Can anybody prove?

dhk:
1. No, creeds HAVE NO AUTHORITY. CONTRAST: The Bible does.

2. The COUNCILS that make them have NO AUTHORITY.CONTRAST: Christ has all authority.

3. There TEACHINGS have NO AUTHORITY. CONTRAST: The New Testament is the authoratative teachings of Christ.

4. There expectation of being OBSERVED has NO AUTHORITY. CONTRAST: Christ's teachings, his commands, are to be observed until the end of time.

Mat. 28:18-20 affirms the above 4 things.

If preaching, teaching and following all God has commanded in his inspired word by the authority of Jesus Christ is a creed in your eyes. Have it your way.But, it is not my way!

I personally do not use the term in reference to the word of God, as the four things listed make a definite contrast between what God has said and what man has said.

I refuse to put God's word on par with the meetings and teachings from the minds of men.

 

Frank,
Your beliefs in one way at least resemble that of a Baptist. You believe that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, as we also do.
Based on that you formulate what you believe. You interpret the Scripture, as you have the soul liberty (another Baptist distinctive) to do so. When you do that you come up with a statement of faith, or what could be called a simplified confession of faith or creed.
Every Baptist Church has a statement of faith.
Some of the larger Baptist denominations will adhere to the Baptist Confession of faith.
The Lutherans, as has been pointed out to you adhere to their Confession faith.
You have put together quite concisely a representation of the Church of Christ statement of faith or Creed. There is nothing wrong with that. It is simply a statement saying: "Here is what I believe." Remember: The Muslim also says, "I believe the Bible." Our identity with the Bible is found in both our statement of faith and in our name that we carry. It is not good enough (unfortunately) to simply say: "I am a Christian." So were the followers of Jim Jones (at least in their minds).
DHK

 

dhk:
I disagree with you. If I believed what baptist believed, I would be one, but I am not. Things that are different are not the same.
Consider the following:
1. The baptist have articles of faith contained in Hiscox's and Cobb's manual for Baptist. I have no such articles of faith contained in any book produced by the meetings of men. I follow the New Testament as it is sufficient unto every good work. II Tim. 3:16,17.

2.If I am wrong please correct me, baptist believe in the impossibility of apostasy. However, the Bible says men do fall away, Gal. 5:4, II Tim. 4:1-4, I Tim: 1-4.

3. Baptist, as a whole, believe faith only is essential to salvation. The Bible says by grace through faith. Eph. 2:8,9. If I am mistaken please correct me.

4. Baptist believe that a man is justified by faith only. The Bible teaches man is justified by faithful obedience. Hebs. 11:6, Hebrews 5:8,9, James 2:21.

5. Baptist affirm a man is saved as an alien sinner through prayer. The Bible teaches different. John 9:31.

I mean no disrepect. However,I do not believe your statement about me being like the Baptist is accurate in view of the evidence. The things I have presented come from one of the two manuals posted. The second references are from the New Testament and it alone.

 

Frank,
I realize that we differ in many areas of doctrine, such as the ones that you pointed out.

What I said is that we both believe is that the Bible is our only authority of faith and doctrine. In that way you believe the same as a Baptist. I realize that there are many other differences which of course results in you being Church of Christ, and me being Baptist.
DHK

 

dhk:
If you believe the Bible has ALL authority. Why have a convention or a manual. It makes no sense. On the one hand you say the Bible has all authority, then on the other,there are manuals for baptist to follow that are not in the Bible.

Do you, or do you not believe that the New Testament of Jesus Christ is sufficient in DOCTRINE,REPROOF, CORRECTION, INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS?

Do you, or do you not believe it furnishes, equips us unto EVERY GOOD WORK?

I have posted the four things by CONTRAST Mat. 28:18-20 teaches. If I am wrong, please show me the error by the same standard I made it. Show me from the New Testament. That is all I ask. I simply want a book, chapter, and verse for meetings of men and the publishing of creeds. I want the authoratative word from Christ. He said he has ALL authority. He commanded ALL things. He commanded All things taught. He commanded ALL things to be observed. I do not think this is and unreasonable request. I have done so in my posting.

 

Certainly I believe the above, as you also do. But I do not believe that baptism is a part of salvation. I do not believe that there works play any role in salvation. I do not believe that a man can lose his salvation.

Mat.28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Here is the Great Commission. The word "teach" means "disciple." We are to make disciples in all nations. Teaching them to observe all things--whatsoever Jesus has commanded. Since Christ is God, this includes all the Word of God. Paul said to the Ephesian elders: I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

The problem is that your "statement of faith," your "creed," as you have presented it (or I have for you), is not the same as others. It is representative of Church of Christ doctrine. And I am not ashamed to say that what I believe is representative of baptist doctrine. To simply say "I believe all the Bible," is just being naive. That's what the Muslims say about the Bible. Of course it isn't true, but that is what they claim. From someone else's perspective they could say the same about you: You claim to believe the whole but really you don't because you believe that baptism is a part of salvation. The Jehovah Witnesses claim to believe the Bible, but really they don't because they believe that Christ was an angel. It is all in one's perspective, isn't it?

You do have a statement of faith, a creed if you like, whether or not you like to admit it. You do identify yourself with a certain organization, the COC, whether or not you like to admit it.
DHK

 

dhk:
The issue at hand is man made creeds. Mat. 28:18-20 requires one to teach all things commanded practice ( observe) all things commanded and taught.
WHERE in the New Testament are they commanded by the authority of Jesus Christ?

If you wish to discuss baptism,I will be more than happy to do so. However, I will do so when THE STANDARD USED TO DISCUSS IT IS AGREED UPON.If you are going to use a creed from a convention, synod etc. The discussion will be fruitless. I will use the authority of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

 

dhk:
I left one thing out as it pertains to your last post. ASSERTIONS ARE NOT PROOF. Your statement about baptism is an unsubstantiated assertion. You must prove your assertion by the totality of the evidence of the New Testament. Otherwise, your statements about what you think I believe simply becomes no more than an I think, I feel, my opinion, because I said so exercise. This type presentation is simply an exercise in futility.
The divine record demands that we prove all things. I Thes. 5:21. It is my intent to do so in all matters of faith.
Furthermore,I have signed an open proposition about baptism. The proposition has been made to all those in my area for public debate. As of yet, I have no one to sign the negative. The proposition states," The Bible teaches that water baptism is essential to the salvation of the sinner."

 

St. Clement, Bishop of Rome - A.D. 80

"Through countryside and city the apostles preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier ... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3)

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Gaul - A.D. 189

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2)

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1)

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them (heretics), while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth ... What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1)

What did Irenaeus believe about baptism?

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34)

What did Irenaeus believe concerning the Eucharist?

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (Against Heresies, 5:2)

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

I love being Catholic, sharing in the faith that comes down to us from the Apostles.. united with Christ's Prime Minister in the Kingdom of God.

“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should...With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion...For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” -Augustine in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus A.D. 397

[ August 03, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Frank,

Prove to me from Scripture that 2 Peter is Scripture.

Christians throughout the first 4 centuries of Christianity were divided over whether 2 Peter is Scripture. The Catholic Church said that 2 Peter is Scripture in a particular council, ratified by the bishop of Rome. You believe that 2 Peter is Scripture. So, prove it.. using Scripture.

God bless,

Carson

 

Carson:
There are more than 5000 copies of the New Testament. They are all harmonious. It has already been proven to the rational mind. If you wish, there are several Greek scholars you may contact to verify. Hugo Mccord is one greek scholar who has translated the New Testament into our english. Bruce Metger is another Greek scholar who has combed the pages of inspiration and verified to the rational mind the veracity of the New Testament.
However, Carson,it is simple to prove the New Testament and II Peter is inspired.
1. Are the teachings harmonious with others that are " not in question?" The answer is Yes. There are no teachings of Peter that contradict any other as it pertains to similar subjects. If so, PROVE IT!
2. Peter proved his writings were inspired by the same litmus all the other writers did. He performed Miracles. Acts 3:3-8.
3. Peter and Paul were equals.Could Peter Lie being equal with Paul in his writing of II Peter.Peter said Paul's writing were scripture. IIPet.3:15,16. Do you now question Paul's writings also? Gal. 2:7,8. He claimed he was writing by inspiration II Peter 1:20,21. He NEVER claimed he was writing his opinions. If so, where?
4. The internal evidence indicates IIPet. is inspired. His teachings on the second coming. IIPeter 3:8-10. His teachings on the Mount of transfiguration. II Pet. 1:15-18. His accurate teachings on Old Testament events. II Pet. 2:1-17.
His writings are in complete harmony with all other writers of the New Testament. Compare Mat. 24,25 with II Pet. 3.
5. He claims he is writing an epistle to God's people. II Pet. 3:1,2. men are commanded to hear and follow the teachings of the 12. Jn. 16:13, Mk. 16:15-20, II Cor. 12:12, I Cor. 14:37, I Cor. 11:1,2 Phil. 3:17 and a host of other passages.
6. Christians in the first century recognized Peter as having the Authority of Christ. Mat. 16:19, Mat. 18:18, Acts 2:38,42. If Peter's second epistle was not scripture he lied. Peter claimed inspiration. II Pet. 1:20,21, II Pet. 3:1,2. Are saying he LIED?
7. Peter proclaimed he was teaching truth. Truth comes from the mouth of God. Jn. 17:17, II Peter 1:16-19, II Tim. 3:16,17.
I trust this will suffice to the rational mind that II Pet. is inspired of God.
Carson, if you want to know the truth,there is but one source. IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. JN. 17:17.

 

Carson:
I have proved it. I Thes. 5:21. Now, who gave your bishop authority? How does he bilbically verify it? PROVE THAT FROM THE SCRIPTURES!

 

Hi Frank,

I asked you to show me in Scripture where it says that 2 Peter is an inspired epistle that should be included in our Bible. You responded with:

There are more than 5000 copies of the New Testament. They are all harmonious. It has already been proven to the rational mind. If you wish, there are several Greek scholars you may contact to verify. Hugo Mccord is one greek scholar who has translated the New Testament into our english. Bruce Metger is another Greek scholar who has combed the pages of inspiration and verified to the rational mind the veracity of the New Testament.

That's wonderful. However, I do not see any Scripture verses listed that demonstrate that 2 Peter is to be included in the Bible.

However, Carson,it is simple to prove the New Testament and II Peter is inspired.

This will be interesting.

1. Are the teachings harmonious with others that are " not in question?" The answer is Yes. There are no teachings of Peter that contradict any other as it pertains to similar subjects. If so, PROVE IT!

So, if a writing doesn't contradict the New Testament, it's inspired? It seems like I have a whole host of literature from the early Church in my personal library that I should be binding to the back of the copy of my Bible.

2. Peter proved his writings were inspired by the same litmus all the other writers did. He performed Miracles. Acts 3:3-8.

But, how do you know that 2 Peter is written by Peter? Because it says so? You're kidding with me - right?

3. Peter and Paul were equals.Could Peter Lie being equal with Paul in his writing of II Peter.Peter said Paul's writing were scripture. IIPet.3:15,16. Do you now question Paul's writings also? Gal. 2:7,8. He claimed he was writing by inspiration II Peter 1:20,21. He NEVER claimed he was writing his opinions. If so, where?

Cf. Answer to #2.

4. The internal evidence indicates IIPet. is inspired. His teachings on the second coming. IIPeter 3:8-10. His teachings on the Mount of transfiguration. II Pet. 1:15-18. His accurate teachings on Old Testament events. II Pet. 2:1-17. His writings are in complete harmony with all other writers of the New Testament. Compare Mat. 24,25 with II Pet. 3.

So, a text is inspired if it speaks of (1) the Second Coming, (2) the Transfiguration, & (3) OT events while being "harmonious"? Would you hold on for a moment while I compose an inspired text - I'll be right back.

5. He claims he is writing an epistle to God's people. II Pet. 3:1,2. men are commanded to hear and follow the teachings of the 12. Jn. 16:13, Mk. 16:15-20, II Cor. 12:12, I Cor. 14:37, I Cor. 11:1,2 Phil. 3:17 and a host of other passages.

A claim?

6. Christians in the first century recognized Peter as having the Authority of Christ. Mat. 16:19, Mat. 18:18, Acts 2:38,42. If Peter's second epistle was not scripture he lied. Peter claimed inspiration. II Pet. 1:20,21, II Pet. 3:1,2. Are saying he LIED?

No. I'm saying that 2 Peter may very well not have been written by St. Peter the Apostle. How do you know? Because the manuscripts say so? You're kidding with me - right? Many texts in the early Church claim the same authority and authorship - yet, you don't include them in your New Testament. I wonder why.

7. Peter proclaimed he was teaching truth. Truth comes from the mouth of God. Jn. 17:17, II Peter 1:16-19, II Tim. 3:16,17.
I trust this will suffice to the rational mind that II Pet. is inspired of God.
Carson, if you want to know the truth,there is but one source. IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. JN. 17:17.

I still do not see where in Scripture (of course, outside of 2 Peter) it says that 2 Peter is the inspired word of God. Are you not following a tradition of man?

God bless,

Carson

 

I have proved it. I Thes. 5:21. Now, who gave your bishop authority? How does he bilbically verify it? PROVE THAT FROM THE SCRIPTURES!

Frank,

I'm only going to show this to you once, so listen up.

Jesus appointed 12 Apostles. Judas Iscariot's office among the 12 was left desolate. It was filled with Matthias by the casting of lots.

Acts 1:20

For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and `His office (episkope - defined as "office of a bishop" by Strong's - #1984) let another take.'

From this verse, apostolic succession is proven to be Biblical. Now the question arises as to whether the apostles themselves expected to have successors to their own episkope (such as that of Peter). We know through extra-testamental evidence that this is so. Of course, you can deny the validity of any extra-testamental evidence at whim, but when you do, you undermine the validity of your own canon of NT Scripture, which is determined primarily through the episcopal tradition of the Catholic Church. It also runs against prudence to disregard this evidence; such disregard will be judged when one stands before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ.

From the witness of one of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith against the Gnostic heresies, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, I read some very interesting early Church history that coincides with this Biblical text. Instead of reproducing the portion here, I will direct you to a reference where you may read for yourself.

Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses - Book 3, Chapter 3, Paragraphs 1-4:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

In Par 3, Irenaeus finishes with Eleutherius.

To view the list from his successor, Victor, visit

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

which proceeds to the present bishop, John Paul II, who is currently an 82 year-old polish man who has written 13 encyclicals and is the 12th longest reigning pontiff in the Church's ~1970 year history.

God bless you,

Carson

[ August 05, 2002, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson:

I am going to say this once. There ain't no scripture for your claim. None. Your bishop cannot do what the aposltes did. He does not teach what they taught.

By the way, The scriptural evidence and testimony of witnesses indicates to the rational mind II Pet. is inspired. Just because you deny evidence does not make it go away.

Of course, you really do not put much stock in the authority of the scriptures anyway. You ignore I Tim. 3:1-11, I Tim. 4:1-4, Mat. 23:8,9. So why ask me for evidence, you just ignore it.

Your system is 1. Pope 2. Magisterium 3. tradition of which you cannot read in the New Testament.

It is amazing to me you will copy and paste something written by an uninspired man and expect people to believe it and then question whether II Peter is inspired.

I do not know what school you are attending but they should spend some time teaching you how to prove any document of antiquity is genuine. You must have been absent from school on those days. I know II Pet is genuine just as I know George Washington was president. It is called EVIDENCE.

I provided it. You do not like it. But, then you do not like to follow the teachings of the New Testament anyway. So I am not surprised at all about your theological problems.

God has authorized me to prove all things. I Thes 5:21, Rev. 2:2. The miraculous power Peter and the apostles manifested confirmed what they spoke was from God. MK. 16: 17-20. The evidence I posted indicates II Pet. is inspired.

I also know that your bishop, pope,and magisterium have no authority. How? No EVIDENCE. They do not have the credentials like Peter, James, John. If they had what the apostles had they could do what they did. They would also say what they said. In both cases,they DO NOT! Therefore by the lack of evidential support one must rationally conclude they are simply imposters.

 

Carson:
I accept the New Testament because that truth was promised to the 12. John 16:13. They confirmed the message with miracles. Mk. 16:17-20. One of the credentials for apostleship was miraculous power. II Cor. 12:12.

I believe the new testament is inspired for the same reason I believe William Shakesphere wrote Romeo and Juliet. The evidence.

One can examine the internal evidence of a document to verify if it is authentic. This is done by content, comparison, and testimony of witnesses.

Just as I can know Peter wrote II Pet. I can know that the pope and the magisterium have no authority. How? The evidence. They have no CREDENTIALS. They have not seen Christ. He did not select them. They have had no apostloic hands laid on them. They possess no miraculous gift to confirm their claims. It is all evidence, and in the case of your claim about your bishop, the lack of it!

 

Now THIS is interesting! Watching two people both from different denominations try to prove each other wrong on something that you think they are both wrong on. lol.

Oh, but keep it up. You've made my day after a long boring depressing week.

Bro. Adam

 

Adam:
I am not a denomination. I have no desire to be a part of any division. If you believe that I am , PROVE IT! I Thes 5:21.

Furthermore, I presented the evidence that proves my position. Again, if you disagree, please present evidence.

 

Hi Frank,

There ain't no scripture for your claim. None.

Cf. my post above, where I gave this exact Scripture that you claim doesn't exist.

By the way, The scriptural evidence and testimony of witnesses indicates to the rational mind II Pet. is inspired.

And as I showed you two posts above, your statement is false. I went through each of your rationale and showed the fallacy in each.

Of course, you really do not put much stock in the authority of the scriptures anyway.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt.

So why ask me for evidence, you just ignore it.

I responded to each point individually.

Your system is 1. Pope 2. Magisterium 3. tradition of which you cannot read in the New Testament.

1. Pope: Matthew 16:16-18
2. Magisterium: Matthew 18:18
3. Tradition: 2 Thessalonians 2:15

All 3 parts of my "system" have Scriptural foundations.

It is amazing to me you will copy and paste something written by an uninspired man and expect people to believe it and then question whether II Peter is inspired.

Evidence need not have divine inspiration to state truth. Your denial of and closed face to uninspired evidence serves as proof of your own prideful ignorance. Of course, when facing a medical decision, you would turn to a medical professional. When facing a decision as to whether the Apostles appointed successors, it is prudent to turn to extratestamental evidence: that of Church historians and early Christians who lived within the context of Christianity at that time.

I do not know what school you are attending but they should spend some time teaching you how to prove any document of antiquity is genuine. You must have been absent from school on those days. I know II Pet is genuine just as I know George Washington was president. It is called EVIDENCE.

Look at how you contradict yourself. First, you avoid Irenaeus' testimony, which is uninspired evidence. Second, you attest to your knowledge that George Washington was the first American president by turning to uninspired evidence. This is quite a convenience on your part.

The evidence I posted indicates II Pet. is inspired.

You posted no credible evidence that 2 Peter is inspired. Cf. my response to you 2 posts above.

I also know that your bishop, pope,and magisterium have no authority. How? No EVIDENCE. They do not have the credentials like Peter, James, John. If they had what the apostles had they could do what they did. They would also say what they said. In both cases,they DO NOT! Therefore by the lack of evidential support one must rationally conclude they are simply imposters.

One need not confirm authority with signs and wonders. The Pharisees in Jesus' day who sat upon the Seat of Moses and held rightful God-given authority did not produce signs and wonders. Yet, Jesus said, ""The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Mt 23:2)

Your lack of Christian charity compels me to discontinue dialogue with you. If you continue to remain antagonistic and uncharitable, I will discontinue further dialogue with you.

God bless you.

yours, in good will,

Carson Weber

[ August 05, 2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]