adored and praised Heaven, who had given them success.
56
For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar and joyfully offered holocausts and sacrifices of deliverance and praise.
57
They ornamented the facade of the temple with gold crowns and shields; they repaired the gates and the priests’ chambers and furnished them with doors.
58
There was great joy among the people now that the disgrace of the Gentiles was removed.
59
** Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev. **

Then why did Jesus celebrate Jewish Tradition here?

Thanks.

I know that there’s much contraversy over several books of the septuagint. Regardless with the New Covenant, Gentiles were grafted in to God’s plan of salvation. Also the Gentiles were not bound to the Jewish traditions.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

“…people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself…if he then lays them [Scripture Studies] aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.” The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, p. 298.

Does anyone know if this quote is accurate?

 

[joshua_b]

We know that from the NT that Jesus Christ is either defined or described as be the Word, truth, light, and etc, the key being the Word.

Couple examples.
John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 17:17Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

We agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God. In Colossians we learn that the fullness dwells in Christ and warned about abiding to worldly traditions and etc as mentioned below. Ecumenism very well could fall under this.

Col 2:8Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

Sola Scriptura does not derive new philosophies, traditions, and etc from the text that’s used to place obscure things in proper context. Prima scriptura can do this and its typically associated with Catholic doctrine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura

What do actually do you feel that you cannot learn from the Bible alone? I’m Catholic myself. However the more I read the Bible and understand the scripture, the less I agree with Catholic doctrine. Jewish jurisprudence sheds light on and reconciles a lot of difficult scripture.

Yes Jesus is the Word (not the Bible). As far as “worldly traditions” be careful not to take this to mean that because the Catholic Church speaks of “Tradition” that they are contrary to Scripture. If you really look at Judaism, you will see alot of “tradition” that can not be found in Scripture (a perfect example would be Chaunnakka (sp ?). Find anything about Chaunnakka in the Jewish Canon if you would please. It won’t happen, because it isn’t there.

Sola Scriptura DOES derive new philosophies. The most glaring is dispensationalism. Find any teaching on the rapture before the 19th Century. I’ll save you the time…there isn’t one.

What I “feel” I cannot learn from the Bible alone is not the question that begs to be answered. The real issue is, IF the Bible contains the fullness of God’s revelation, and is to be the sole source for doctrine, then it would reveal itself to be the fullness of God’s revelation (God’s Word if you will). If the Bible does not state that it is the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind, then by the very absence of that statement, it can NOT be the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind. Find me such a statement, and Sola Scriptura has a leg to stand on. The CHURCH (not the Bible) is the pillar of ALL Truth. The Bible clearly states that. Nothing in the Bible clearly states anything to the contrary, so I can not understand why people insist on performing all sorts of Scriptural gymnastics to imply that the Bible (and NOT the Church) is to be the sole basis for all doctrine.

All that aside, there is NOTHING in Catholic Doctrine that contradicts Scripture. There are doctrines that may contradict an individuals INTERPRETATION of Scripture, but Scripture is not the pillar of all truth, the Church is, so why do people insist on abandoning the Church to take the liberty of substituting the Church’s teachings with their own interpretations of what the Bible says. Sola Scriptura, on its very premise, is a flawed doctrine.

 

[shawn34_a]

Yes Jesus is the Word (not the Bible). As far as “worldly traditions” be careful not to take this to mean that because the Catholic Church speaks of “Tradition” that they are contrary to Scripture. If you really look at Judaism, you will see alot of “tradition” that can not be found in Scripture (a perfect example would be Chaunnakka (sp ?). Find anything about Chaunnakka in the Jewish Canon if you would please. It won’t happen, because it isn’t there.

Sola Scriptura DOES derive new philosophies. The most glaring is dispensationalism. Find any teaching on the rapture before the 19th Century. I’ll save you the time…there isn’t one.

What I “feel” I cannot learn from the Bible alone is not the question that begs to be answered. The real issue is, IF the Bible contains the fullness of God’s revelation, and is to be the sole source for doctrine, then it would reveal itself to be the fullness of God’s revelation (God’s Word if you will). If the Bible does not state that it is the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind, then by the very absence of that statement, it can NOT be the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind. Find me such a statement, and Sola Scriptura has a leg to stand on. The CHURCH (not the Bible) is the pillar of ALL Truth. The Bible clearly states that. Nothing in the Bible clearly states anything to the contrary, so I can not understand why people insist on performing all sorts of Scriptural gymnastics to imply that the Bible (and NOT the Church) is to be the sole basis for all doctrine.

All that aside, there is NOTHING in Catholic Doctrine that contradicts Scripture. There are doctrines that may contradict an individuals INTERPRETATION of Scripture, but Scripture is not the pillar of all truth, the Church is, so why do people insist on abandoning the Church to take the liberty of substituting the Church’s teachings with their own interpretations of what the Bible says. Sola Scriptura, on its very premise, is a flawed doctrine.

With Judaism there’s a lot of tradition. With the New Covenant, the gentiles did not have to observe most Judaic traditions.

I find that most Catholics believe in dispensationalism (pre-trib rapture). I don’t. Matthews, Thessalonians, and Revelations are pretty clear on that topic. That’s easy to explain when you put the pieces together from scripture.

The Bible does not spell out everything. You don’t see babies being baptized for they cannot accept Christ themselves and repent of their sins as the Word requires of sinners. They were blessed by Jesus, but not baptized for they are humble and innocent thus inheriting the kingdom of God as the Bible says. Purgatory is not spelled out either, but is commonly accepted by Catholics. The Bible speaks of how we sleep in Christ until we are called up at his second coming. Transubstantiation is not in the Bible. In Deut. wine is defined as the blood of the grape. What is Jesus drinking at the last supper, the fruit of the vine He says. Through his atonement, those who believed we saved from eternal damnation (more to it then just that though). Jesus was concerned about our spirituality, not our physical bodies.

When Catholics speak of the one church, lets not forget, the Protestants were part of that one church for over 1500 years. Catholics kept the name after the split. I don’t profess to be Protestant for I disagree with some of their teachings too. But as God gave the Jews the law, Jesus too gave us the Word.

 

[truthnlight]

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” -1st Corinthians 1:17

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” -Galatians 2:16

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” -Romans 1:16 :bible1:

I sometimes forget this Biblical principle and find myself arguing religion with people. To date, I have never known a religious person to come to Christ as a result of debating beliefs. But I have seen some religious people come to Christ right away when they heard the plain gospel. A person who wants to be saved WILL trust Christ immediately, you do not need to argue anything with them. A person who wants to DEBATE religion has already rejected Christ and is now defending their unbelief. Even if you prove them dead wrong, they will still hold to their unbelief (Mark 7:6-9; Luke 16:31). There are people all over the world who want to argue religion. We do NOT need to debate with them, but rather just keep giving them the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. The POWER of God which brings salvation is the GOSPEL itself, and not our cleverly worded arguments.:twocents:

 

[mozart-250]

So, if one wants to defend the doctrine of Bible Alone, they need to start with an authoritive definition from an agreed upon authoritive sources.

There is no agreed upon authoritative source. The best you can do is defend “Bible Alone” according to how your denomination/church teaches it.

But the same thing goes if you want to attack the doctrine of Bible Alone. You must be specific as to which definition of Bible Alone you are attacking. And then be specific as to who holds this definition. Too often I see Catholics make up their own definition of Bible Alone and then attack all Protestants based upon their definition.

 

[joshua_b]

1. "With Judaism there’s a lot of tradition. With the New Covenant, the gentiles did not have to observe most Judaic traditions. "

Why not ? Jesus said until he returns “not one letter of the law shall pass”, so if the Apostles taught to use ONLY Scripture, there is no possible way they could have made an administrative declaration that Gentiles would not have to observe Mosaic Law. The fact that we do not need to observe the details of Mosaic Law are a Tradition, which is beautifully laid out for us in the book of Acts with the account of the Council of Jerusalem. Even the Scriptures support the notion that Sola Scriptura was not the practice of the early Church.

1. “I find that most Catholics believe in dispensationalism (pre-trib rapture). I don’t. Matthews, Thessalonians, and Revelations are pretty clear on that topic. That’s easy to explain when you put the pieces together from scripture.”

Two issues here. One, it doesn’t matter what “most Catholics believe”, it still doesn’t make it official Church teaching. Secondly, it’s NOT so easy to explain, and the rapture theory is full of holes that don’t make sense logically. But, all of that is an aside to my original point. The point is that Sola Scriptura DOES lead itself to new and novel doctrines, which is contrary to what you claimed, because you will find NOTHING on the rapture prior to the nineteenth century, so even though it may be “easy to explain when you put the pieces together” as far as your concerned, it wasn’t so “clear” to the Church for 1800 years prior. It was the NEW IDEA that the Bible was a giant jigsaw puzzle that needed to be pieced together (which is basically what dispensationalism is) that gave birth to the NEW IDEA about the rapture.

1. When Catholics speak of the one church, lets not forget, the Protestants were part of that one church for over 1500 years.

AMEN !!! And, they (if validly baptized) are STILL members of the Body of Christ…the one True Church. We stand in agreement on this point.

1. “Catholics kept the name after the split.”

And rightly so. Jesus is very clear in the Scripture on the authority of the Church. What did Jesus say to the people about the Pharisees ? “Do as they say, just not as they do”. We are required to subject ourselves to the legitimate authority of the Church, in spite of the character of it’s leadership and our opinions of the actions of said leaders. That is another MAJOR “new doctrine” of Sola Scriptura. Where in Scripture does it say we have the right to reject the legitimate authority of the Church so we can start our own, or find one that we feel more in agreement with ?

1. “But as God gave the Jews the law, Jesus too gave us the Word.”

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. Jesus did not GIVE us the Word, Jesus WAS the Word…the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind. Jesus handed the fullness of God’s revelation to the Apostles, who handed it on to their successors, right on down to today. Somewhere early on, some of what was revealed was written down in what was later determined to be the Scriptures that were put together into a single collection that we now call the Bible.

We are still back to the original question, which has yet to be answered. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the fullness of God’s revelation, because if it IS the fullness of God’s revelation, then it would have to tell us such. I haven’t found that proof-text ANYWHERE, and I have 7 more books in my Bible.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

There is no agreed upon authoritative source. The best you can do is defend “Bible Alone” according to how your denomination/church teaches it.

But the same thing goes if you want to attack the doctrine of Bible Alone. You must be specific as to which definition of Bible Alone you are attacking. And then be specific as to who holds this definition. Too often I see Catholics make up their own definition of Bible Alone and then attack all Protestants based upon their definition.

Hi Mozart, this thread was an outshoot of the thread with a Jehovah’s Witness, so I had “no creed but the Bible” definition in mind. This view entered adventism movement from the christian connection movement. Even some of the Seventh day adventists were ministers ( Uriah Smith, James White husband of Ellen White and others ) of the christian connection movement when they started SDAism.

The Christian Roots of Seventh-day Adventism

The local church where “Christian,” “Advent,” and “Sabbath” combined was established by Christian Connection believers, a religious body that in the mid-nineteenth century was fifth in membership within the United States.

Members of the Christian movement sought biblical authority for every aspect of belief. They wanted “no creed but the Bible.” Thus, if they were convinced from the Scriptures of the literal soon advent of Christ and the continuing validity of the seventh day Sabbath, their heritage demanded acceptance.

adventist.org/world_church/facts_and_figures/history/index.html.en

A parallel awakening in concerns about the ultimate fate of humanity also became common. Henry Grew wrote booklets concerning the nature of man. That, in turn, spurred **George Storrs **to spread the view more widely. As was common among the Christian connection movement, Grew also wrote The Divine Testimony Concerning the Son of God, delineating a Christology later adopted by **Charles Taze Russell **and others. Of special interest are thoughts concerning the nature of God, the nature of man, and eternal torment. George Storrs was earlier one of Miller’s able supporters. Through his book, his journal The Bible Examiner, a compilation of essays known as Six Sermons on the Inquiry: Is There Immortality in Sin and Suffering?, and numerous other booklets and tracts, he injected among Adventists a strong argument for conditional immortality. Miller himself did not accept these ideas but tolerated them for the greater good of awakening people to the near advent and judgment.

heraldmag.org/2006_history/06history_4.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&q=christian+connection+seventh+day+adventism+charles+taze+russell

google.com/search?hl=en&q=christian+connection+seventh+day+adventism

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Seventh Day Adventism

The Seventh Day Adventist movement was predominantly and officially Unitarian until 1931 with the death of Uriah Smith. But the official adoption was some time in coming and stemmed from the ministry. The Adventist Unitarian thinkers were James White, R F Cottrell Snr and Jnr, D T Bordeau until his resignation, D M Canright, J N Andrews, Loughborough, John Matteson, A C Bordeau, A T Jones, W W Prescott and Uriah Smith.

ccg.org/english/S/P170.html

 

[Steel_Arrow]

Did the NT even exist when Paul wrote that?
layhands.com/WhoWroteTheNewTestament.htm

Was there even a cannon of the NT in existence then?

If “all scripture” is taken to mean the NT too, then why stop there?

Why not include their “oral” teachings as part of scripture?

When Christ died on the cross, this was the moment the New Testament was ushered in. In Hebrews 9:15-17, the writer states; "And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of a testator.

For a testamen is in force after the men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives."

Jesus lived his earthly life under the Law of Moses. Jesus died on the cross as a Jew. Technically, when you look at it, the actualy New testament books should not include; Matthr, Mark Luke and John. Virtually 100% of each gospel takes place during Jesus’ life time. This would put the gospels in the Old Testament time frame. The New Testament should actually start with the Book of Acts.