Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

This is very different than DHK's claim that individuals were able to differentiate which writings were/not inspired. So you still haven't answered the question as asked.

And you know this because....?

Please, show me that history.

Ron

 

Then you should have no problem showing me in Scripture where each individual Book of the New Testament is declared as Scripture. A list of each Book with the appropriate declaration cited in some other part of the New Testament would settle the whole thing.

You keep saying this but you do not offer historical evidence to back it up. How about some thing more?

Ron

 

This is very different than DHK's claim that individuals were able to differentiate which writings were/not inspired. So you still haven't answered the question as asked.

And you know this because....?
</font>[/QUOTE]Ron, you are trying very hard Trying NOT 2 Understand, as your monicker portrays. You have played what Lateria has said against what I have said, and then said that we do not agree, even though we say essentially the same thing.
U Try Not 2 Understand!
And it seems deliberately so.

What I have said: God gives understanding to those that are saved through the Holy Spirit. It is the natural man (the unsaved man) that cannot understand the Word of God, for he has not the Spirit of God:

1Cor.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.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--These verses are self explanatory unless you are unsaved.

What did Lateria say?
"I certainly believe that each individual has the ability to hear the voice of God in those writings that are from Him."
--I guess we know how to say the same thing in different words. What he said is backed up in the above verses. The voice of God is the Holy Spirit of God which is given to every man (that is saved) in order to be illumined by God through His Word.

Your own admission was that we have a closed canon of Scripture, and that the Scripture that we do have is inspired. You did admit to that did you not?

If you admit to those things, which both Carson and Logan do, why would you even ask Lateria (and in a sarcastic way, I might add),

Are U Trying 2 Understand?
DHK

 

Are U Trying 2 Understand?
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]I am trying to understand why you believe as you do.

I know why Carson, Logan and I accept the Canon as inspired and closed.

I do not know why you do.

So far the besst that you have offered is that early Christians just knew, but you have no evidence to support this.

If the Canon was universally accepted by early Christians before the Councils met and declared the Canon, show me the evidence.

Or you say that Paul declares the other New Testament writings to be Scripture. Then show me the verses that show him saying that each and every Book is Scripture.

Ron

[ December 12, 2002, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

"This is very different than DHK's claim that individuals were able to differentiate which writings were/not inspired. So you still haven't answered the question as asked."

No it is not different. Yes the question has been answered. That you are unable to understand that is not my problem.

Quite franly the only reason I thin that you don't "get it" is because you are unable to read without prejudice and accept any answer that does not coform to the box of pre-packaged apologetics that you are habded. You are no different from a Mormon in that respect. And whats' more in your efforts to sow discord and fabricate disagreement, you are showing yourself to be merely contentious, and the Bible tells us not to deal with such.

"And you know this because....?"

Answered already. I won't repeat myself. Th answer is found if you will read what I have already said.

"Please, show me that history."

Its in historey books, lad. It is disappointing but not surprising that RCs, who claim history as their own, are so ignorant of it. But you have it wrong. If you want to assert authority as an issue, despite the fact that scholars admit that the councils of early history were not an exercise in authority, then YOU demostrate it. And use historians, not apologists.

So far you have given atehistic apologetics, illustrated a failure tograsp teh epistomological issue at hand, and have read nothing said to you in anything like a charitable light.

So, as I said on the other thread, wake me whern you're ready to interact.

 

Not exactly specific.

 

Not exactly specific.</font>[/QUOTE]It's not intended to be. You obviously need to read more broadly than you do. That is, something other than apologist handbooks. So I am telling you to read history books for history. Read a lot of them. Consider it encouragement to do some work.

 

Hi Ron, You wrote:
""I would say that you believe in the individuals ability to find in the Bible what God wants each individual person to know about Him. The problem with that for me is that there are such divergent beliefs concerning the one Truth as a result. And they can't all be right"".

You are right that they can't all be right. Does the fact that they can't all be right make the right one wrong?

Ron, Satan is a master at lies and confusion. I believe that the plan he is carrying out is to give people more and more choices. The more Churches with different doctrines to choose from the harder it is for a person to find the right one. If I ask you what 2+2 equals and then give you 1,000 pages of numbers to look through it is hard to find the right answer in all those pages. 4 is still the right answer whether there is 1 choice or a thousand choices. I believe the Bible teaches a clear Truth about Jesus and salvation and it is not less true because someone says there are other possible interpretations. I do realize that the CC or any group can make this claim. I will trust my God that I am one who found the "right" answer amoung the wrong ones. Hope that made sense. I am almost afraid to re-read what I wrote.

Ron, Thanks for the sailing offer. I went sailing on Lake Michigan one time and got sick, so I don't know if you want me on your boat I met mess it up.

Take care,
Brian

btw, I work with disabled folks and the elderly and meals on wheels are a key part of some people staying in their homes. It would be a great "work" to start a program like that. You would be surprized by the volume of people you could serve.

 

Yes it was a church in Jerusalem, which was part of the universal(Catholic)Church. The same as the church that sent them. "Therefore, being sent on their way by the church..." (Acts 15:3)

I dont remember stating that they did??

Including Peter..

You are missing the context of this chapter. Peter stood up and and proclaimed doctrine to them in verses 7-11. This is the defining moment. After Peter speaks, then James stands up and starts off by saying; "Brethren listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about..." Yes James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and it was his job to speak here.

Where does the text say that James was given special wisdom?

Agreed

This is where your argument fails. Acts 16:4, "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."
This decision was binding on all Christians, not just the "local church" as you say. Next, we see that it was the apostles and elders decision, not just a declaration by James as you implied.This was the councils decision and it was binding on all Christians. The council as a whole was guided by the Holy Spirit. He would not lead them into error.

[ December 13, 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

Let's just get a lexicon's gloss out shall we?

From Gingrich/Danker "Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament"

ekklesia, as, n- 1) assembly regularly convened for political purposes, Ac 19:39; meeting generally 19:32,40. - 2) congregation, assembly, of the Israelites Ac 7:38; Hb 2:12. - 3)the Christian church or congregation: as a church meeting 1Cor 11:18; 14:4f; 3Jn6; as a group of Christians living in one place Mt 18:17; Ac 5:11; Ro 16:1,5; 1Cor 1:2; Gal 1:22; 1Th 1:1; Phlm 2; as the church universal, to which all believers belong Mt 16:18; Ac 9:31; 1Cor 12:28; Eph 1:22; 3:10 Church of God or Christ 1Cor 10:32; 1Th 2:14; Ro 16:16.

So there yo have the Lexical evidence.

Incidentally Vines also coroborates the idea of "universal church as a gloss for ekklessia when it says (under "assembly"): It [ekkelsia] has two appications to companies of christians, (a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company of which Christ said, "I will build My Church," Matt. 16:18, and which is further described as "the Church which is His Body," Eph. 1:22; 5:23

I will point out though that the RC concept of ekklessia does not appear at all. And that is the decisive point.

 

Here also is what I have found for those interested:

Ekklesia Phonetic Spelling, Parts of Speech ek-klay-see'-ah Noun Feminine Definition
1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a.. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b. the assembly of the Israelites
c. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d. in a Christian sense
i. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
ii. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
iii. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
iv. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
v. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven.

King James Word Usage - Total: 118. church 115, assembly 3
(Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public.)

Notice that it is given one basic definition, which then has four sub-definitions. Only under one of those subdivisions do you find one reference to a universal church, which I believe came in at a much later date in time in history.

A good article to read would be:

The New Testament Church
DHK

 

That contradicts your own definition.

An "unassembled assembly?" I don't really get you here. The biblical fact is that Jesus built one Church. Not several thousand different churches that teach several different variations of truth.

This sounds good, but in reality I'm sure we both have known some pastors that we would be hard pressed to say were guided by the Spirit and "full of wisdom." How would you interpret someone as being full of wisdom? By whether they agree with you or not?

If it is binding on all Chrisitians then it is an infallible decision, and therefore the council was guided by the Holy Spirit.

This statement shows that you really dont understand the Catholic faith.

The Councils that officially formed the canon of the New Testament are a clear example of what you just denied. The knowledge of which books comprise the bible must be infallible; if not, there is no way to know for certain if the books we regard as inspired really are. Further, this knowledge must be binding; otherwise men would be free to create their own customized canon containing those books they value and lacking the ones they don't. This knowledge msut also be part of divine revelation; if not, it is merely a tradition of men.

Are you telling me that these churches had different beliefs as many of the churches today have? I think not, and if they did, they had the model from the apostles in Acts 15 in how to resolve the differences, not as of today, where men go and start a new church. So, yes they were universal in their beliefs.

[ December 14, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

One of the definitions you posted had "universal" as a secondary meaning.

Jesus' words in Matthew 18:15-17 would have no meaning then if this a future church and would not even fit the criteria of every "bible believing" church as you stated, as they cannot all agree on what is biblical Truth.

I also cannot find in Scripture anywhere where a church is to have the bible as its foundation. Ephesians 2:19-20, "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone."

Believe me D, I know many Catholics that believe somwhat along the lines you describe. That does not change what the Church actually teaches though. I have many friends who are baptist. Some are devout in their love of Christ; others, call themselves Christians, but seem to think little of committing adultery. I do not hold my respect for the baptist faith on the ones that don't hold to it, but on the ones that do.

This is indeed a shame. And I agree there are "Catholics" that are like this. But again, this is not what the Church teaches. I'm sure you will agree there are many people who claim to be Christians, of all denominations, that fit the bill.

Why do you say, "probably unsaved men?" Do you know the men that made up these councils?

Yes...some they did, others were unsure of certain writings as some books that claimed to be written by the apostles were eventually proven to be frauds. This was the need for the councils, to seperate the frauds and uninspired writings from the actual Word of God.

You misjudge me my friend. I have great respect for the early Christians. Many of these men died for their faith in Christ. That is awesome and I certainly would'nt refer to them as dummies.

You are correct. I do need to read and study the bible more. But you are missing my point here. Though these churches had different problems, they were all grounded on Truth. Their doctrines were not up to the popular vote.

Yes the council had everything to do with resolving the debate about circumcision. This was not to be an issue for the Church after their binding decision.

 

The fact of the matter is that the ones who did not believe in the ressurection were wrong. And Paul accordingly, corrected them. There was not two different teachings on the ressurection that were correct. The same goes for Thessalonica, there is but one truth on their disagreements. This one Truth had been taught by Jesus and the apostles and is alive today through the ages through the protection of the Holy Spirit.

When Jesus gives us a command, I do not believe it is open to debate. That is one of the problems of some churches today. A majority of the members may think it is all right for the marriage of homosexuals and the next thing you know, their church suddendly changes their stance on the issue. This is rediculous. The Word of God is unchanging and not open for one to decide if it should apply to them or not.

D, that is part of the problem...these same people will twist the Scripture to justify their actions. They do not acknowledge the authority Jesus left here on earth.

Your going to have to give me Scripture to back up this claim...

I dont pretend to, but that is exactly why I am thankful for the Holy Spirit guiding the councils. That is the only way for absolute assurance that the canon is infallible. Not relying on whether or not the men who made up the council were holy or not. Even if they were holy, if they were not guided by the Spirit, they could have erred.

D, this is a historic fact. This is not Catholic bias. Protestant historians have agreed on this issue.

Around the year 80 A.D., the church in Corinth had issue arise they could not agree on and wrote to the Bishop of Rome (Clement) for a decision on the matter. I can look up the cite for this and give it to you if you need it.

Acts 15?

 

Ron, was hoping you would reply to my last post. Hope all is well with you and your family.

DHK, Good in depth work on your last few posts.

In Christ,
Brian

 

No. But I don't know why that would give you much comfort considering that you have no real way of knowing that you would be the "right" one. Look at all the disagreement on this board between Baptists who claim to hold the same beliefs. There is very little agreement on anything. Often one is questioning the salvation of another.

But if it is so clear, why so much disagreement?

I've been there too. It's all part of the experience.