Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[Phineas]

Reuben j said the Sabbath commandment is a thing of the past .
But Jesus says not one jot or title of the commandments are to be changed and those who do so are considered unfit for Heaven (Matt5:17-19.)

Reuben J says Jesus broke the Sabbath commandment.
But Jesus said he came not to destroy the law (commandments) and He said " I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love."(John 15:10)

Reuben J says Christians do rest and worship one day a week and that’s the Lord’s day – Sunday.
But Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath Day (Mark 2:27-28)

So am I to believe Reuben J or Jesus?

Nicea325 said:
The Old Covenant and with it the Sabbath, was replaced by the New Covenant.
But Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments and asked the apostles to pray that their flight from Judea in 70 AD would not be on the Sabbath day (John 14:15 and Matt 23:20)
The Lord also said that in the New Covenant He would write His laws in our hearts and not abolish them (Heb 8:10 and Matt 5:16-17)

So do I listen to the Lord or Nicea325?

Pablope said;
Phineas…my dear friend…the Church, a divine institution, established by Christ…was given the authority to bind and loose…as has been said countless of times here…what do you not get about that?

But Jesus said not a jot or title of the law was to be changed, and he who teaches other to do so would lose Heaven. James and Isaiah said that God was the only law giver (James 4:12 and Isaiah 33:22) So do i believe Jesus and the apostles and prophets or follow the contradictory presumptions of a church that is supposed to follow and uphold the words of Christ and not contradict them?

mackbrislawn said
From the letter of Barnabas (late 1st century )“That is why we spend the eighth day in celebration, the day on which Jesus both arose from the dead and …ascended into heaven.”

But Jesus warned against breaking a commandment in order to keep a tradition. " Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matt 15:3 and 15:6.)

You can try as you might to justify from the inspired scriptures the abolishing of the Sabbath command and the changing the Lord’s day, but you will do so in vain. Pablope’s answer is the only valid one. The Catholic church on its own authority and against the plain warning of Jesus, countermanded the law of God and removed Jesus’ lordship from the Sabbath.

James Cardinal Gibbons had it correct when he said, “But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

He also emphatically stated, " "Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes . Did Christ change the day’? I answer no!
“Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons”

Well, it all comes down to what the Apostles replied to their church leaders:
"But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." Acts 4:19

 

[studychristian]

To answer your post Phineas about Sabbath…

Here is an intereptation of the Sabbath…

Source info…

Salza, John. “SUNDAY WORSHIP.” Scripture Catholic -. ScriptureCatholic.com, 2001-2007. Web. 08 July 2012. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sunday_worship.html.

Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

 

[mackbrislawn]

mackbrislawn said
From the letter of Barnabas (late 1st century )“That is why we spend the eighth day in celebration, the day on which Jesus both arose from the dead and …ascended into heaven.”

But Jesus warned against breaking a commandment in order to keep a tradition. " Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matt 15:3 and 15:6.)

You can try as you might to justify from the inspired scriptures the abolishing of the Sabbath command and the changing the Lord’s day, but you will do so in vain. Pablope’s answer is the only valid one. The Catholic church on its own authority and against the plain warning of Jesus, countermanded the law of God and removed Jesus’ lordship from the Sabbath.

I suppose we have to conclude then that the Church went apostate immediately. This also means we don’t know anything for sure, because the false Christians that were celebrating Sunday were also the very ones that were writing ‘inspired’ scripture! Sunday was a practice the apostles permitted, and if it was wrong, it means the apostles were wrong.

It is precisely because of Jesus’ lordship of the Sabbath and because He is head of the Church, that the Church celebrated Sunday.

It is interesting that you admit that the first century church was the Catholic Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

Reuben j said the Sabbath commandment is a thing of the past .
But Jesus says not one jot or title of the commandments are to be changed and those who do so are considered unfit for Heaven (Matt5:17-19.)

Reuben J says Jesus broke the Sabbath commandment.
But Jesus said he came not to destroy the law (commandments) and He said " I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love."(John 15:10)

Reuben J says Christians do rest and worship one day a week and that’s the Lord’s day – Sunday.
But Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath Day (Mark 2:27-28)

So am I to believe Reuben J or Jesus?

Nicea325 said:
The Old Covenant and with it the Sabbath, was replaced by the New Covenant.
But Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments and asked the apostles to pray that their flight from Judea in 70 AD would not be on the Sabbath day (John 14:15 and Matt 23:20)
The Lord also said that in the New Covenant He would write His laws in our hearts and not abolish them (Heb 8:10 and Matt 5:16-17)

So do I listen to the Lord or Nicea325?

Pablope said;
Phineas…my dear friend…the Church, a divine institution, established by Christ…was given the authority to bind and loose…as has been said countless of times here…what do you not get about that?

But Jesus said not a jot or title of the law was to be changed, and he who teaches other to do so would lose Heaven. James and Isaiah said that God was the only law giver (James 4:12 and Isaiah 33:22) So do i believe Jesus and the apostles and prophets or follow the contradictory presumptions of a church that is supposed to follow and uphold the words of Christ and not contradict them?

mackbrislawn said
From the letter of Barnabas (late 1st century )“That is why we spend the eighth day in celebration, the day on which Jesus both arose from the dead and …ascended into heaven.”

But Jesus warned against breaking a commandment in order to keep a tradition. " Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matt 15:3 and 15:6.)

You can try as you might to justify from the inspired scriptures the abolishing of the Sabbath command and the changing the Lord’s day, but you will do so in vain. Pablope’s answer is the only valid one. The Catholic church on its own authority and against the plain warning of Jesus, countermanded the law of God and removed Jesus’ lordship from the Sabbath.

James Cardinal Gibbons had it correct when he said, “But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

He also emphatically stated, " "Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the **seventh day **-Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes . Did Christ change the day’? I answer no!
“Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons”

Well, it all comes down to what the Apostles replied to their church leaders:
"But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." Acts 4:19

Phineas,

I am totally convinced and I just have one question before I am on your bandwagon, with the understanding that adventing of the seventh day is important…

What do you think of Ellen White?

Actually a few more questions…

Is this true or false

The man Jesus was not the Lord Almighty? T/F

I don’t believe in a literal Hell. T/F

I believe in Investigative Judgement. T/F

I believe in Soul Sleep. T/F

Let me know so I can jump on board with you…

 

[Pythons]

Reuben j said the Sabbath commandment is a thing of the past .
But Jesus says not one jot or title of the commandments are to be changed and those who do so are considered unfit for Heaven (Matt5:17-19.)

Until all be “fulfilled” Phineas…
…Christians hold that Jesus indeed fulfilled things, according to the Scriptures.
…Do you observe the other Jewish religious rubrics?

Phineas:

Reuben J says Jesus broke the Sabbath commandment.
But Jesus said he came not to destroy the law (commandments) and He said " I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love."(John 15:10)

He said He came to “fulfill” the law and the prophets…
…Here, let me share a Bible verse with you.

Luke 24,44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ALL things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me

Much to the disdain of SDA’s is the Biblical reality that Christ would not sin or FAIL…
…So, this had to be fulfilled just like it had to be fulfilled that Christ would be born from a Virgin, called out of Egypt, etc,etc…
…Take it to the bank - when Jesus said it is finished on the cross He wasn’t implying He was all washed up.
…Poor little Jesus, all washed up - all finished.

Given the SDA obsession with the Book of Daniel we offer a gem from that Book…
…Which according to Our Lord Himself, HAD TO BE FULFILLED.

Daniel 2,44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: AND the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: AND the dream is certain, AND** the interpretation thereof SURE**

Ironic that Ellen White rebuked the ‘great God of heaven’ multiple times in her teachings…
…When she feverishly promulgated that Christ could have sinned, could have failed.
…And had this taken place the wrath of the great God of heaven would have come against Chsist.
…And the great God of heaven would have annihilated creature christ eternally!

I’m sorry, this type of anti-Trinitarianism has reached the end of the road…
…We know all about Ellen’s explicit and rank semi Arianism.
…It’s the same ignorant ‘study’ that’s led SDA’s to believe that the Catholic Church stold the Sabbath.

Phineas:

Reuben J says Christians do rest and worship one day a week and that’s the Lord’s day – Sunday.
But Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath Day (Mark 2:27-28)

So am I to believe Reuben J or Jesus?

Lord of equates to being “Lord OVER”…
…There was a deeper meaning involved when Jesus mixed His spit with dirt to heal the man.
…You should go back and read that text again.

Phineas:

Nicea325 said:
The Old Covenant and with it the Sabbath, was replaced by the New Covenant.
But Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments and asked the apostles to pray that their flight from Judea in 70 AD would not be on the Sabbath day (John 14:15 and Matt 23:20)
The Lord also said that in the New Covenant He would write His laws in our hearts and not abolish them (Heb 8:10 and Matt 5:16-17)

So do I listen to the Lord or Nicea325?

The Christians listened to Jesus & that’s why none of them died when Jerusalem was sacked by the Roman Empire…
…Had they been in the city and missed the “sign” the gates would have been closed & they couldn’t have escaped.

As the Christians were already assembling on Sunday to worship Christ this wasn’t very much of a problem.

 

[stevekehl]

But what’s that got to do with sola scriptura as applied in reality? In the fantasy situtaion, the person all alone could be saved, sure. But if there are others there with him and he sees that Scripture says to proclaim the Gospel, he can quickly much things up by proclaiming a false Gospel.

For example, let’s take the same guy on the same island, and now he decides to proclaim the Word. He notices in the Bible that Scripture seems to simultaneously imply that he can lose his salvation and that he can’t. Using only the Bible, how does he come to the correct conclusion?

To quote another poster on another forum: “This is not an occasion where you throw me verses that show that I can either lose my salvation or not. You all must obviously know that there are two competing views. Using Sola Scriptura, show me how to resolve this conundrum.” (Obiectivum, Christian Website forum)

First, the island is deserted, no one to which he can proclaim the Gospel (that sounds awkward, but my mother was a teacher and would be appalled if I ended a sentence with a preposition). Second, implications are not crucial to salvation, what is necessary is spelled out. The Scriptures say to remember Christ whenever we take communion, whether daily, weekly, monthly, our salvation doesn’t depend on it. Yet the CC requires communion observance to be in a state of grace. Things like this lead people to start teaching the security of salvation (which I believe to be untrue). The Scriptures teach that God is always with us, indwelt by the Holy Spirit and Christ is present when we gather for worship or study. But also that we can lose the light Hebrews 6, also reading in Luke how the apostles were sent out with authority to heal the sick and crippled, cast out demons and raise the dead, yet Judas betrayed Jesus and killed himself. Judas obviously had the power of the Holy Spirit with him when he did these things, but ultimately doubted Christ’s redemptive power.
I understand that people teach incorrect theology by taking verses out of context, but that is a result of a lack of study. I’m not saying teachers don’t need training or oversight by elders, I’m saying the Scriptures are the final authority and should be consulted and quoted before non-Biblical writings.

 

[stevekehl]

We are crossing over each other’s head, Stephen.

I would want to know who put the Bible together.

God does not have a printing press down here. So who put it together, who decided the books, were there others? Who has the authority???

It is about the Incarnation…not about text. God brings us into the divine, and He comes to us through the human.

Do you think Christ made a mistake not passing out Bible books? He should have done that, then, not 1500 years later…

What about the 2nd letter of Peter…not to follow your personal interpretation…God might not be in your interpretation…

All good points. Only a fool would deny that the Catholic Church (then just called The Church) preserved, copied, distributed, read, taught and compiled the writings we call the Bible. However, if you believe in a transcendent God and all things unfold by His will you must admit the books we have in the Bible were directed by Him. God does have a printing press down here, it is every printing press ever built. Some are used for wrong purposes, but God gave the knowledge leading to printing to spread knowledge, especially knowledge about His word.
Moving on, Jesus’ ministry was not producing scrolls, but teaching, healing, living as an example to us, sacrificing His life for our sins, and rising from the dead. The Bible is the only Holy book that was not written by one or two authors in a short span of time, but dozens of authors over centuries. This, to me, proves its validity more than if the whole NT was written by Jesus, it shows Gods overarching authority and guidance.
I’m not sure what you mean by juxtaposing Incarnation and text. The text is how God chose to communicate with us. I certainly don’t worship the Scriptures but I do hold them higher than any non-biblical writing, including the Magesterium, Traditions, catechysms, and ECF writings.
As far as the verse in Peter, let’s look at context. Peter is talking about the Messianic prophecies of the OT and how they authenticate the ministry of Jesus. These prophecies were not the personal opinions or thoughts of the prophets but the message of God to His people. Not saying that teachers and preachers don’t need training, or that Bible commentaries and study guides are not valuable tools, every Christian should be thoroughly familiar with Scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

All good points. Only a fool would deny that the Catholic Church (then just called The Church) preserved, copied, distributed, read, taught and compiled the writings we call the Bible. However, if you believe in a transcendent God and all things unfold by His will you must admit the books we have in the Bible were directed by Him. God does have a printing press down here, it is every printing press ever built. Some are used for wrong purposes, but God gave the knowledge leading to printing to spread knowledge, especially knowledge about His word.
Moving on, Jesus’ ministry was not producing scrolls, but teaching, healing, living as an example to us, sacrificing His life for our sins, and rising from the dead. The Bible is the only Holy book that was not written by one or two authors in a short span of time, but dozens of authors over centuries. This, to me, proves its validity more than if the whole NT was written by Jesus, it shows Gods overarching authority and guidance.
I’m not sure what you mean by juxtaposing Incarnation and text. The text is how God chose to communicate with us. I certainly don’t worship the Scriptures but I do hold them higher than any non-biblical writing, including the Magesterium, Traditions, catechysms, and ECF writings.
As far as the verse in Peter, let’s look at context. Peter is talking about the Messianic prophecies of the OT and how they authenticate the ministry of Jesus. These prophecies were not the personal opinions or thoughts of the prophets but the message of God to His people. Not saying that teachers and preachers don’t need training, or that Bible commentaries and study guides are not valuable tools, every Christian should be thoroughly familiar with Scripture.

Stevo,

And it was the authority of those in charge of the printing press, tradtion of men on earth, not God that removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Bible.:yup:

I cannot submit to the authority of a printing press.:nope:

 

[Hunter24]

Sola Scriptura appears nowhere in the Bible. It literaly refutes itself. As a Protestant for a quote from the bible affirming that it is the only authority, they won’t find one. And by there own logic then, sola scriptura is wrong.

 

[JonNC]

Sola Scriptura appears nowhere in the Bible. It literaly refutes itself. As a Protestant for a quote from the bible affirming that it is the only authority, they won’t find one. And by there own logic then, sola scriptura is wrong.

This would be true if sola scriptura needed an affirmation from the Bible, such as a doctrine does. Further, SS does not affirm scripture as the only authority. Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church that holds teachers, teachings, and doctrines accountable. It does not exclude other authorities, but instead holds them accountable to scripture as the final norm.

Hence:
Catholic model - Sacred Tradition as an authority is equal to Sacred Scripture
Lutheran model - Sacred Tradition as an authority is accountable to Sacred Scripture

Jon

 

[Hunter24]

This would be true if sola scriptura needed an affirmation from the Bible, such as a doctrine does. Further, SS does not affirm scripture as the only authority. Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church that holds teachers, teachings, and doctrines accountable. It does not exclude other authorities, but instead holds them accountable to scripture as the final norm.

Hence:
Catholic model - Sacred Tradition as an authority is equal to Sacred Scripture
Lutheran model - Sacred Tradition as an authority is accountable to Sacred Scripture

Jon

Very true, and correct for Lutherans. However the Luthrans are one of the more traditional Protestant branches, there are many others with a much more literal oppinion of Sola Scriptura. Fundimentalist Protestants take a much firmer stand on Sola Scriptura than even Missouri Lutherans.

 

[Taestron]

Very true, and correct for Lutherans. However the Luthrans are one of the more traditional Protestant branches, there are many others with a much more literal oppinion of Sola Scriptura. Fundimentalist Protestants take a much firmer stand on Sola Scriptura than even Missouri Lutherans.

I have known pastors who would claim this literal interpretation of sola scriptura of which you speak, but it has always been clear to me that this position defeats itself as you would suggest. But all those I have known who hold to sola scriptura would do so at least to the degree described by JonNC, so it would seem that would be the interpretation which deserves discussion.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

If you were stranded on an island, with only the Scriptures, could you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus message? If you only had access to the Scriptures could you become a Christian? I say yes.

thats a big hypothetical because by the time you finish in revelations you could have an understanding of everything you just read thats sooo severely different from what Christ actually taught. Where protestants go wrong is they miss context in much of what is taught. That’s why there is so much disagreement even amongst protestants and non denominationals. They all end up using individual interpretation (which Scriptures itself speaks against). That’s why Christ gave us His Church. The Church interprets Scriptures and guides us. The way the Church interprets God’s Word is the way Christ passed it to the Apostles and the Apostles to their disciples etc down through time to the present day. Its called Apostolic Succession and is closely guarded and guided by the Holy Spirit as was Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18-19

 

[JonNC]

Very true, and correct for Lutherans. However the Luthrans are one of the more traditional Protestant branches, there are many others with a much more literal oppinion of Sola Scriptura. Fundimentalist Protestants take a much firmer stand on Sola Scriptura than even Missouri Lutherans.

I would say that some of the latter more radical protestants have morphed it into something it is not. If they were taking a strong stand, they would agree with us.

Jon

 

[jpaul1953]

Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558

Dear suzyQ,

Please don’t read the hateful gibberish. They make up proves Buy Jimmy Akins book “the Fathers know best”. This will show you that our Church teaches exactly what the beginnings of our Church has taught from the beginning to the present, which is truth and only truth.

If you keep reading these lies you will stay confused since these liars can’t defend their own churches, just knock down ours. Pure gibberish!

Respectfully,

Joe

 

[Hunter24]

I would say that some of the latter more radical protestants have morphed it into something it is not. If they were taking a strong stand, they would agree with us.

Jon

Agreed, they have created something Luther never intended. My highschool theology teacher Alwase said that Luther probably regretted Sola Scriptura because it caused to much disagreement over the interpretation, and weekend the tradition that was holding western Christianity together. So instead of a reform of the catholic church, he got a bunch of squabbling factions.

 

[Phineas]

I suppose we have to conclude then that the Church went apostate immediately. This also means we don’t know anything for sure, because the false Christians that were celebrating Sunday were also the very ones that were writing ‘inspired’ scripture! Sunday was a practice the apostles permitted, and if it was wrong, it means the apostles were wrong.

Mackbrislawn, could you provide some scriptural basis for your claim that the apostles celebrated and revered Sunday, called it the Lord’s day and broke the Sabbath command? I have read the New Testament more than once and never saw what you are claiming.

In Acts 13:42 we find ,: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.” Then reading further: “Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the** next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”(**Acts 13:43-44 )

When Paul and Luke were at Philippi Luke said, “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spoke unto the women which resorted thither.”( Acts 16:13) It should be noted that Luke was a converted gentile and not a Jew and. Called the 7th day by its God-given
name, “the Sabbath.”

In Corinth, Paul was a tent maker by trade, and we can see by the following verses that he was preaching rather than working on the Lord’s Holy Sabbath day:.

Cor 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; ;;;;
18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

In this account Luke again calls it the “Sabbath” day. Luke, a Gentile, never called the Sabbath “the Sabbath of the Jews”. But he would use the term "of the Jews " for those things Jewish.
Note:: “nation of the Jews”(Acts 10:22); “land of the Jews” (Acts 10:39); “people of the Jews” (Acts 12:11); and “synagogue of the Jews” (Acts 14:1). But he never says “Sabbath of the Jews”.

Luke says he had “perfect understanding of all things from the very first.” (Luke 1:3.) Moreover he said that in his gospel he gives us a treatise of “all that Jesus began both to do and teach.” (Acts 1:l.) So the
fact that we find nothing in the Book of Luke about Jesus ever once mentioning the first day of the week is positive proof that He never gave any command on that point, and that explains why we find nothing in the
apostolic preaching on Sunday observance.

No apostle was ever condemned by the Jews for not keeping the Sabbath. Paul was stoned and scourged for his stand against the necessity of circumcision and other ceremonial requirements, but never for Sabbath breaking.

When the Jewish leaders brought charges against Paul before Governor Felix, Pual, in his defense, said: a
Acts 24:19 Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
24:20 Or else let these same [here] say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council,
24:21 Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.

No one ever charged Paul with breaking the Sabbath or teaching other to do so. And no apostle ever faced such charges either.

 

[ahs]

First, the island is deserted, no one to which he can proclaim the Gospel…

(The rest of your post had nothing to do with sola scriptura.)

To quote a more recent poster:

thats a big hypothetical because by the time you finish in revelations you could have an understanding of everything you just read thats sooo severely different from what Christ actually taught. Where protestants go wrong is they miss context in much of what is taught. That’s why there is so much disagreement even amongst protestants and non denominationals. They all end up using individual interpretation (which Scriptures itself speaks against). That’s why Christ gave us His Church. The Church interprets Scriptures and guides us. The way the Church interprets God’s Word is the way Christ passed it to the Apostles and the Apostles to their disciples etc down through time to the present day. Its called Apostolic Succession and is closely guarded and guided by the Holy Spirit as was Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18-19

In other words, in the hypothetical, God can take into consideration the person’s desire to grow close to God. But let’s get back into reality since that is where you and I live. If a person begins preaching theGospel, he can either preach Truth, or he can preach a false gospel. So, applying your scenario to a more realistic scene:

… let’s take the same guy only this time, a real guy who really read the Bible ] on the same island only this time in a real world situation, in a real place, with a real audience], and now he decides to proclaim the Word. He notices in the Bible that Scripture seems to simultaneously imply that he can lose his salvation and that he can’t. Using only the Bible, how does he come to the correct conclusion?

To quote another poster on another forum: “This is not an occasion where you throw me verses that show that I can either lose my salvation or not. You all must obviously know that there are two competing views. Using Sola Scriptura, show me how to resolve this conundrum.” (Obiectivum, Christian Website forum)

 

[aragonjohn1]

Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

• scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#scripture-I
• philvaz.com/apologetics/debate11.htm
• philvaz.com/apologetics/books.htm

Shalom
God Bless you on your journey : )

 

[CopticChristian]

Mackbrislawn, could you provide some scriptural basis for your claim that the apostles celebrated and revered Sunday, called it the Lord’s day and broke the** Sabbath **command? I have read the New Testament more than once and never saw what you are claiming.

In Acts 13:42 we find ,: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.” Then reading further: “Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the** next Sabbath** day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”(Acts 13:43-44 )

When Paul and Luke were at Philippi Luke said, “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spoke unto the women which resorted thither.”( Acts 16:13) It should be noted that Luke was a converted gentile and not a Jew and. Called the 7th day by its God-given
name, “the **Sabbath.” **
In Corinth, Paul was a tent maker by trade, and we can see by the following verses that he was preaching rather than working on the Lord’s Holy **Sabbath **day:.

Cor 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; ;;;;
18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

In this account Luke again calls it the "Sabbath" day. Luke, a Gentile, never called the **Sabbath **“the **Sabbath **of the Jews”. But he would use the term "of the Jews " for those things Jewish.
Note:: “nation of the Jews”(Acts 10:22); “land of the Jews” (Acts 10:39); “people of the Jews” (Acts 12:11); and “synagogue of the Jews” (Acts 14:1). But he never says “Sabbath of the Jews”.

Luke says he had “perfect understanding of all things from the very first.” (Luke 1:3.) Moreover he said that in his gospel he gives us a treatise of “all that Jesus began both to do and teach.” (Acts 1:l.) So the
fact that we find nothing in the Book of Luke about Jesus ever once mentioning the first day of the week is positive proof that He never gave any command on that point, and that explains why we find nothing in the
apostolic preaching on Sunday observance.

No apostle was ever condemned by the Jews for not keeping the Sabbath. Paul was stoned and scourged for his stand against the necessity of circumcision and other ceremonial requirements, but never for Sabbath breaking.

When the Jewish leaders brought charges against Paul before Governor Felix, Pual, in his defense, said: a
Acts 24:19 Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
24:20 Or else let these same [here] say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council,
24:21 Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.

No one ever charged Paul with breaking the Sabbath or teaching other to do so. And no apostle ever faced such charges either.

Phineas,

I am ready to join you…you are convincing…you have yet to answer my question…

All I am asking is are you a Seventh-Day Sabbatarian…because that is what your shouting here…you have yet to tell me what you think of Ellen White…now come on…fess up here…