False Christs

[McCree79]

Hi all, have a few questions for you while I was emailing friends and relatives on their arrival time. Hope it is alright to ask the following questions.

If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did?


The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in A.D. 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?


If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the foundation and basis of Christian truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?


Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible ?unity? that exists only in the hearts of believers?


If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?


Hebrews 13:17 says, ?Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.? What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church?s leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?

Lakeside,

I hope you have peace at this difficult time.

I will address a few things now. Some later when I get home.

1: When is it OK to rebel leaders? :
Answer is when the leaders do not follow scripture. You then MUST rebel.
2: Martin Luther the first to champion sola scripture and interpret how he did?: Augustine championed the supreme authority of scripture before Luther. That is just off the top of my head. Once I get home to my writings of Augustine, I will quote him. Augustine also held many, many of Luther's interpretations well before Luther.
3. Widening division between Protestants?: I don't think so. My SBC churches as done and continues to have events and interact well with methodist, pca, and nondenominational churches. I have never seen church cooperation and fellowship better.

I am out to dinner with family now. Answer more later.

 

[DHK]

Hi all, have a few questions for you while I was emailing friends and relatives on their arrival time. Hope it is alright to ask the following questions.

If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did?

What do you mean by that? Luther was a Catholic and when he left Catholicism he brought much of that Catholic belief with him. Like Calvin he adopted many the teachings of Augustine, so his interpretations were certainly not novel. Neither are they new when compared with some of the ECF. But you will have to be more specific as to what teachings you are referring to.

The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in A.D. 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day.

Where do you get that information from? It is not accurate. The early churches had a completed canon long before that time. I believe this is simply RCC propaganda.
Here is a link that refutes your claim:
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-earliest-evidence.htm

All the books of the NT were in use by the end of the first century, that is by 100 A.D.
It is important to note: The books of the NT were given to us by GOD, not by the "The Church."

Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?

A false premise leads to a false conclusion, as you can see.
But let's examine what you have said.
Sola scriptura--literally "scripture alone," as defined by most Baptists, is: The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practices.
We see it in use in Acts 17:11
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--Paul came to Berea and commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures every time that he preached. As great and Godly a man that Paul was, they were not going to take his words or preaching at face value. They searched the Scriptures (their OT) to validate his NT message of the gospel. If it was true they would believe it; it not they would have rejected it. That is our obligation today. Prove all things through the Word of God. That is sola scriptura.
The nation of Israel had the same duty:

Isa 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.
--When anyone came and spoke to them or proclaimed a message to them, if it wasn't according to their written law, the Law of Moses and of the Prophets, they were not to listen to it. Why? They did not have the light of God. The Israelites had to practice sola scriptura. The Bible (OT) was their guide.

If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the foundation and basis of Christian truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

First, note that the foundation of the J.W.'s is Charles Taze Russel.
The foundation of the Mormon's is Joseph Smith.
The foundation of the SDA is Ellen G. White.

What is the foundation of the RCC? It is not the Bible.

But here, Paul writes to Timothy who is the pastor of the local church at Ephesus. He is a young man. This is a pastoral epistle. He is writing on issues that relate how he may behave in the "house of God," the ekklesia or "assembly" of the living God. This is not a universal church. It is the church which is at Ephesus.
And this local church is "the pillar and ground of the truth," in Ephesus where it is located.
In Ephesus there was a great Temple, the temple of Dianna, described in Acts 19 (See Acts 19:27,28). Of its greatness, Barnes quotes Pliny:

It was 425 feet in length, 220 in breadth, and was supported by 127 pillars of Parian marble, each of which was sixty feet high. These pillars were furnished by as many princes, and thirty-six of them were curiously carved, and the rest were finely polished. Each pillar, it is supposed, with its base, contained 150 tons of marble.

Timothy was familiar with pillars. The pillars supported the roof and stood on the foundation. They had to be strong.
The pillars of the local church stood upon the foundation of the truth, that is the Word of God. It also upheld the truth, that is the Word of God, which it proclaimed everywhere it went. Every local church was to be like Ephesus with its foundation upon the Bible, and its proclamation of the Bible.

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible ?unity? that exists only in the hearts of believers?

This was Jesus Great High Priestly Prayer. He was praying for his disciples in particular and those that would follow them. He did not pray anywhere for world-wide unity.
He prayed for unity among them. It is in harmony with what he said just some hours earlier:
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
--Their love for each other would be a mark of unity, and others would know they were followers of Christ by their love for each other.

If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

Christ never prayed that. That is your misinterpretation.
It is also wrong for you to lump in all Protestants into one group.
Catholicism is also very much divided.

Hebrews 13:17 says, ?Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.? What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church?s leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?

The author of the book of Hebrews is writing to Christians that had a Jewish background. But they did belong to local churches. There was no denomination. Therefore they were to submit to those that were in charge of their various local churches. It is very likely that these believers were still around Jerusalem. If so, then their pastor was James, the half brother of Jesus. He is mentioned in Acts 15, and continued as the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. He is also the author of the First Epistle of James.

We submit to the authorities in our own local churches.
The authority in another local church or in any hierarchy is not applicable here.
In the first century there were only churches; no such thing as "The Church."

 

[lakeside]

DHK, I will go back through your post again tomorrow, but at the very end you wrote; "In the first century there were only churches; no such thing as "The Church."
__
In Matt. 16 Jesus did not say 'churches" He did say singular " church".________________

 

[OldRegular]

What do you mean by that? Luther was a Catholic and when he left Catholicism he brought much of that Catholic belief with him. Like Calvin he adopted many the teachings of Augustine, so his interpretations were certainly not novel. Neither are they new when compared with some of the ECF. But you will have to be more specific as to what teachings you are referring to.

Where do you get that information from? It is not accurate. The early churches had a completed canon long before that time. I believe this is simply RCC propaganda.
Here is a link that refutes your claim:
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-earliest-evidence.htm

All the books of the NT were in use by the end of the first century, that is by 100 A.D.
It is important to note: The books of the NT were given to us by GOD, not by the "The Church."

A false premise leads to a false conclusion, as you can see.
But let's examine what you have said.
Sola scriptura--literally "scripture alone," as defined by most Baptists, is: The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practices.
We see it in use in Acts 17:11
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--Paul came to Berea and commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures every time that he preached. As great and Godly a man that Paul was, they were not going to take his words or preaching at face value. They searched the Scriptures (their OT) to validate his NT message of the gospel. If it was true they would believe it; it not they would have rejected it. That is our obligation today. Prove all things through the Word of God. That is sola scriptura.
The nation of Israel had the same duty:

Isa 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.
--When anyone came and spoke to them or proclaimed a message to them, if it wasn't according to their written law, the Law of Moses and of the Prophets, they were not to listen to it. Why? They did not have the light of God. The Israelites had to practice sola scriptura. The Bible (OT) was their guide.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

First, note that the foundation of the J.W.'s is Charles Taze Russel.
The foundation of the Mormon's is Joseph Smith.
The foundation of the SDA is Ellen G. White.

What is the foundation of the RCC? It is not the Bible.

But here, Paul writes to Timothy who is the pastor of the local church at Ephesus. He is a young man. This is a pastoral epistle. He is writing on issues that relate how he may behave in the "house of God," the ekklesia or "assembly" of the living God. This is not a universal church. It is the church which is at Ephesus.
And this local church is "the pillar and ground of the truth," in Ephesus where it is located.
In Ephesus there was a great Temple, the temple of Dianna, described in Acts 19 (See Acts 19:27,28). Of its greatness, Barnes quotes Pliny:

Timothy was familiar with pillars. The pillars supported the roof and stood on the foundation. They had to be strong.
The pillars of the local church stood upon the foundation of the truth, that is the Word of God. It also upheld the truth, that is the Word of God, which it proclaimed everywhere it went. Every local church was to be like Ephesus with its foundation upon the Bible, and its proclamation of the Bible.

This was Jesus Great High Priestly Prayer. He was praying for his disciples in particular and those that would follow them. He did not pray anywhere for world-wide unity.
He prayed for unity among them. It is in harmony with what he said just some hours earlier:
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
--Their love for each other would be a mark of unity, and others would know they were followers of Christ by their love for each other.

Christ never prayed that. That is your misinterpretation.
It is also wrong for you to lump in all Protestants into one group.
Catholicism is also very much divided.

The author of the book of Hebrews is writing to Christians that had a Jewish background. But they did belong to local churches. There was no denomination. Therefore they were to submit to those that were in charge of their various local churches. It is very likely that these believers were still around Jerusalem. If so, then their pastor was James, the half brother of Jesus. He is mentioned in Acts 15, and continued as the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. He is also the author of the First Epistle of James.

We submit to the authorities in our own local churches.
The authority in another local church or in any hierarchy is not applicable here.
In the first century there were only churches; no such thing as "The Church."

Interesting comments DHK. I am especially appreciative of the link about the Bible. I had never seen that!

 

[lakeside]

OldRegular, DHK, the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe. The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you.
The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century. Further, the canon of Scripture wasn't determined until the end of the fourth century. Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority? The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church. Let's go back in history to Moses. The people did not know that Moses' writings were inspired because Moses' writings said they were inspired (which is the Protestant argument). The Jews believed that Moses' writings were inspired because of the tradition and the authority God put over them, who said that Moses' writings were inspired? It was an authority outside of Moses' writings that determined Moses' writings were inspired.
That is the Catholic position. We need an authority outside of Scripture to tell us what Scriptures are inspired, and what they mean. Moses was the one who infallibly interpreted the Scriptures for the people. The people didn't go off (like you Protestants) and interpret the Scriptures on their own. They were under the authority of Moses. This was the function of Moses in the Old Covenant, and is the function of Peter (and his succesors) in the New Covenant.
Instead of tackling my arguments and inquiries head-on, you rather stay in your comfort zone and argue that nothing convinces you. An honest opponent would actually address the Fathers, exegete Scripture and offer his own patristic and biblical evidences to support his own positions. You don't appear to have any interest in the truth. You mentioned that you are an ex-Catholic but never knew Jesus or the Bible as a Catholic, that can not be true, because Jesus was always there in His Church waiting for you, but you were not then ready for Him. And, if you had listen you would have heard the Holy Bible being read to you at every Mass.


In fact, most likely if you and some of the other non-Catholics really knew early Christian history or the Church Fathers, you all would have stayed Catholic. I often read Protestant claim that "the whole nation of Israel was guided by these books," that statement is misleading. In fact, it is simply wrong. Moses had those books read only every seven years {Deut 31:9-12}. So the people weren't principally "guided by these books." They were "guided" by Moses, the authority that God appointed over them. God didn't change the program with the New Testament. While we still read the books, we are "guided" by those God appointed over us - the pope, bishops, priests and deacons.


Regarding Moses again, let me ask you this. And don't blow my question off as "insignificant" just because you can't answer it while denying your Protestant position. When Moses was in authority, Korah and his followers rebelled against him, because of their rebellion, God caused the earth to swallow them whole. In{ Jude 1:11}, he warns New Testament Christians not to perish in Korah's rebellion. The question is this: Why would Jude give such a warning to New Testament Christians if we had no people in the Church in authority over us?

You cannot guarantee me that your interpretation of Scripture is correct. You are only fooling yourself if you think so, and that is why there are 30,000 + conflicting different Protestant denominations with everyone of them claiming their's is the one true interpretation while done are. The Church that compiled the Canon of the Holy Bible has the One True Interpretation, if not, then how do you know that the Bible contains the correct Holy Books?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus NEVER claimed that there would be a Church whose traditions and opinions were sacred, but that His WORD alone would lead and direct and instruct the saved, as the Scriptures ALWAYS are what is to be the sole and final authority on all doctrines and practices!

And again, the RCC did NOT give to us the canon, as the OT one was already received from Judaism even at the time of Christ, and the canon of NT books was already seen and being used by end of the first.early second centuries, way before any council!

And since the Church of rome was not even around at pentacost and in the book of acts, what church was that one then?

 

[DHK]

OldRegular, DHK, the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe. The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you.

Here you go again. You are spouting RCC propaganda with nothing to back it up. You throw in a few references but are unable to explain them. You can only assert that "The Church" (no such thing) is the final authority, but in reality there was no such thing as "The Church" that even existed for at least three centuries. Only "churches" existed. There was nothing that even remotely resembled a denomination in existence.
The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Canon. That is a biased assertion by you. Catholic propaganda.
The Catholic Church has a false interpretation--easily proven to be false by the Word of God. It is heretical. What is the "new birth" for example. It certainly isn't baptism. Anyone on this board can demonstrate the foolishness of that position to you, and yet it is one of the most important doctrines in the Bible. In fact your eternal destiny hangs on that very doctrine.
The RCC is not the authentic interpreter of scripture any more than Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell is. That is Catholic propaganda and is just as foolish as Mormon and J.W. claims.

The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century.

That is like saying Jesus and Paul did not come first. I suppose "The Church" preceded them also. The early believers were told to obey the "words and commands of: the prophets, Christ, and the apostles." They were never commanded to take heed to "The Church."
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Obey the words of: 1. The prophets--the writers of the OT scriptures.
2. The Apostles--the writers of the NT scriptures.
--Nowhere in scripture is such a monstrosity as "The Church" as a denomination mentioned.

Further, the canon of Scripture wasn't determined until the end of the fourth century.

More RCC propaganda which is totally false. Did you read the link I gave you?
Here is Scripture:
I just quoted 2Pet.3:2
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--Jude was written in 70 A.D. one of the last books to be written. What do you think "the Faith" was that they were to contend for? It was the NT message that they had: Paul's epistles, Peter's epistles, the Gospels, Acts--all of these had been written before that time.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--It is evident to see that Peter considered Paul's epistles as Scripture.
He knew which ones were Scripture of course. The Lord illuminated him to this fact. Most of which he wrote turned out to be scripture.
And much of he wrote "those that were unlearned and unstable wrest as they did also the other scriptures to their own destruction." He spoke of the beginnings of the RCC, the false teachers.

Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority? The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible.

No, God overrules "The RCC." You are very arrogant to think that the RCC can overrule God. Read 1Cor.12-14, where Paul takes corrective measures in the church of Corinth to those who were abusing spiritual gifts. Some of these gifts were given to the early churches to make up for lack of revelation (epistles not yet written). Paul's First Epistle to Corinth was written in 55 A.D. one of the first books of the Bible, written before many of the others. The gift of prophesy is spoken of quite a bit, especially in chapter 14. God provided revelation in this gift because NT revelation had not been given. By the end of the first century these gifts had ceased for the canon had been completed.
God is greater than "The Church."

The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church.

The Bible never talks about "The Church," not even once. More Catholic propaganda that you can't prove through scripture. And yet it constantly speaks of "scripture," "revelation," "the Word of God," "thus saith the Lord," and many other such references. The very word "Biblios" is used in the NT from which we get our word Bible so your statement is made out of ignorance or is a plain lie. Probably it is Catholic propaganda given to you by those who don't know any better.
The word "scripture" is used 32 times in the Bible, and "scriptures" 21 times.
That is 53 times that scripture or scriptures is used. Isn't that good enough? That is what we refer to as our Bible--the Scriptures.
We also refer to it as the "Word of God," a phrase that it is used 106 times in the Bible," 57 of those times in the NT.
The Greek word "Biblios" translated "book" is used 13 times, and its relative "Bibliov" another 32 times where it is translated book, scroll, or writing. In English these words are otherwise translated Bible.

Let's go back in history to Moses. The people did not know that Moses' writings were inspired because Moses' writings said they were inspired (which is the Protestant argument). The Jews believed that Moses' writings were inspired because of the tradition and the authority God put over them, who said that Moses' writings were inspired?

That is not true.
The Israelites themselves heard the voice of God at Mount Sinai. They saw the signs, the thunderings, etc., and they were very much afraid.
They saw the miracles in Egypt--plagues which devastated the Egyptians but left them untouched.
God spoke audibly to their prophets many times: Samuel, Elijah, Moses, Joshua, etc. Would there be a reason to call them liars and call their testimony into question. Angels came and spoke to others such as Manaoh the father of Samson.
What does the Bible say about all of this:
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
--Do you question this happened?
There was no tradition here. The prophets were the authors of the OT. Even when Moses authored the first five books, do you not believe that the Holy Spirit could not guide him what to write? Is your faith that weak?

It was an authority outside of Moses' writings that determined Moses' writings were inspired.

That authority is called God. Do you believe Him? It is not the so-called "Church." You have been fed lies.

That is the Catholic position. We need an authority outside of Scripture to tell us what Scriptures are inspired, and what they mean.

Catholic propaganda, unsupported by Scripture. It is anti-biblical.

Moses was the one who infallibly interpreted the Scriptures for the people. The people didn't go off (like you Protestants) and interpret the Scriptures on their own. They were under the authority of Moses. This was the function of Moses in the Old Covenant, and is the function of Peter (and his succesors) in the New Covenant.

Peter was rebuked by Paul when he went wrong.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
--At this point he was carried off with wrong doctrine along with other Judaizers. Paul came and rebuked him. Sola Scriptura was his guide.

Instead of tackling my arguments and inquiries head-on, you rather stay in your comfort zone and argue that nothing convinces you. An honest opponent would actually address the Fathers, exegete Scripture and offer his own patristic and biblical evidences to support his own positions. You don't appear to have any interest in the truth.

I have given you The Truth, the Word of God, at every point refuting every thing you have said. You have given me nothing but RCC propaganda which is truly pitiful. You have not been able to refute one thing I have said.

You mentioned that you are an ex-Catholic but never knew Jesus or the Bible as a Catholic, that can not be true, because Jesus was always there in His Church waiting for you,

The gospel was never preached, not once in the RCC. The RCC is not interested in preaching the gospel. As noted they don't even know what it means to be born again, and either do you know from previous discussions.

but you were not then ready for Him. And, if you had listen you would have heard the Holy Bible being read to you at every Mass.

I did hear the Bible, but I never heard the Bible preached, that is an exposition of the Bible or any exegesis of Scripture. The little homilies were just harmless little ditties not wanting to offend anyone. The gospel, per se, was never preached. But how would you know? You wouldn't know the gospel if it slammed you in the face!

 

[DHK]

In fact, most likely if you and some of the other non-Catholics really knew early Christian history or the Church Fathers, you all would have stayed Catholic.

Most heresies entered Christianity through the ECF. The Bible is our standard not the ECF. That is where people begin to go astray. If I tell you to read the history of the J.W.'s and Mormons and the history of American Christianity and its spread throughout America only using secular Encyclopedias, do you think you would get an accurate history?

I often read Protestant claim that "the whole nation of Israel was guided by these books," that statement is misleading. In fact, it is simply wrong. Moses had those books read only every seven years {Deut 31:9-12}. So the people weren't principally "guided by these books." They were "guided" by Moses, the authority that God appointed over them.

"You do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God."
Here is what the Bible says:

Deu 6:4-9
(4) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
(5) And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
(6) And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
(7) And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
(8) And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
(9) And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
--They were to repeat the Scripture every day!

God didn't change the program with the New Testament. While we still read the books, we are "guided" by those God appointed over us - the pope, bishops, priests and deacons.

There is no pope in the Bible, no bishop, no hierarchial structure whatsoever.
There is the pastor, and deacon. Deacon simply means servant.
The congregation is democratic. The churches are autonomous from each other, separate, not connected. There is no denomination.

Regarding Moses again, let me ask you this. And don't blow my question off as "insignificant" just because you can't answer it while denying your Protestant position. When Moses was in authority, Korah and his followers rebelled against him, because of their rebellion, God caused the earth to swallow them whole. In{ Jude 1:11}, he warns New Testament Christians not to perish in Korah's rebellion. The question is this: Why would Jude give such a warning to New Testament Christians if we had no people in the Church in authority over us?

First, there was no church in the OT. The question is somewhat irrelevant.
Second, there is no denomination in the NT.
Third, the only relevance the question does have is that members of a NT assembly are to be subject to the authorities of their NT local assembly, but that has nothing to do with the book of Jude.
The Book of Jude is speaking of false teachers. You are taking scripture out of context just as Peter warned about. Such teachers are headed for their own destruction if they don't repent of their destructive ways.

You cannot guarantee me that your interpretation of Scripture is correct. You are only fooling yourself if you think so, and that is why there are 30,000 + conflicting different Protestant denominations with everyone of them claiming their's is the one true interpretation while done are. The Church that compiled the Canon of the Holy Bible has the One True Interpretation, if not, then how do you know that the Bible contains the correct Holy Books?

I can guarantee you this:
The RCC has a false interpretation and has no idea what salvation is.
The 30,000 denominations you mention are a farce for they include liberals, cults, etc.--those that we would never associate with.
The RCC itself is divided. That is where the verse "Judge not that ye be not judged" comes in. Your statement is hypocritical.
Next, many of those mentioned do not even take the Word of God as their authority. Many of them don't even care.
Once you whittle down all of those you might be left with a dozen or so.
That is how deceptive your RCC propaganda is!!

As I demonstrated here before, I will do it again.
Ask an Arminian or a Calvinist--they differ on many things. But they will not differ on salvation.

I am sure of my interpretation exactly because of sola scriptura. I use the Bible as my guide, my final interpretation in all matters of faith and doctrine.
You don't. You have proven this in this very post.
You have cited RCC propaganda as your authority, not Scripture. How then can you be sure of anything. You don't know the Bible, and if you don't know the Word of God, how can you be sure of anything?

 

[lakeside]

DHK, why do you hate to see a Catholic trying to defend his Faith, yet you accept all the other non-Baptists on this forum without threatening banishment ?

As I keep telling you ; I believe in the Bible, the Whole inerrant Word of the very Sacred Holy Bible, I just don't believe in your interpretation, if you will show me where your interpretation is the One True Interpretation as that which the early Christians of the church that Jesus formed on his Apostles [ Matt.16: 15-19 ] complied with then I will gladly and wholeheartedly run to join your particular church, until that happens I will continue to use the very same interpretation used to select which writings, from a large maze of different writings to give us our completed NT. That interpretation is the interpretation that I use.

 

[lakeside]

I have some questions for anybody that believes in the dogma of Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone. If you answer these questions from the Bible alone, I will leave Jesus' church and join your who ever invented church and if you refuse to answer or can not with just the Bible Alone then I accept it as a man-made dogma invented 1500 years after Jesus had already established "His Church" as we see from Matt 16:18, Matt.18: 15-18, Matt.28:18-20 and we see in this John 10: 16 a shepherd has the same commands for the whole fold of sheep not different conflicting commands [ Teachings/ Interpretations ] also only His Apostolic Church has all authority as explained in Luke 10: 16 . Here are my questions-

1) Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?

2) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?

3) Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?

4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

5) If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

6) Who did write the Gospel of Mark, and how do you know?

7) Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

8) If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

9) Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?

10) If you don’t know who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, then how do you know it is inspired?

 

[DHK]

I have some questions for anybody that believes in the dogma of Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone. If you answer these questions from the Bible alone, I will leave Jesus' church and join your who ever invented church and if you refuse to answer or can not with just the Bible Alone then I accept it as a man-made dogma invented 1500 years after Jesus had already established "His Church" as we see from Matt 16:18, Matt.18: 15-18, Matt.28:18-20 and we see in this John 10: 16 a shepherd has the same commands for the whole fold of sheep not different conflicting commands [ Teachings/ Interpretations ] also only His Apostolic Church has all authority as explained in Luke 10: 16 . Here are my questions-

1) Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?

2) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?

3) Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?

4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

5) If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

6) Who did write the Gospel of Mark, and how do you know?

7) Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

8) If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

9) Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?

10) If you don’t know who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, then how do you know it is inspired?

I have answered all these questions before. You never acknowledged my answer then. Why should I dig up the same answers and do it all over for you again?

If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God then why are you here?
But wait. You said you did believe the Bible was the Word of God and it was inspired and inerrant!
So why the foolish questions? If the above is true then they don't have to be answered do they? In fact you already know the answer "if you believe the Bible is the Word of God."

But if you are not sure about the Bible then you are not even sure about your salvation, are you?
All you can do is take information off of a RCC apologetic website and post it on here. It is RCC propaganda. You don't know what you believe, and are unable to express your beliefs in your own words. You can't answer my posts in your own words, and defend yourself using the Scriptures. It truly is pitiful.

 

[DHK]

DHK, why do you hate to see a Catholic trying to defend his Faith, yet you accept all the other non-Baptists on this forum without threatening banishment ?

You feel very insecure. Where did I threaten banishment?

As I keep telling you ; I believe in the Bible, the Whole inerrant Word of the very Sacred Holy Bible,

Really? You just spent an entire post basically trashing the Bible. Now you say you believe the "whole inerrant Word of the very sacred Holy Bible."
Give me just one reason to believe you?
You just posted an entire list of questions questioning the Bible's inspiration, some of the books' validity, their authorship, if they should even be in the canon? You have questioned the very hand of God in the canon of Scripture! No, I don't believe you when you say "I believe in the Bible."
You don't. You question it; doubt it; cast doubt on it for others. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I just don't believe in your interpretation, if you will show me where your interpretation is the One True Interpretation as that which the early Christians of the church that Jesus formed on his Apostles [ Matt.16: 15-19 ] complied with then I will gladly and wholeheartedly run to join your particular church, until that happens I will continue to use the very same interpretation used to select which writings, from a large maze of different writings to give us our completed NT. That interpretation is the interpretation that I use.

Here is the way it works.
Until you take scripture and show me where my interpretation is wrong, then it stands as the correct interpretation. So far you haven't done that. Thus my interpretation has been correct every time. All that you have offered on this board is RCC propaganda. You have not refuted a single post.
Show me where I am wrong in my interpretation of the Bible. You can't.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, the Bible Teaches that THE SPOKEN WORD is “THE WORD OF GOD,” in addition to the Written Word.

A common misconception that you and some others have is that the “word of God” refers exclusively to the Bible. The truth is that the Bible repeatedly calls the oral (spoken) tradition “the word of God.” (Jesus Christ Himself is also called the “Word of God” in John 1 and Hebrews 11:3.) By describing the oral tradition as “the word of God,” the Bible is indicating that the apostolic oral tradition is infallible; and that it represents, along with Scripture, one of the sources of Jesus Christ’s revelation which must be accepted. Your particular method of interpretation is not anything like the way early Christians interpreted Holy Scripture. Those early Christians that selected our correct Books found in our Bibles were guided by the Holy Spirit. If not guided by the very active Holy Spirit [ in fact a very tangible Holy Spirit back then ] how do you know if those Holy Books are indeed the correct Holy Books if you say that you have the correct interpretation while those who selected the Books that compile our Bibles had and have the wrong interpretation? Also what makes your interpretation the correct interpretation while all the other 30,000 + non-Catholic interpretations are all wrong?

 

[DHK]

DHK, the Bible Teaches that THE SPOKEN WORD is “THE WORD OF GOD,” in addition to the Written Word.

You should quote your sources. What RCC website did you plagiarize from?

A common misconception that you and some others have is that the “word of God” refers exclusively to the Bible.

It does. Today we have a closed canon. We do not have an open canon as they did in the first century before the NT was completed. Once it was complete, then the canon of Scripture was forever closed.

The truth is that the Bible repeatedly calls the oral (spoken) tradition “the word of God.”

Not for today it doesn't.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--God spoke in the past in different ways through the prophets. That was the OT.
Today God speaks through His Son. His Son is revealed to us through His Word and not through any other means. Those who say that revelation comes through tradition teach heresy. Jesus himself condemned this teaching.

(Jesus Christ Himself is also called the “Word of God” in John 1 and Hebrews 11:3.) By describing the oral tradition as “the word of God,” the Bible is indicating that the apostolic oral tradition is infallible; and that it represents, along with Scripture, one of the sources of Jesus Christ’s revelation which must be accepted.

Jesus Christ in John 1:1 is called the logos. It is a word used to reflect his divinity.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
--This verse refers back to creation and the method of creation:
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
--The verse has nothing to do with Apostolic and oral tradition, as you can see.
[/quote]Your particular method of interpretation is not anything like the way early Christians interpreted Holy Scripture. Those early Christians that selected our correct Books found in our Bibles were guided by the Holy Spirit. If not guided by the very active Holy Spirit [ in fact a very tangible Holy Spirit back then ] how do you know if those Holy Books are indeed the correct Holy Books if you say that you have the correct interpretation while those who selected the Books that compile our Bibles had and have the wrong interpretation? Also what makes your interpretation the correct interpretation while all the other 30,000 + non-Catholic interpretations are all wrong?[/QUOTE]
You bring up some interesting points, some of which may be heretical.
First, the Holy Spirit is a Spirit and being so was never tangible. To say so, is heresy.
Believers can be guided by the Holy Spirit today in the same way that first century Christians were then, after Pentecost. There is no reason not to believe so or not to experience so.
Thus the question:
"Does God's Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?"

Second, I use the same method of interpretation that Paul condoned in Acts 17:11, and that Isaiah noted in Isa.8:20. As long as I do that I know I will come up with the proper interpretation.

Third, as I explained to you before, the ECF introduced most of the major heresies into Christianity. There is no reason to trust their doctrinal interpretations.

Fourth, you seem to think that the Apostles themselves were ignoramuses incapable of teaching the early Christians which books were inspired and which were not. You believe it was the RCC and not the Apostles. That is a very arrogant position to take.
Paul himself states clearly, "This I have received from the Lord..."
However, you say, 'This I have received from the Catholic Church..." and believe it to be more reliable then the Scriptures themselves. Amazing!

I have answered your last point more than once. It is a worthless false accusation that doesn't deserve an answer. It is a slanderous statement that should be retracted.
It makes an assumption that is not true.
I can do the same thing.
Did you stop beating your wife on Wednesday?

Biblical Christianity is not in competition with 30,000 denominations--a fictitious number made up by a RCC propaganda machine.

 

[Rebel]

The funny thing is that the Eastern Church considers that the RCC did what the RCC says the Protestants did. So, you have the EOC considering itself the one true church and the RCC an interloper, which considers itself the one true church and the Protestants interlopers.

Will the "one true church" please stand up?

 

[Rebel]

You should quote your sources. What RCC website did you plagiarize from?

It does. Today we have a closed canon. We do not have an open canon as they did in the first century before the NT was completed. Once it was complete, then the canon of Scripture was forever closed.

Not for today it doesn't.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--God spoke in the past in different ways through the prophets. That was the OT.
Today God speaks through His Son. His Son is revealed to us through His Word and not through any other means. Those who say that revelation comes through tradition teach heresy. Jesus himself condemned this teaching.

Jesus Christ in John 1:1 is called the logos. It is a word used to reflect his divinity.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
--This verse refers back to creation and the method of creation:
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
--The verse has nothing to do with Apostolic and oral tradition, as you can see.

Your particular method of interpretation is not anything like the way early Christians interpreted Holy Scripture. Those early Christians that selected our correct Books found in our Bibles were guided by the Holy Spirit. If not guided by the very active Holy Spirit [ in fact a very tangible Holy Spirit back then ] how do you know if those Holy Books are indeed the correct Holy Books if you say that you have the correct interpretation while those who selected the Books that compile our Bibles had and have the wrong interpretation? Also what makes your interpretation the correct interpretation while all the other 30,000 + non-Catholic interpretations are all wrong?[/QUOTE]
You bring up some interesting points, some of which may be heretical.
First, the Holy Spirit is a Spirit and being so was never tangible. To say so, is heresy.
Believers can be guided by the Holy Spirit today in the same way that first century Christians were then, after Pentecost. There is no reason not to believe so or not to experience so.
Thus the question:
"Does God's Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?"

Second, I use the same method of interpretation that Paul condoned in Acts 17:11, and that Isaiah noted in Isa.8:20. As long as I do that I know I will come up with the proper interpretation.

Third, as I explained to you before, the ECF introduced most of the major heresies into Christianity. There is no reason to trust their doctrinal interpretations.

Fourth, you seem to think that the Apostles themselves were ignoramuses incapable of teaching the early Christians which books were inspired and which were not. You believe it was the RCC and not the Apostles. That is a very arrogant position to take.
Paul himself states clearly, "This I have received from the Lord..."
However, you say, 'This I have received from the Catholic Church..." and believe it to be more reliable then the Scriptures themselves. Amazing!

I have answered your last point more than once. It is a worthless false accusation that doesn't deserve an answer. It is a slanderous statement that should be retracted.
It makes an assumption that is not true.
I can do the same thing.
Did you stop beating your wife on Wednesday?

Biblical Christianity is not in competition with 30,000 denominations--a fictitious number made up by a RCC propaganda machine.[/QUOTE]

You are right. There are not that many theological "systems". There are only really about eight or nine, the EOC and RCC being two of those.

 

[Rebel]

Look, some years ago, when I had briefly lost my faith, I went on a quest for the "one true church". I discovered there was no such entity. But there are denominations that are closer to apostolic teaching than others. The way to find those is this: Get a literal translation of the Bible, a Greek concordance, a few denominational doctrine books, assemble a library of the early Greek fathers who lived in the first two centuries, and do some serious study. Only use the fathers if scripture and they agree.

What I came to see clearly and without a single doubt is that the RCC is NOT the NT church, it is not the apostolic church, it contains teachings that are a complete departure from Biblical, apostolic Christianity. And it is the greatest developer of non-Biblical doctrine outside of Mormonism.

Those I found closest to the NT are the Anabaptists and General or Arminian Baptists. I think the EOC is very close in many ways, particularly on the atonement, but they have some errors and man-made traditions, as well. But the RCC and Magisterial Protestantism are far from NT Christianity. Really, Magisterial Protestantism is the illegitimate step-child of the RCC.

 

[Rippon]

Look, some years ago, when I had briefly lost my faith, I went on a quest for the "one true church". I discovered there was no such entity.

It wasn't that long ago. In Feb. of this year you had started a thread called Which is correct? You had asked how one can decide out of thousands of religions and denominations --which one is correct.

That is loaded with a false premise and non-Christian elements to those questions.

Later, in post 11 you said:"If a seeker approached you looking for what the gospel is, would you give him your version only, or would you suggest that he compare the beliefs of all the denominations as he reads the Bible and other sources?

Again, some false premises are in that quote. There is no such thing as "your version of the gospel." There is but one true gospel --"versions" are condemned in Gal. 1:8,9

To a lost soul no Christian would counsel someone to investigate the beliefs of all denominations. That is a fruitless exercise.

Then, on 2/17/2015 of that same thread you posed this :How would a seeker determine if Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, Sikhism, or Christianity, etc. was the true religion?

That is not the kind of question a Christian would propose for a "seeker." It sounds like you are the seeker.

But the RCC and Magisterial Protestantism are far from NT Christianity.

So, as one who claims to have majored in Church History you would put the doctrinal stances of the Roman Catholic Church and that of the Protestant Reformers on the same plane. That is absolutely absurd of you rebel.

 

[lakeside]

Do not be afraid to read the following -

This article will explain clearly the Bible Teaches that THE SPOKEN WORD is “THE WORD OF GOD,” in addition to the Written Word.

what Does the "Word of God" Always Mean the Bible?

by Patrick Madrd

It never fails. In conversations about biblical authority with Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, this argument always comes up. The mistake here is in imagining that every time the phrase “Word of God” appears in Scripture, it refers to the Bible.
The fact is, when attention is paid to the context of the passage, we see that most of the time the phrase “Word of God” does not refer to Scripture but to something else, such as Christ, the Law, God’s creative utterances, and apostolic and prophetic preaching. Here are some verses that prove this:

Isaiah 55:10-11 — “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” This demonstrates that “the Word of God” is not Scripture but, rather, God’s creative word.

Luke 3:2-3 — “[T]he word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness; and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance....”

This refers to the inspiration that St. John the Baptist received, as he was sent forth to preach the gospel of repentance and preparation for Christ.

Luke 4:44-5:1 — “[Jesus] was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. While the people pressed upon Him to hear the word of God...”

Luke 8:11-15 — “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; ...the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.... And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

Notice that the emphasis in this last verse is on hearing the word of God; an obvious reference both to Christ’s own preaching as well as to apostolic preaching (cf. 1 Thes 2:13), as well as the continual preaching of the gospel by the Catholic Church to all creatures in all ages (c.f. Mt 28:19-20; Rom 10:14-15).

John 1:1, 14 — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

This passage, of course, refers to the Incarnate Christ.

Acts 4:31 — “And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.”

1 Thessalonians 2:13 — “[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

Here Paul is specifically pointing to oral Tradition, not to Scripture. This was his first epistle to the Thessalonians. Notice that he doesn’t enjoin them to go solely by what is found in Scripture, but he reminds them to adhere to the oral teachings he had handed on to them.

Hebrews 4:12-13 — “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before Him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”

This last passage is frequently quoted out of context by Protestants, as if it meant Scripture. But notice that it speaks of the Word of God as a “Him,” not an “it,” and that it is before “Him [Christ]” that the secrets of our hearts are laid bare and judged. The next time a Protestant quotes this verse out of context, ask him to explain how it is that the Bible can “discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Then ask him if it isn’t nonsensical to think of this as Scripture, and conversely, ask him if it’s not eminently reasonable, even demanded by the context, to see the “Word of God” here to be in reference to Christ.

Hebrews 11:3 — “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”

This passage in Hebrews only reinforces the conclusion we draw from Hebrews 4:12-13 that the Word being spoken of there is not the Bible. Clearly, no Protestant will post that “the world was created” by the Bible. If he does, head for the door, quickly!
------------------------------------------------

 

[Yeshua1]

Do not be afraid to read the following -

This article will explain clearly the Bible Teaches that THE SPOKEN WORD is “THE WORD OF GOD,” in addition to the Written Word.

what Does the "Word of God" Always Mean the Bible?

by Patrick Madrd

It never fails. In conversations about biblical authority with Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, this argument always comes up. The mistake here is in imagining that every time the phrase “Word of God” appears in Scripture, it refers to the Bible.
The fact is, when attention is paid to the context of the passage, we see that most of the time the phrase “Word of God” does not refer to Scripture but to something else, such as Christ, the Law, God’s creative utterances, and apostolic and prophetic preaching. Here are some verses that prove this:

Isaiah 55:10-11 — “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” This demonstrates that “the Word of God” is not Scripture but, rather, God’s creative word.

Luke 3:2-3 — “[T]he word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness; and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance....”

This refers to the inspiration that St. John the Baptist received, as he was sent forth to preach the gospel of repentance and preparation for Christ.

Luke 4:44-5:1 — “[Jesus] was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. While the people pressed upon Him to hear the word of God...”

Luke 8:11-15 — “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; ...the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.... And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

Notice that the emphasis in this last verse is on hearing the word of God; an obvious reference both to Christ’s own preaching as well as to apostolic preaching (cf. 1 Thes 2:13), as well as the continual preaching of the gospel by the Catholic Church to all creatures in all ages (c.f. Mt 28:19-20; Rom 10:14-15).

John 1:1, 14 — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

This passage, of course, refers to the Incarnate Christ.

Acts 4:31 — “And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.”

1 Thessalonians 2:13 — “[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

Here Paul is specifically pointing to oral Tradition, not to Scripture. This was his first epistle to the Thessalonians. Notice that he doesn’t enjoin them to go solely by what is found in Scripture, but he reminds them to adhere to the oral teachings he had handed on to them.

Hebrews 4:12-13 — “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before Him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”

This last passage is frequently quoted out of context by Protestants, as if it meant Scripture. But notice that it speaks of the Word of God as a “Him,” not an “it,” and that it is before “Him [Christ]” that the secrets of our hearts are laid bare and judged. The next time a Protestant quotes this verse out of context, ask him to explain how it is that the Bible can “discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Then ask him if it isn’t nonsensical to think of this as Scripture, and conversely, ask him if it’s not eminently reasonable, even demanded by the context, to see the “Word of God” here to be in reference to Christ.

Hebrews 11:3 — “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”

This passage in Hebrews only reinforces the conclusion we draw from Hebrews 4:12-13 that the Word being spoken of there is not the Bible. Clearly, no Protestant will post that “the world was created” by the Bible. If he does, head for the door, quickly!
------------------------------------------------

Problem though with your view is that the words of Jesus and the Apostles when they were teaching and preaching on doctrine WERE inspirfed and equal to the sacred texts, as the same Spirit was making sure all that was said concerning Jesus and doctrines agreed always with what was written...

So since the papacy and the RCC teach and hold to doctrines and practices not supported in the Bible, nor agreeing with them, how can that tradition be seen to be on same level as words spoken by a Jesus. peter, or Paul then?