Harold Camping has refuted Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter RSD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dswearin said:
Unfortunately, you misread my use of the word “may”, I guess I should have worded it as, “even though the Bible is sufficient”. But I don’t want the bare minimum, the Bible itself says that more happened than what was written, and I want it all. I don’t want a minimal salvation, but a maximal one. Unfortunately your entire response was based on a misinterpretation of my words…oh, I guess that’s ironic…
Click to expand...
No I understood you perfectly. You stated that “the bible may be sufficient, BUT.” There is no but. There is no level of salvation, minimal or maximal. How can you even state that? Jesus died for all to have eternal life. There is no minimal salvation. You see what happens when you put the church writings before the bible. You categorize by placing you salvation above another. Where is that in the bible? If you use the bible only, minimal and maximal wouldn’t even be an issue. The bible leads fully on it’s own, it does not need extra. Are the people who died in Christ less saved than the people who have the later revelations from the RCC?

When God gave Moses both of the laws, what did Moses add on?
 
Keys123 said:
No I understood you perfectly. You stated that “the bible may be sufficient, BUT.” There is no but. There is no level of salvation, minimal or maximal. How can you even state that? Jesus died for all to have eternal life. There is no minimal salvation. You see what happens when you put the church writings before the bible. You categorize by placing you salvation above another. Where is that in the bible? If you use the bible only, minimal and maximal wouldn’t even be an issue. The bible leads fully on it’s own, it does not need extra. Are the people who died in Christ less saved than the people who have the later revelations from the RCC?

When God gave Moses both of the laws, what did Moses add on?
Click to expand...
A minimal salvation theology says, “what is the bare minimum I must do to be saved?” I’m not interested in the least I can do, but the most I can do and the most I can learn. You did not understand what I meant, as evidenced by your continued false assertions. When you deal with “sufficient”, you deal with the bare minimum. “Sufficient” doesn’t equal “all” or “only”. As for your Moses example, how do you know that God did not give these teachings to the early church? And how could you know everything the Bible teaches when the originators of Protestantism threw out books that didn’t agree with their theology, books that were included in every Bible for Christendom’s first 1500 years?
 
Keys123 said:
This I think is my last post. How would we know about His death if we didn’t have the bible. You just proved my point. What is in the bible is all that we need to believe. 🙂 We need to know about His death and resurrection, therefore it is in there. See my point?
Click to expand...
In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority (even when they are being rank hypocrites): “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you.” The idea of “Moses’ Seat” cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, but it appears in the (originally oral) Mishna, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down. Also, in Matthew 2:23 the reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” is absent from the Old Testament, yet it had been passed down (orally) “by the prophets.” In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. In the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water, the Old Testament doesn’t say anything about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
Nor did the Jews ever accept Sola Scriptura. Only the skeptical Sadducees rejected oral Tradition, but they also rejected the future resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal rewards and retribution, and demons and angels. The nature of authority in Old Testament times is illustrated by Ezra, a priest and scribe who taught the Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death.
Therefore, the overwhelming weigh of relevant biblical data is opposed to the central Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone, or Sola Scriptura, and strongly supports the idea of authoritative tradition.
 
dswearin said:
A minimal salvation theology says, “what is the bare minimum I must do to be saved?” I’m not interested in the least I can do, but the most I can do and the most I can learn. You did not understand what I meant, as evidenced by your continued false assertions. When you deal with “sufficient”, you deal with the bare minimum. “Sufficient” doesn’t equal “all” or “only”. As for your Moses example, how do you know that God did not give these teachings to the early church? And how could you know everything the Bible teaches when the originators of Protestantism threw out books that didn’t agree with their theology, books that were included in every Bible for Christendom’s first 1500 years?
Click to expand...
The bible does not provide us with the LEAST we can do. It is ALL we can do until Jesus comes back and reveals other things to us. You are adding on salvation by works and thats another discussion. You are literally putting the bible lower than the catholic church by saying if we follow the bible alone we will only gain a minimal salvation but if we follow what the RCC has instructed then we will know all that we need to know. Christ’s death on the cross, which is mentioned in the bible, is apart of this “minimal” salvation you speak of. Please stop placing the RCC above the bible and in most cases in the place of Jesus.

You are saying (whether you realize it or not) that you need the RCC above Christ to do all that you can do for Christ.
 
Keys123 said:
The bible does not provide us with the LEAST we can do. It is ALL we can do until Jesus comes back and reveals other things to us. You are adding on salvation by works and thats another discussion. You are literally putting the bible lower than the catholic church by saying if we follow the bible alone we will only gain a minimal salvation but if we follow what the RCC has instructed then we will know all that we need to know. Christ’s death on the cross, which is mentioned in the bible, is apart of this “minimal” salvation you speak of. Please stop placing the RCC above the bible and in most cases in the place of Jesus.

You are saying (whether you realize it or not) that you need the RCC above Christ to do all that you can do for Christ.
Click to expand...
That is not being said at all. “Whoever has ears to hear ought to hear”
 
The Bible came from the Church. So, to me at least, that means the Church has authority over the Bible. Before Jesus left earth He didn’t put together a cannon of scripture, He built a Church, His Church.
 
Keys123 said:
The bible does not provide us with the LEAST we can do. It is ALL we can do until Jesus comes back and reveals other things to us. You are adding on salvation by works and thats another discussion. You are literally putting the bible lower than the catholic church by saying if we follow the bible alone we will only gain a minimal salvation but if we follow what the RCC has instructed then we will know all that we need to know. Christ’s death on the cross, which is mentioned in the bible, is apart of this “minimal” salvation you speak of. Please stop placing the RCC above the bible and in most cases in the place of Jesus.

You are saying (whether you realize it or not) that you need the RCC above Christ to do all that you can do for Christ.
Click to expand...
These words are only showing your misconceptions about the Catholic Church. Catholics do not put the Church above the Bible, nor do they put the bible above the Church. For the two are equally important in preserving and spreading God’s Word.
 
On one of the local newscasts last night, their informal poll showed 6% believed the world would end today.

Any way you slice it, that’s some pretty good $$.
 
Keys123 said:
You are stuck on the “church” and not the bible. Anyone with one eye can see that you are placing the bible beneath the church. This is hindering you from seeing that the bible alone is all you need.
Click to expand...
Then why didnt jesus hand over a book, why bother in establishing a Catholic church? Why can’t protestants agree on a supposedly self-interpreting bible.
 
Keys123 said:
The bible does not provide us with the LEAST we can do. It is ALL we can do until Jesus comes back and reveals other things to us. You are adding on salvation by works and thats another discussion. You are literally putting the bible lower than the catholic church by saying if we follow the bible alone we will only gain a minimal salvation but if we follow what the RCC has instructed then we will know all that we need to know. Christ’s death on the cross, which is mentioned in the bible, is apart of this “minimal” salvation you speak of. Please stop placing the RCC above the bible and in most cases in the place of Jesus.

You are saying (whether you realize it or not) that you need the RCC above Christ to do all that you can do for Christ.
Click to expand...
Instead of putting your words into our friends mouth, (whether you realize it or not), maybe you would like to put forward some intelligent reasoned argument for your Bible alone stance!

‘Sola scripture’ unleashes diverse interpretation of Gods Holy Word. According to Wikipedia there are over 38,000 Christian denominations worldwide. This logically rules out by the way your earlier assertion that
No you shouldn’t attempt to interpret it on your own but with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit,you do not need man to do it for you.
Click to expand...
The Holy spirit would not be doing His job very well if what you say is true! I say this to show you how farcical your logic on the question is and to point out that the Holy Spirit guides only those within the Catholic faith.Those outside are evidently without truth or guidance.The above statistic alone begs the question - How does the Sola scriptura believer have any credible argument against a single divine teaching authority which is the Catholic church?

Furthermore, nothing is more strongly and repeatedly condemned in the Bible
than divisions, sectarianism, and denominationalism. The Bible teaches that
there is one Church only, with one truth and one unified apostolic tradition.

At the Last Supper our Lord Jesus prayed for Christians to be “one even as we [the Father and the Son] are one” and “perfectly one”;

John 17:22–23
22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
23 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.

He also spoke of the Church as being “one flock” with “one shepherd.

John 10:16
And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

The answer is that scripture alone (sola scriptura) without the original and one true Church (one flock) guidance (one shepherd) is not scriptural, its advocates are being disobedient to the word of God.

Finally i have witnessed at so called Bible study class’s anything from 20 something to 70 year old men preaching and giving their own version on the word of God.
These same men will not accept over 2000 years of Church teaching yet they are qualified to preach their own word in just a few years!? At one of these study lessons the preacher (who was aware that a few Catholic relatives had been invited), told a joke about Catholic parents bringing their babies to the baptismal font, as he put it: for nothing more than to wash the babies heads.Through the roars of laughter from those assembled so called christians,with utter disgust i made my leave.Proverbs 24:9 The thought of a fool is sin: and the detractor is the abomination of men.

**Mt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mt 7:16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? **
 
Keys123 said:
Actually, he did not defeat sola scriptura. He did what the catholic church has done for many years. He add to the bible and that my friend is why he failed. Example: The catholic church can’t truly identify who the anti-christ is because they add to the bible instead of letting the bible define itself. No you shouldn’t attempt to interpret it on your own but with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, you do not need man to do it for you.
Click to expand...
Then how come there are 33000 different protestant denominations with different interpretations and understanding of the Bible? If it was the Holy Spirit guiding each one, how come there is no unity among protestants, continue to split and so forth?

If it is the HS, shouldn’t there be unity? Is the HS the cause of confusion? Or is it because of your pride and ego?
 
Keys123 said:
The scriptures written by the prophets and God’s inspired writers.
Click to expand...
How do you know this? Who told you this factoid? Or how did you get to learn of this fact?Did the Bible tell you? Or did someone tell you? And where did that someone get the information to tell you?
 
Keys123 said:
My point is that Camping made this mistake because he added to the bible. Whether it was calculations or traditions, it was wrong and his prediction failed. If we let the prophecies define themselves and show us the end, then these things won’t happen.
Click to expand...
He did not add to the Bible…he extrapolated passages from the Bible to come to his predictions. I think you are mistaking things here with your ego and pride.

If Camping added to the Bible, what did he add?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top