Which scripture is used to support "Sola Scriptura"?

Question

Please list the Biblical scripture you use to support Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).

Answer 1

Probably the one that says: "And many more things that Jesus did could not be written down, for there are not enough books in the world."



yeah, I'm paraphrasing, so what.

XD

Answer 2

Psalms 12:6,7 Isa. 8:20, I Pet. 1:23-25, Rev. 3:8, Luke 11:51(eliminates apocrypha) Book of Isaiah which has 66 chapters,matching the 66 books in the Bible.

Answer 3

In the NWT Jehovah is used 237 times: 112 quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures, 125 instances have no reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has fixated the followers on the name they use "Jehovah". The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has no justification to use "Jehovah" in translating the Christian Greek Scriptures. There is not one Greek version of God's name in the manuscripts. In these instances translators at the most should 'footnote' that the verse is a direct quote from such and such verse that contains the tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the Hebrew scripture. The rest of the cases is pure error and without justification. The name 'Jehovah' is a gross mistranslation of God Almighty's name. This name is pure adultery of the Tetragrammaton and should be purged. There are seven instances in which the KJV translators used "Jehovah". This was a mistake and following translators removed the abomination.

Answer 4

Luke 1:1-4 supports the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, and defeats the Fundamentalist concept (those being two quite different things).



* Written documentation such as Luke's gospel are needed as authoritative verification of the teachings we receive. Without them, the oral tradition could just say whatever people want it to say.



* Luke's gospel does not pretend to be a sole source of any and all information, to the exclusion of the oral tradition. Rather, it gives the oral tradition the backing of an authoritative document.

Answer 5

The doctrine is arrived at systematically, but the strongest single passage is 2 Tim 3:14-17 where Paul says that scripture is 1. God-breathed 2. Profitable for doctrine, exhortation, correction etc... and 3. That it actually makes the man of God perfect and FULLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK. What do the terms "perfect", "fully equipped", and "every good work" mean?

What source tells you that Tradition is equal in authority to God-breathed scripture? What God-breathed authority teaches the treasury of merit, or papal infallibility, or the assumption of Mary? Have you scrutinized the Catholic Church's claims with as much gusto as you did the claims of Protestantism? Perhaps you have. Experience tells me that you most likely have not.

Answer 6

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.



Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.



1John 1:4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.

1Jn 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.



Deu 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Deu 12:32 "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.



Pro 30:5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Pro 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.



Psa 119:9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.



PS : Jesus Loves U !!!

Answer 7

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society





15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Answer 8

There is none. Sola Scriptura is not mentioned once in scripture. Infact the opposite is mentioned often.



EDIT: Notice they are spouting verse taht say scripture is good and essential, no one ever denied this. But none of them no where does it even imply scripture is all you need. There are many passages that say you must obey the laws, you must do good works, you must hold onto tradition.

Answer 9

The following Scriptures make it clear that religious traditions are not to be exalted above the Word of God:



Matthew 15:4-6

"For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition."



Mark 7:7-9

" 'They worship Me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And He said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"



Colossians 2:8

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."



Also read this:

http://www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm

http://www.carm.org/catholic/scripture_sufficient.htm

Answer 10

one ! Thus sais the Lord "is only written in the Bible as a command from God and Gods Word is only found in the Bible and no other book. That excludes tha apocripha and any other man made false scriptures!

Answer 11

Christ did give his traditions to the apostles. But they were lost to history. Not to true believers only to history. No church can truly claim that it has the original traditions of the apostle by historical views. Sola Scriptura and the traditions of the Roman Church are both man made ideas. The holy spirit is the one that leads us into all truth. That is the tradition I am referring to. We know that the disciples were Jews and held to many of the traditions of the Jews. The Pharisees and Saducees often used traditions that suited their biased views to support there agendas. But we do know that there was a traditional knowledge that Jesus handed down to his disciples. This was sadly lost to history.



http://bible.cc/john/15-26.htm



http://biblecc.com/2_thessalonians/3-6.htm

Answer 12

the five "Onlys" were made by a very angry man who made a new church. I want to make my own church too so I can quit this shitty job. All I have to do is convince people that the Bible was not translated correctly.

Answer 13

The secret is that a TEXT without a CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.



To paraphrase:



The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.

Answer 14

Psalms 12:6,7 - They're talking about hypocrites who take advantage of the poor...if you somehow think protestant franchises are immune to this, simply see ELMER GANTRY or MARJOE



Isa. 8:20 - This tells the Israelities to hold tight to the YHWH religion and to not be coaxed by the dominant religions of their conquerors. Talk about selective reading and taking something out of context!



I Pet. 1:23-25 - This means only that God's word is eternal, not that it stands alone...in fact, it even suggests in the poetic language of the field that each season will be different as it encounters the Word of God - exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, and in reality what most protestant franchises teach.



Rev. 3:8 - This is as much an invitation to interpret scripture as the world needs in whatever present state it's in as the "whatsoever ye bind on earth so shall it be in Heaven" verse...thanks for supporting the Pope on this one!!!



Luke 11:51 - This is a denunciation of Pharisees and Scribes at the time of Jesus....have you ever even read the Bible? It's about people who just go through the motions and don't have a real heart for the philosophies of Christ



And finally, the chapters were not assigned to the Bible until the 14th century....by a Catholic, I might add...





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.



1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.



1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.



Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.



Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.



1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).



1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.



2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?



2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).



2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).



1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.



2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.



2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.



James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")



2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.



2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.



2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.



1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.



1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.



1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.



Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Answer 15

Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?



According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination, the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical, which Protestants reject: veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines, and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?"



The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that Scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below.



In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:







1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority.







Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of Scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to Scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?



The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to Scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the Scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.







2) It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true.







Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles that they themselves approve of when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.







3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition -- for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7).







You see, if the Bible said "do not trust Sacred Tradition," then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority, and by that position are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.



If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added, and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?







4) If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God.







If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in sacred tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.







5) Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does.







Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.



Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred Tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?



To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the Church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the Church Fathers are given the place of authority comparable to Scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.







6) One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false.







The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater; but this cannot be, since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.



Conclusion

Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.

Answer 16

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/way.html



Life is too important to live by just any standard. We are talking about our eternity. If it wasn't important, you wouldn't be reading this. Therefore, we must discover which standard to use to find the ultimate truth.

We have many standards for various functions and for different levels of importance. You don't use your home's thermometer or temperature to cook with. This shows the need for different standards. Also, the more standards one uses with equal authority, the more room for loopholes. This brings error or deception. Let's use America's tax laws as an example. The more laws we have, the more loopholes there are to abuse the system for those who are rebellious. How about a sporting event? If every spectator and player was a referee, there would be mass arguments. At work, the decisions are made by the boss, it's the boss's ideal that must be followed for the employee to continue employment.



What lays before us is the following thoughts. If there is a God, there must be some way to reach Him, because there are so many belief systems claiming the pathway to Him. Many of these claim to be the highest or exclusive truth. Some would say that sincerity in any of these belief systems is enough. Let me quote from another of my web pages:



One may say that they are sincere, and that God will accept them because they are sincere. Was Hitler sincere? I think he was (but it didn't save him, if he was saved at all). You see, our own understanding of right and wrong may be different. Is God's standard going to change from one person to the next, because of sincerity? Let me quote Proverbs 14:12: MKJV



"There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end of it is the ways of death."



Many people believe that sincerity or heart felt belief is enough. Many also believe that there are no absolute truths. If that were true, I challenge anyone to believe that they can walk through a solid brick wall through sincere belief. I will accept examples of others if you cannot do it yourself. Or what if I wanted to call my friend on the phone, and his number was 111-1111, and I refused to use that number and wanted to choose my own number to dial and still reach him? No matter how sincere I was, nor how strong my belief system it would not work.



------



Is the statement "There are no absolutes" an absolute? Is the speaker absolutely sure there are no absolutes?



And here's another quote from another page of mine:



But I ask you, does the father who commands his child to stay off the busy street, wish and desire the vehicles to be there, to run over stray children? No! His obedience is commanded because of certain laws put into effect. For order to exist there must be laws. Example, without the law of gravity we would not be here. Is God therefore limited by gravity? No, he created it to bring order. Order without law would be an empty creation. And that is what existed before God created. Therefore He made laws so His creation would exist in harmony. Well, some say would ask; couldn't God create a universe where we can choose to walk without consequence? Then each man would be a god, and he would have his own standards, and each person would need create his own universe, because my laws would counter act against yours. And each would then need to be completely alone. And so God in His universe was alone and created man to be with Him. And to exist in harmony and love, man must accept the laws of physics and that of the spirit to abide there.



In light of these basic understandings, in the endeavor to discover the truth about God, we must find His standard. If in fact He is real, as many different belief systems claim, even the natural sciences point towards, there must be a true path to Him.



Links to evidences & scientific arguments



Since natural order requires natural laws, therefore spiritual order must also have laws. We must find these spiritual laws, to guide us into the truth and to measure all spiritual "truths" and teachings to see which are true and which are not. If God is real, and we feel the need to pursue Him, then He, Himself must be drawing us to Him. Therefore, He being wiser than us, knows that the truth must be preserved to lead us to Him, and if He indeed is the true God, He would have the power to preserve it. It is evident that this law is the standard we need to find.



What I am trying to say is that if God is real, then He must have a method in finding Him and a method to judge whether the teachings or other methods we find will lead to Him or are false. Let's examine various methods in finding God.



The pursuit of those who want truth should find this standard. There are many claims made to what this standard is. I cannot list them all. But I will list the major ones, and will sort these to find the One which is the highest and true.



Can prayer be considered the highest standard of finding the truth? No, because many belief systems pray, but the end is often different between the various systems. It is believed by many that there are demons or evil spirits. These spirits can answer prayer, even if the prayer is genuine. These spirits can deceive the one praying that they think it is the true God, or one of His servants. The Bible itself say's:



Matthew 24: MKJV

24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect.



So we can conclude that prayer is not the highest standard to measure truth. I am not saying that one should not pray, but that the answer to prayer is not to be trusted unless it aligns itself with the true God, and the standard He has, which we are now trying to find.



How about a spirit? If one has been visited by a spirit or multiple spirits, or even thousands of visitations; can they be used as the highest standard of truth? No, just like above. There are false spirits that can lie. Look at how many belief systems claim to have visits by a spirit or spirits, yet these belief systems and the supposed spirits themselves have had different roads to God. Let me quote from the Bible and then from one of my pages:



2 Corinthians 11:14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.



Galatians 1: NKJV

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.



From one of my pages:



Galatians 4:8 says these gods, by nature, are not real. In 1 Cor 8:4-6 (MKJV) we begin to understand a little more:



4 ... we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God except one.

5 For though there are those who are called gods, whether in Heaven or in earth (as there are many gods and many lords),

6 but there is to us only one God...



and:



Deut 32: MKJV

16 They provoked Him to jealousy with strange gods ; with abominations they provoked Him to anger.

17 They sacrificed to devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new ones newly come up, whom your fathers did not fear.



1 Cor 10:20-21 (MKJV) sums up this point well:



20 But I say that the things which the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. And I do not desire that you should have fellowship with demons.

21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of a table of demons.



----------



So saying, we can conclude that spirits are not trust worthy alone to be the true standard. Yet some spirits could be of the true God, therefore all spirits should be tested by another standard, the one we seek.



A quick note, we can use the above conclusion about a visitation by one claiming to be God as well, or Christ, or any supposed voice claiming such. God, Himself, must be subject to His own standards. So that false gods can be judged to see if they are the True God. This then, would also make Him good. Because, He would therefore not change.



Numbers 23: MKJV

19 God is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and shall He not do it? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?



Ecclesiastes 3: MKJV

14 I know that whatever God does, it shall be forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it...



Matthew 19: MKJV

17 And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God...



What about a prophet, prophecy, or multiples of these? As stated with prayer, the different belief systems have opposing prophecy and opposing standpoints of their prophets. The Bible also has been already quoted above stating that there are false prophets. So although there must be true prophets and true prophecy, even these cannot be the highest standard.



Some would say that we can use feelings to measure truth. In the natural world, we can see infants and youth led astray by feelings. Adults and teenagers make wrong choices for mates based upon feelings. This is what the Bible say's about feelings:



Hebrews 5: MKJV

13 For everyone partaking of milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.

14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, even those who because of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.



What the Bible is showing us is, that only those who are mature can use their senses to know what is good and evil. A person cannot use his senses or emotions to judge if something is from God until they are mature and have already discovered the highest method or standard to find God. So we can conclude that the senses are not the highest standard.



How about a book? One claiming to be inspired by God Himself. This book would need to meet certa