/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>649878

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

>the bible is god

>>649878

Neither is the Trinity, yet many Baptists still hold that Roman philosophical doctrine as fact as well.

>>649878

Because baptists put their interpretation of the Bible above those who wrote it.

>>649878

>, keeping the traditions of the Old Testament?

You're confusing the OT with the Mosaic Law or the Law of Moses. Not all the OT is the Mosaic Law. Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Job, Chronicles, and prophets ARE HISTORY. Some doctrine is in them here and there but the basic list of morality is Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

History ALWAYS STANDS. However, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law because it was made obsolete and fulfilled with Christ death. Christians are now under the Covenant of Christ. That is why we don't animal sacrifice, Sabbath, dietary laws, and circumcise. That was meant only for Jews. Christ replaced all that with himself.

The Mosaic Law was done away with.

>(Romans 10:4) For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness

The rest of the Bible agrees that The Mosaic Law has come to an end.

>(Galatians 3:19-25) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; … 20 ….21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 ….23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the LAW HAS BECOME OUR TUTOR leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR.

>(Galatians 4:4, 5) But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law, 5 THAT HE MIGHT RELEASE BY PURCHASE THOSE UNDER LAW, that we, in turn, might receive the adoption as sons.

>(Matthew 5:17) “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill;

>(Romans 7:6) But now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code.

>(Ephesians 2:15) By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace;

CONTINUED

>>650067

>>649878

>(Colossians 2:14) and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.

>(Ephesians 2:14) For he is our peace, he who made the two parties one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off.

>(Galatians 3:10) For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them.”

>(Romans 7:10) And the commandment which was to life, this I found to be to death.

>(Galatians 3:13) Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.”

What makes it even more apparent that the Mosaic Law is over is that A NEW LAW was put in its place. This is the Law of Christ or the Covenant of Christ. The mediator of the Mosaic Law was Moses. However, Jesus is now the mediator OF A NEW LAW.

>(Hebrews 9:15) So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for [their] release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance.

>(Luke 22:20) Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.

>(2 Corinthians 3:6) who has indeed adequately qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not of a written code, but of spirit; for the written code condemns to death, but the spirit makes alive.

>(Hebrews 7:22) to that extent also Jesus has become the one given in pledge of a better covenant.

>(Matthew 26:28) for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.

>>650068

>>650067

>>649878

>(1 Corinthians 11:25) He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.”

>(Hebrews 8:6) But now [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises.

>(Hebrews 9:15) So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for [their] release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance.

>(Hebrews 12:24) and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s [blood]

The Old Testament PROPHESIED that the Mosaic Law or the Law Covenant would come to an end AND be replaced by a NEW covenant.

>(Jeremiah 31:31) “Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;

>(Jeremiah 32:40) And I will conclude with them an indefinitely lasting covenant, that I shall not turn back from behind them, for me to do them good; and the fear of me I shall put in their heart in order not to turn aside from me.

>(Hebrews 8:8) for he does find fault with the people when he says: “‘Look! There are days coming,’ says Jehovah, ‘and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;

>>649878

>Like, why aren't circumcisions mandatory for them

Same answer here>>650067>>650068>>650069

But also because the Apostles and the elders had a meeting about circumcision and they all unanamously concluded that it was no longer a necessity anymore and was to be done away with along with the rest of the Mosaic Law. Ac 15:6-29.

>>649899

>Roman

I think you mean apostolic friend

Keep griping like this, just don't you dare misrepresent the word of God.

>>650076

>implying there's a difference

>>649878

Seriously? The New Testament addresses these things. Have you even read it?

>>650072

Okay so if the church councils are relevant to you, then why don't you believe in apostolic succession? If Polycarp was in The Bible then you would respect him as a spiritual authority but because he isn't you just discard what he has today. That makes no sense.

>>650083

You have to be able to distinguish between real and fake before talking about this.

1 Peter 1:23-25

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

>>650083

>Okay so if the church councils are relevant to you,

They are of no relevance to me. The only council I recognize is that of Jesus Christ himself and his Apostles. None other.

> If Polycarp was in The Bible

Where is Polycarp in the Bible?

> then why don't you believe in apostolic succession?

Because it's not Biblical. It is so not Biblical that even your best of scholars admit that themselves.

>“Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.”—John McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.

>“… the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate …”—The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. I, p.696.

>“in the strict sense, the apostles left no successor,…“historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority…: “The corruption of the papal court under unworthy men approaches the incredible [unbelievable]. … the adventurers and bandits who were elected to the papacy had no interest in affirming spiritual leadership of any kind.” - Catholic Scholar John L. McKenzie, professor of theology at Notre Dame, "The Roman Catholic Church" (New York, 1969), p. 4.

>“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . . In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.

If your own scholars and encyclopedias don't believe it why should I?

>Like, why aren't circumcisions mandatory for them

Thatvwas fulfilled in the NT

>or why do they believe in the Holy Trinity

Because it's in scripture

>These things are clearly founded in the Bible

So then it's still sola scriptua

>but they are never explicitly stated plainly,

Yes they are.

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

>Like, why aren't circumcisions mandatory for them

Paul explicitly, emphatically, repeatedly, says don't get circumcised, yet it's the sola scriptura crowd that does it the most.

>>650175

Paul says circumcision is of no spiritual benefit. Circumcision spread in the US because it was wrongly believed to have health benefits. It's becoming popular in the US was not for any religious reasons whatsoever.

Hebrews 8:7,13 KJV

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. [13] In that he saith, A new covenant , he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

This, Jesus making the animals clean and the parable of the wine bottles (where you can't store new wine in an old bottle) to me are meant to symbolize the fact that Jesus fulfilled the old covenant, replacing the older "earthly" covenant for a newer, better, more "heavenly" covenant.

>>649878

>Why aren't those who folow sola scriptura, like many Baptists for example, keeping the traditions of the Old Testament? Like, why aren't circumcisions mandatory for them or why do they believe in the Holy Trinity and many other Christian traditions?

<What is the New Testament?

>These things are clearly founded in the Bible

Then rejecting them would be rejecting biblical teaching, right?

>>650083

I think he's a JW, so he only cares what his cult leaders tell him, anything in the bible to the contrary notwithstanding

because it goes: Christ -> Apostles -> Church -> Scripture

not: Christ = Scripture

>>650240

oh, and despite that one comes from the other, The Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Sacred Scripture are all 3 equal pillars, all given authority from one source: Jesus Christ.