CENI Commands Examples Inferences Part A + B + C + D

Bill
Bill

May 3rd, 2014, 10:34 pm #41

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Yes, Sarge, Bill continues to deride, despise and detest the forum he can't leave and leave alone. Bill, have you tried the ex-churchofchrist discussion board? Why not expend your time and energy more wisely there?[/color]
Sarge, what's really odd is that Donnie approves messages for posting, then turns around and bitterly complains about how they "deride, despise and detest [this] forum." It's as though he enjoys berating those who criticize his forum.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 3rd, 2014, 11:21 pm #42

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Folks may just be curious about your negative comments, Bill (previously an ardent supporter of "this" forum). You see ... they would have no way of knowing your non-constructive criticisms if they were unpublished.

Now, if you would simply participate in discussing the doctrinal matter at hand -- that would be desirable. We are discussing "CENI" -- a topic you can thoroughly explain to those who are not familiar with the principle.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

May 3rd, 2014, 11:28 pm #43

So, Donnie, what would be the rationale for publishing posts that were, in your opinion, "non-constructive," unless your intent was to get a thrill out of bashing them? BTW, this is for your eyes only.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

May 4th, 2014, 12:34 am #44

A student never ceases learning: I have my first book on Electrical Engineering (c 1954) and a 1920 algebra book in my bathroom where I read.

*****************


I have a feeling you spend far too much time in the bathroom. A cheat sheet just for you that you can put in your pocket.





That's the best way to make certain that you are not full of it.
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

May 4th, 2014, 1:00 am #45

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Folks may just be curious about your negative comments, Bill (previously an ardent supporter of "this" forum). You see ... they would have no way of knowing your non-constructive criticisms if they were unpublished.

Now, if you would simply participate in discussing the doctrinal matter at hand -- that would be desirable. We are discussing "CENI" -- a topic you can thoroughly explain to those who are not familiar with the principle.[/color]
From the way things look, if all the responders who criticized this site were to depart, then Donnie and Ken would virtually be the only ones left to post here on any kind of regular basis. Maybe that's what they ultimately want---no opposing views from anyone.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 4th, 2014, 1:06 am #46




Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of alone, ground, base, and the word scriptura meaning writings-referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealedthe Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with Gods Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scriptures authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scriptures authority is universal; because it is Gods Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is Gods Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of Gods Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, Gods Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, Gods Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.



Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-script ... z30gzDygtD
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks, Sarge. An excellent article explaining to those who may not know what "sola scriptura" means.

ConcernedMembers agrees -- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Tim. 3:16).

Know that the Holy Scripture speaks of both good and evil in humankind. It cannot be denied that idolatry, including musical idolatry, is frequently described in the Bible.

Images of idolatry, of musical idolatry, from a historical perspective are presented here by design to illustrate and provide evidences for what the Holy Scripture has already revealed.

The message? We don't need inanimate objects and holy entertainment to worship and honor our heavenly Father. It is that simple. As simple as "sola scriptura."[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

May 4th, 2014, 1:27 am #47

Some here attempt to blend pagan myths with the Word of God. I was raised to honor and respect the Word of God. I am just a mere Southern Baptist visitor at CM and it is your show to manage. By all means "carry on".
Sarge, what do you think of Rick Warren?


Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

May 4th, 2014, 1:29 am #48




Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of alone, ground, base, and the word scriptura meaning writings-referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealedthe Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with Gods Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scriptures authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scriptures authority is universal; because it is Gods Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is Gods Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of Gods Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, Gods Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, Gods Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.



Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-script ... z30gzDygtD
Thank you very much you can repent now or repent never. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of Gods Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, Gods Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, Gods Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

That has nothing to say about what I study or post: it only applies to elders who are not gifts from Christ in that they do not follow the command to elders to excise the cunning craftsmen or sophists (rhetoricians, singers, instrument players) SO that we can speak that which is written for our learning.

It is a good thing that there was no liturgical act (magic) of singing before the year 373 which split the east from the west churches.

It is a very good thing because Sola Scripture does not include any commanded resource which can or ever was sung tunefully.

It is Sola Scripture that Jesus paid it all especially the Temple Tax and He removed the laded burden and burden laders from off our backs. Jesus said that ALMS should go from my hand to the hand of the poor. Paul DID NOT COMMAND even a ONE TIME OFFERING form the famine. He said it was NOT A COMMAND and Sola Scripture was never so dishonored until recently.

Sola Scripture does not authorize a preacher as in I WILL MAKE UP MY OWN silly jokes and personal references which violate the command of WORD or Logos.

Sola Scripture authorizes only APT Elders and Deacons which are THE MINISTERS.

Sola Scripture defines the ROLE of a true church as "to make known the Word of God TO THE WORLD."

By EXCLUSION Sola Scripture does not authorize "ministries or ministers" beyond the vocational deacons. It does not authorize PROGRAMS beyond being A School of the Word. From the wilderness onward Sola Scripture speaks of the assembly ONLY on the REST DAY: Sabbath outlawed all that you plan to do in the name of Jesus. Jesus used the word PAUO which means STOP the self-speaking, liturgical singing (magic), stop the playing, stop the theatrics meaning stop the PANIC created by religious rituals which induces fright if they really believe that YOU have the power to lead them into the power.

Look carefully in the morning and see an UNAPPROVED EXAMPLE of having little to none of the DNA of the Gospel of the KINGDOM.

Young people catch on about grade 6 and will rise up and called you cursed because you really had NO interest in the Word you claim as the resource for your living off widows and honest workers.

My informed guess is that you will perform the liturgical ACT of reading which WORK is fulfilled by read a small part of one verse. The preacher will use it as his TEXT FROM GOD but he may fail to mention either the verse or the context.








Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

May 4th, 2014, 1:45 am #49

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks, Sarge. An excellent article explaining to those who may not know what "sola scriptura" means.

ConcernedMembers agrees -- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Tim. 3:16).

Know that the Holy Scripture speaks of both good and evil in humankind. It cannot be denied that idolatry, including musical idolatry, is frequently described in the Bible.

Images of idolatry, of musical idolatry, from a historical perspective are presented here by design to illustrate and provide evidences for what the Holy Scripture has already revealed.

The message? We don't need inanimate objects and holy entertainment to worship and honor our heavenly Father. It is that simple. As simple as "sola scriptura."[/color]
good point: the bound book is a very large library.

If Scripture says that God turned Israel over to worship the starry host because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai

And Christ in the prophets says that God did not command the Civil-Military-Clergy complex to which He abandoned them.

And Christ in the prophets warns against the "lying pen of the Scribes."

And Jesus calls the Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites. And in the Ezekiel 33 version by the Spirit OF Christ He names entertaining speakers for hire, singers, instrument players and the audience.

Then we understand that Sola Scripture uses pagan worship rituals to tell us what we are NOT to do. The Levite's use of noise making instrument for prophesying (soothsaying-sorcery), does not mean an APPROVED EXAMPLE for us?

If David wants to bash in the heads of little babies and wants to worship in the FIRMAMENT with the girl's instruments, that is not Sola Scripture as a PATTERN for the School of the Word.

It is a fact that if a preacher can find David using an instrument in any context, THEY SAY that God commands instrumental praise for THIS church (My old defunct congregation in Murfreesboro.)

Sola Scripture is for our LEARNING and not a grab bag for picking up loose scraps to help MARKET false teaching. I am working on understanding Dark Matter: I don't ever intend to use any of it in a utilitarian way.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 4th, 2014, 2:53 am #50

So, Donnie, what would be the rationale for publishing posts that were, in your opinion, "non-constructive," unless your intent was to get a thrill out of bashing them? BTW, this is for your eyes only.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Oops! Just clicked the "Approve Message" button. Not inadvertently, though. But you've been bashing this site and its moderators for how long now? That's what I meant by "non-constructive."[/color]
Quote
Like
Share