Featured The Final Authority of Scripture

If you believed in every word of the Bible you wouldn't be a "bad Catholic," in fact you wouldn't be a Catholic at all.

Yes he does. Jesus said "You must be born again." If you believe him (His Word), then you have been born again. How? Where? When?

And you have pointed wrongly showing you don't believe in the Scriptures; you believe in the RCC who during their history condemned the Bible, kept it out of the hands of the common person, burned the Bible, and in general showed a very great contempt for the Bible, and especially for "Bible-believing Christians." Study your history.

A good example of those unlearned people who wrote the Catechism of the RCC and don't know what it means to be "born again." That is a shame, isn't it.
But there are many that are unlearned--J.W.'s, Mormons, etc. Their concept of Christ is not what the Bible teaches. It will lead to their own destruction. This is what Peter is talking about.

But for the person who has the Spirit of God:
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
--The above demonstrates how a spiritual person practices sola scriptura. I agree. Those that are carnal or unsaved cannot. Madeleine O'hare demonstrated that. She said that the Bible was a very dangerous book. It taught people to cut off their hands and poke out their eyes, using a perverted application of Mark 9:43-47. But that is not what Christ is talking about.

Not everyone needs guidance. I don't.
But I do believe that every person should be a member of a local church where they can be fed the Word of God on a weekly basis.

I use other resources to help me. We lean on the education of the ones who have gone one before us. Have you ever used a concordance. It is a valuable book. A.H. Strong composed the most extensive concordance that we have today. We use it because of his work.

Of course not. All the Bible teaches in favor of sola scriptura, not against it.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
2Tim.3:16,17; 2Pet.1:21; Acts 17:11; and much more.

Isaiah was written 700 B.C. and the Israelites practiced it before him. Thus you are wrong.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

Yes, St. Paul established 100 churches (parishes) and they all looked to him and the other Apostles for authoritative rulings on things. That is what the letters of the New Testament are all about, a man who has authority and is giving instruction to all Christians. Let us take the Book of Acts when the subject of circumcision came up, did they open up the Scriptures to find the answer? No! They themselves, after much discussion and with the help of the Holy Spirit came up with the correct teaching and thus all those "churches" (parishes) then were obliged to follow this ruling .

No, a solely Sola Scriptura concept is a false gospel, one that was never proclaimed until some 1500 years went by in the history of Christianity. There is but one Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Christian Church.

 

First, there is no such thing as a "parish" in the Bible. That is a man-made (RCC) invention. Just one more addition or unbiblical addition to the Bible.
Second, they looked to Paul only when necessary. Otherwise they conducted their affairs quite independently of each other and of the apostles. The apostles contacted them when necessary.
How do we know this?
In Corinth when problems arose a letter was sent to Paul. Paul immediately responded by letter:
1Cor.7:1, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:
--He had received their letter and now he is writing them back.

In another instance there was a controversial issue set forth by the legalistic Judaizers who were as a thorn in Paul's side following him wherever he went, and perverting the gospel of grace.
The apostles knew this had to stop, and it had to be done publically. This is what happened in Acts 15. Then look at the result.
Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
--This time Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas were sent to the churches with the decision that was made and they were to take it to the churches known to them.

Generally Paul stood apart from the matters of the church. His advice, even in matters of great importance, was that the church itself decide things independently apart from anyone else.
For example:
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
--What greater sin could there be among the Corinthians! Surely it would involve Paul's intervention!

He gives them advice but they are the ones that had to take action according to sola scriptura:
1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
--There were biblical guidelines they had to follow.
Jesus set forth some of them in Matthew 18:15-20.
Going through that process they would ultimately end up in delivering an unrepentant sinner (though still a brother in Christ) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. This was all part of the process of church discipline that Jesus first spoke of in Matthew 18. It was to bring him back to repentance.
They were to purge out the old leaven, that is, to keep the church pure.
All of these instructions the Corinthians had to do without the assistance of Paul. And the next time they would have to do it without any further instruction from Paul. He wouldn't be there.
The key phrase: when ye come together.

The false gospel is noted in Gal.1:8 which Paul says is accursed--both the message and the messenger. It is anyone that brings any other gospel but the one that Paul preaches (let him be accursed).
The gospel that Paul preached is: Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and not by works.

 

Yet when they challenged the Judaisers They resolved it by CHURCH RULING.

It would have been impossible to win Scripturally being that all scripture, OLD TESTAMENT in their existence supported the Judaisers position. You don't see them quote any new testament.......because there is No new testament!

They exercised their CHURCH AUTHORITY of binding and losing.

Makes even more sense when Paul had Timothy circumcised the next chapter.

Wait wait what about the rules?......

HAD you been there...... You would have been arguing on the side of the judaisers.

ALL scripture backed them up. There is NOTHING to be derived from the old testament that would exclude a gentile convert to Judaism from the law.

 

Churches or parishes, just different words but the reality is they are same one Church of the whole with satellite entities in different places. There was but one Christian Church and they all listened to the leaders of the day who made the decisions regarding doctrines. Like Utilayn said, it is part and parcel of the "binding and losing" power given to those leaders by Jesus himself. You maintain that this power ended with them, others maintain that this power continued on with the succeeding leaders of the Christian Church right up to this very day.

 

What "Church Ruling"? There was none. Read your Bible please.
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
--These Judaizers had been following Paul wherever he went. He had rebuked them thoroughly in Galatia and then wrote a letter to the Galatians after that. The Judaizers would not stop. They were determined to have their way (kind of like infant-baptizers). They press the matter by going to a prominent local church, "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem," where James, the half brother of Jesus, is the pastor.
Now, go back to Acts 8, and you will find that there was a great persecution wherein many members of this church were scattered, and they all went, preaching the gospel as they went. But the Bible clearly says "the apostles remained in Jerusalem." They came to Jerusalem to have the stamp of apostolic approval on the doctrine that they knew was already declared true. They didn't have to debate about it. They already knew the truth. Not one apostle disagreed with what Paul had to say. They all agreed with him. This was in one way a decision that had to have apostolic authority, so the apostles were involved; thus their testimonies.
Note: In verse one the heresy is stated.
In verse two, They determined that Paul and Barnabas ...should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this matter.
The matter was discussed. The apostles were listened to.
Who made the decision?

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
James said: "My sentence (my judgment or decision) is...
It was the decision of James, the pastor of this Baptist Church that made the decision. There was no parish, no denomination, no universal church--just one local "Baptist" church with one pastor as the head.

It would have been impossible to win Scripturally being that all scripture, OLD TESTAMENT in their existence supported the Judaisers position. You don't see them quote any new testament.......because there is No new testament![/quote]
This is NT:
Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
--The letters containing the decisions that were made that day are recorded in Acts 15, and were carried by Paul and Barnabas to other churches. They are right there in the NT, Acts 15 for you to read! How much more NT is that?? It was scripture being written as the decision was being made.

Sola scriptura was based on the Old Testament as well, and that OT was quoted time and time again. To deny that is to accept one's own blindness and rejection of the Scripture.
What does the Bible say about it?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This is the teaching of sola scriptura--both for the OT and for the NT. Accept it!

Binding and loosing refers to "church discipline." There was no one here to be disciplined so you are wrong. There is no "Church," only a local church where one man, James, is the pastor. He listened to the others and then made the final decision.

Paul had Timothy circumcised for these reasons.
1. His mother was a Jew, and his father was a Greek, therefore he had Jewish ancestry and every right to be circumcised as a Jew.
2. His circumcision would allow him to go into the Temple. In that way he would be more profitable to Paul, and more profitable in general in the ministry.
3. This was not required. It was voluntary. It had nothing to do with salvation. It was a practical voluntary step so Timothy could be of more service among the Jews.

Keep them.

Had?????????????
There is no conjecture here! I don't go to synagogues. Neither do you! Therefore your point is irrelevant.

Taking scripture out of context is not backing your opinion up.
Opinion is not worth two cents unless you can properly back it up.
For example the Bible does not teach infant baptism, but the RCC does it.
Where in the Bible do you find any infant being baptized? You don't. And you can't back it up with scripture because there isn't any.

 

"Parish" is a Catholic word not found in the Bible, neither by word nor by concept or definition.
It is an unbiblical concept.
Do you think Peter or even John would be acquainted with the word "satellite"? You pray to the dead saints. Why don't you ask Peter and see?
There is no such thing as the "One Church." The word for "Church" is ekklesia" and always means assembly or congregation. You have it wrong.

1. If there was only one Church why did Paul start over one hundred churches on three missionary journeys. It is one or the other. Both can't be true.
2. If we believe your statement, who is the pastor: who are the deacons; who takes up the offering; where does this church meet; and what practical purpose does it serve? Please answer the questions.

You so glibly use this expression "binding and loosing" you ought to be ashamed.
Do you know where it is found in the Bible. Where?
Do you know what the context is? What? Explain?
For one to use this expression "binding and loosing" so thoughtlessly is profane.

You don't have power. Power comes from God. What power do you think you have and why?

 

Then we do not differ on that point either.

 

I love this point. Because though you are wrong in your use of the text - the argument you make most clearly exposes the underlying principle that drives the RCC.

It is your argument above that the Judaizers are being faithful to scripture - and that the Acts 15 church is flying in the face of the Word of God - boldly contradicting it and proving that church-tradition is far superior to the teaching of actual scripture. That is HOW we got the Dark Ages!!!

(What you fail to realize is that the Judaizers in Acts 15 are not quoting a word of scripture for their case - because there is NO text of scripture OT or NT that said that the gentiles had to be circumcised - or had to be circumcised to be saved. Rather that was an "extreme" tradition-only doctrine that was made-up by the Judaizers. So then the exact opposite of your point. hint Acts 18:4 gentiles in the synagogues EVERY SABBATH and yet not circumcised. So the made-up rule in Acts 15 is not even being used by the non-Christ Jews!!!)

But I like it because when we look carefully at your argument for how you suppose that things work - this perfectly illulstrates the "Bible to-be-ignored and tradition-to-be-held" theology. In your view you just relax and sit back and let the RCC tell you each time you should deny the Bible and choose the RCC instead - they are in the drivers seat and if they are wrong -- well got will "get them"' and not you for that error.

Sadly - 2Cor 5:10 says God will "get you" for it no matter if He gets them as well or not. You need to re-think that whole "dark ages is best" wide-road.

 

This is NT:
Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
--The letters containing the decisions that were made that day are recorded in Acts 15, and were carried by Paul and Barnabas to other churches. They are right there in the NT, Acts 15 for you to read! How much more NT is that?? It was scripture being written as the decision was being made.

Sola scriptura was based on the Old Testament as well, and that OT was quoted time and time again. To deny that is to accept one's own blindness and rejection of the Scripture.
What does the Bible say about it?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This is the teaching of sola scriptura--both for the OT and for the NT. Accept it!


Binding and loosing refers to "church discipline." There was no one here to be disciplined so you are wrong. There is no "Church," only a local church where one man, James, is the pastor. He listened to the others and then made the final decision.


Paul had Timothy circumcised for these reasons.
1. His mother was a Jew, and his father was a Greek, therefore he had Jewish ancestry and every right to be circumcised as a Jew.
2. His circumcision would allow him to go into the Temple. In that way he would be more profitable to Paul, and more profitable in general in the ministry.
3. This was not required. It was voluntary. It had nothing to do with salvation. It was a practical voluntary step so Timothy could be of more service among the Jews.


Keep them.


Had?????????????
There is no conjecture here! I don't go to synagogues. Neither do you! Therefore your point is irrelevant.


Taking scripture out of context is not backing your opinion up.
Opinion is not worth two cents unless you can properly back it up.
For example the Bible does not teach infant baptism, but the RCC does it.
Where in the Bible do you find any infant being baptized? You don't. And you can't back it up with scripture because there isn't any.[/QUOTE]

Scripture says:
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.


And we can stop right here. Why? There is no going to Jerusalem, There is no asking apostles and elders about this question Because THEY ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY. There is only going to scripture to resolve this.

The Judaisers win they are bringing up THE LAW. The Apostles and Elders KNOW this is overrided by FAITH in CHRIST.

But there is NO SCRIPTURE around to say it.

 

God's Word is Scripture. Since we have a record of what happened we look into that record, which is God's Word and see what happened--recorded by the Holy Spirit of God.
First, it was God that sent Paul; God that called Paul; God that appointed Paul to be an apostle and gave him the authority of an apostle. It is evident that he had authority, authority to write 13 books of the Bible, all of which are inspired of God.

To Timothy Paul wrote:
1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

To the Romans he wrote:
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
--He was ordained to be an apostle; called to be an apostle;
and:
2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
--Paul, as an apostle, had the signs of an apostle, that is, he could work miracles and signs and did so in the presence of the Corinthians.

He met the basic qualification of an apostle--being a witness of the resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

His testimony as an Apostle:
1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
--He shows his humility here. Nevertheless he is called to be an apostle.
As for Scripture he wrote 13 books of the NT. Isn't that enough for you?

The Judaizers did not present much of anything but a well-known heresy.
They did not present any logical scriptural argument. If you can find it, then present it.
As for Scripture, the Apostles presented much of it, scripture that you have avoided.
The law is a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ. Salvation is by faith in Christ--sola fide.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

 

You do surprize me, Utilyan! I say it again, I cannot believe you are Roman Catholic. I can only understand it to some extent in view of your animosity towards the Scriptures.

You are one case that puzzles me. WHY DO YOU FIGHT THE SCRIPTURES? TO BE A ROMAN CATHOLIC?! MUST BE... You're caught brother; may God have mercy on your soul.

...RC devils, God will get you!

 

Hypocrisy is the cloak covering the dagger of murderous religious harlotry. Sleeping with the mother of harlots means certain death.

 

You are too well educated for me, and I'm too far behind and below your elevated status to be honest. I think if I had to I would vote for Utilyan rather. Just a pity he's RC. I don't like RC or their ilk.

 

DHK, to me you more than ever look like the RC you used to be before you joined "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem".
Intimidating stuff this ...

 

Because you and what you vend offend me; especially the haughty way in which you peddle your cart.

If your stuff isn't meant for me, or for everyone else, then what do you bring it here to a public forum for? Why don't you leave it in your books at home on the shelves?