• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sola Scriptura

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Acts 15:1, 6-7 , 12-15, 28. Many have used this passage in an attempt to invalidate Petr's primacy by drawing attention to St.James as having the "final word ", but this interpretation is sadly misguided.

Based upon what Biblical evidence???????


So tell me Biblicist, what is there in this episode which runs counter to Peter's primacy of jurisdiction??

You have not established that Peter has a "primacy of jurisdiction." You have only provided a writer who asserts that is the case but provides not one stitch of Biblical evidence to prove that is the case - nothing but his own opinion!




Is it not rather in fullest conformity with it?St. James is the bishop of the city , yet not only does St. Peter speak first - he settles the question;

This counsel had impact upon all churches everywhere not just in the city of Jerusalem! Don't you recall the letter sent by the church and to whom it was sent? Don't you recall that Paul took this letter to all the Gentile churches established in his first missionary Journey??? If Peter's primacy was not over all churches than what was it over????????

However, the imperative mode "hear" joined with the declarative "sentence" proves that James and not Peter made the decisive judgement in regard to what was to be sent to ALL CHURCHES!!



St. James endorces what he says , and simply provides a practical way of meeting the difficulty which has arisen".

James no more endorces Peter than he does Paul or Barnabas! Peter does not say "hear" me! Peter does not say "wherefore my sentence is." Neither does Paul! Your theory is completely baseless without a stitch of Biblical evidence and moreover in direct contradiction to the Biblical evidence!



You're right Biblicist in saying that [ James] went beyond Peter's decision,

I said no such thing! Peter made no "decision"! He gave only His witness and belief no more than what Paul did. Only James gave a "sentence" and only James commanded the church to "hear" him in regard to such a "sentence."

He states, to begin with, that it is his judgment.

Peter never said such! Paul never said such! Only James gave forth his judgement and the elders and church followed James judgment! It was a final "sentence" as given by a judge who has heard all the witnesses and gives a judgement.

Your whole theory is not merely pure fabrication but in direct contradiction and reverse of what the contextual evidence provides.
 

lakeside

New Member
Be honest now Walter. You really don't want to accept the truth, do you. i tell you what Biblicist i trust the writings of the early Christians and the theologians who have placed their salvation in a proven Church formed by Jesus on His Apostles/successors over your man-made churches with their man-made traditions. Not with one verse can you justify any of the churches made by men from the 16th century on.I can supply numerous verses/passages concerning an apostolic Church that was intended to be of 'one mind' 'one doctrine'[ universal ] not a myriad of different conflicting, localized regional churches as was invented by as many a different mind as you find in Protestantism. Jesus never had any part in it.Good night and God bless
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Be honest now Walter. You really don't want to accept the truth, do you.

You fabricate a theroy based on absolutely nothing but pure imagination and abuse of the scriptures and you ask me to be honest????? You ask me whether I want to accept the truth?????

If this is your definition of "truth" then I gladly reject it.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Lakeside simply doesn't want to accept the truth presented in Acts 15.
It is summarized very simply:
1. Peter gave a testimony.
2. James gave a judgment or sentence.
The latter was authoritative; the former was not.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
What and where is the true church Biblicist, and how can one know for certain they have found it?
There is no "true church," only Biblically based "churches," all of which are local. There is no such thing as a denomination or a universal church taught in the Bible. Paul established churches, not denominations.
 

lakeside

New Member
There is no "true church," only Biblically based "churches," all of which are local. There is no such thing as a denomination or a universal church taught in the Bible. Paul established churches, not denominations.

DNK, you write:" There is no "true church," only Biblically based "churches," all of which are local."
Excuse me but the words of Jesus disagree with you and if you want to call yourself a Christian then you had better believe what Jesus says and not let your pride and ego interfere with both logic and the Word of Scripture.
In Matt. 16 v 18 Jesus very clearly says "my church" [ singular ]. And again in Matt.18:15-18 Jesus said tell it to the "Church", the question I ask you is but which 'Church' ? Of course the answer would be none other than His One True Church, and because Jesus wants the "whole World to know His message/ Teachings that He taught "fully" to His apostles [ Luke 10;16 ] then it would be rightfully be called His One Holy Universal Apostolic Church Church which equates to this ONE as in [ the exact Words of Jesus ] "my church " . Holy because it is from Jesus , Catholic taken from a Greek word meaning 'universal' and Apostolic because it [ His Church, Luke 10:16 ] is based /formed on His Apostles. Not one of your Protestant churches including all their off-shoot cults can even come close to the Catholic Church with biblical backing, not one.DNK, you or to any other Protestant, here is your chance to prove it right now from the Holy Bible.Can you show me those verses ??? And while you're at it , please show me the verse from Jesus that tells us He gave 'authority ' for anybody to start a future church [s ] totally different from His One True Church???
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
DNK, you write:" There is no "true church," only Biblically based "churches," all of which are local."
Excuse me but the words of Jesus disagree with you and if you want to call yourself a Christian then you had better believe what Jesus says and not let your pride and ego interfere with both logic and the Word of Scripture.
All churches are local, for the very word "ekklesia" means assembly, and an assembly can only be local for it has to assemble. An unassembled assembly is a contradiction in terminology. Be open to be teachable. I will use a different translation (a more literal one) to help you along.
In Matt. 16 v 18 Jesus very clearly says "my church" [ singular ]. And again in Matt.18:15-18 Jesus said tell it to the "Church", the question I ask you is but which 'Church' ?
`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; (Matthew 16:18) [Young's]
--There are two answers here.
1. The immediate: his assembly at that time was Christ and His twelve disciples.
2. The far reaching: every biblical assembly that has Christ as its head and the Bible as its foundation, as described in the Pastoral epistles.
Of course the answer would be none other than His One True Church,
There is no such thing. There are only assemblies, and they are all local.
and because Jesus wants the "whole World to know His message/ Teachings that He taught "fully" to His apostles [ Luke 10;16 ] then it would be rightfully be called His One Holy Universal Apostolic Church Church which equates to this ONE as in [ the exact Words of Jesus ] "my church " .
You err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God. That is what Jesus also said.
Jesus would not want anyone to read or hear what you just posted because it is heresy. There is no such thing as "One Holy Universal Apostolic Church." You can't find that in Scripture as you purport.
Holy because it is from Jesus
I am holy, because Jesus sanctified me.
, Catholic taken from a Greek word meaning 'universal'
There are many things that are universal; the RCC really is not one of those things.
and Apostolic because it [ His Church, Luke 10:16 ] is based /formed on His Apostles.
The RCC is based on paganism not on His Apostles. You are deceived.
Not one of your Protestant churches including all their off-shoot cults can even come close to the Catholic Church with biblical backing, not one.
I am not a Protestant, nor do I belong to a cult.
The RCC is a world-wide religion; but it is not Christian; it never was.
DNK, you or to any other Protestant, here is your chance to prove it right now from the Holy Bible.Can you show me those verses ??? And while you're at it , please show me the verse from Jesus that tells us He gave 'authority ' for anybody to start a future church [s ] totally different from His One True Church???
Again there is no "One True Church."
The word is ekklesia. It means assembly. It can't be used in a universal sense. That is one lesson you have learned today. The question is: Will you accept it? Are you teachable?

Secondly, I have pointed this out to you before but you have never responded to it.
Paul, entirely apart from Rome, Peter, and all of the other apostles, went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 different independent autonomous churches. There was no denomination, just local churches that he started in every place that he went. These churches had no connection with Rome. There was no universal church. You can't account for these hundred or so churches can you?
You can't account for the Biblical account that Peter was never in Rome.

Timothy was at Ephesus.
Titus was at Crete.
Apollos was at Corinth.

These all had a congregational form of government. They may have had more than one pastor, but one pastor was senior--the ones that I just named. For example, in Acts 20, Paul calls for the elders (pastors) of Ephesus to gather at Miletus. But the senior (in position) was Timothy.

Paul orders the church at Corinth to come together. They as a congregation were to make a decision in 1Cor.5 concerning immorality in the church. They were the ones, as a church, to take action. Paul simply advised them.

It is Paul that gave authority to pastors as he was the one that wrote "The Pastoral Epistles" (I, II Timothy, Titus), that teach order in the church. Peter had little say in this.
 

lakeside

New Member
DNK, those early churches that you mentioned ,all participated in the same Doctrine/ teaching and not one of them were Baptist. I believe that Jesus knew a heck more about His Church than you do. Jesus said His Church would be "the light of the world". He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid ' Matt.5:14, This only means that His Church is a visable organization.
The Church is One Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13.Jesus established only "one" Church, not an assembly of different "assemblies' as your mere man opinion reveals, He did not form a collection os different "assemblies " as you find today [ Baptists, Luterans, Mormons , Jehovah Witnesses ]
Jesus can have but "one' spouse, and His spouse is the Catholic Church. Which is WorldWide [ universal, as Jesus commanded ]
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines , which must be the same as the apostles [ Jude 3 ] along with Luke 10 :16
The Church is Holy Eph. 5:25-27, Rev. 19:7-8 By His grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as He is Holy.
The Church that Jesus formed is Catholic. Jesus' Church is called catholic [" universal"in Greek] because it is His gift to all people. He told His Apostles to go throughout the world and make deciples of " all nations" [ Matt 28: 19-20 }
The Church is apostolic -Eph. 2:19-20. The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because He appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders/ teachers.

Why is it DHK that you never support your answers with biblical verses/ passages??
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DNK, those early churches that you mentioned ,all participated in the same Doctrine/ teaching and not one of them were Baptist. I believe that Jesus knew a heck more about His Church than you do. Jesus said His Church would be "the light of the world". He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid ' Matt.5:14, This only means that His Church is a visable organization.
The Church is One Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13.Jesus established only "one" Church, not an assembly of different "assemblies' as your mere man opinion reveals, He did not form a collection os different "assemblies " as you find today [ Baptists, Luterans, Mormons , Jehovah Witnesses ]

Are you saying that Jesus promised to build one kind of ekklesia (congregation) in Matthew 16:18 but then went on to talk about a different kind the next 22 times he uses the term ekklesia?

The next 22 times he uses the term ekklesia it refers to congregrations geographically located at various places. (Rev. 2-3; 22:17).

In Matthew 18:15-18 it is the kind of ekklesia that can hear and decide upon a disciplinary matter by one of its members in the assembly where both the witnesses and questional member reside. This is the same in kind as the next 20 times He uses that term in Revelation 2-3; 22:17 - local visible congregations. BTW none of those he addressed were located at Rome but rather in Jerusalem and in modern day Turkey. He build his congregation at Jerusalem not Rome and from that congregation came the other congregations through obedience to the Great Commission.
 

lakeside

New Member
You teach a different Gospel of later times. I trust the Thelogians of Christ's Church , they are the only "teachers with authority " because they can trace back to "The Teacher with Authority "
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You teach a different Gospel of later times. I trust the Thelogians of Christ's Church , they are the only "teachers with authority " because they can trace back to "The Teacher with Authority "

Remember, you could not respond to the gospel I presented but needed to go ask your apologist to respond to it? Have you found an apologist that can respond yet?

Remember, the whole issue about sacraments as a "sign" of what they signified and the scriptures I gave you (Rom. 9:11; Luke 5:12-15)???? Remember, the whole Roman Catholic Soterioloy(gospel) stands or falls on this issue? If I am correct (and I am) then it is Rome who is preaching "another gospel" and Baptists are preaching the same "everlasting gospel" that has been preached since the foundation of the world (Jn. 1:29; Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23).

Remember? It is like your oral traditions they were only as good as fallible uninspired humans could "remember" them.
 

lakeside

New Member
Remember, you could not respond to the gospel I presented but needed to go ask your apologist to respond to it? Have you found an apologist that can respond yet?

Remember, the whole issue about sacraments as a "sign" of what they signified and the scriptures I gave you (Rom. 9:11; Luke 5:12-15)???? Remember, the whole Roman Catholic Soterioloy(gospel) stands or falls on this issue? If I am correct (and I am) then it is Rome who is preaching "another gospel" and Baptists are preaching the same "everlasting gospel" that has been preached since the foundation of the world (Jn. 1:29; Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23).

Remember? It is like your oral traditions they were only as good as fallible uninspired humans could "remember" them.

No I haven't ask a Catholic apologist, but believe me they would very easily refute any of you protesters of God's earthly Church. So let me understand the question that you want be to ask, I don't understand your "sign ' question. Break it down so I can ask an apologist.
How can Baptists be preaching the correct Gospel when they weren't invented until the 16th century by a mere man by the name of John Smythe in Holland /England and not the Holy Land where at Pentecost his only Church was formed. Never knew that Holland and England were part of the Holy Land.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
DNK, those early churches that you mentioned ,all participated in the same Doctrine/ teaching and not one of them were Baptist. I believe that Jesus knew a heck more about His Church than you do. Jesus said His Church would be "the light of the world". He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid ' Matt.5:14, This only means that His Church is a visable organization.
Ye are the salt of the earth; Ye are the light of the world.
That is what the passage says. It is not speaking of any kind of church. It is speaking of a person's testimony. How do you get church out of those metaphors?
The Church is One Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13.
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. (Romans 12:5)
--"We" (the believers at Rome) are one body in Christ, (the body of Christ being the local assembly in Rome), and every one members one of another (members of the local assembly in Rome). Hence no universal Church.

Did you ever consider the context of 1Cor.10:17??
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? (1 Corinthians 10:16-19)
--The one body was the local church at Corinth. You better look at the sin they were committing before you jump to conclusions.
Jesus established only "one" Church, not an assembly of different "assemblies' as your mere man opinion reveals, He did not form a collection os different "assemblies " as you find today [ Baptists, Luterans, Mormons , Jehovah Witnesses ]
The assemblies he established are Biblical; hence that excludes the RCC, Mormons, J.W.'s, etc.
The word translated "church" is ekklesia. It cannot be used in a universal sense. It means assembly. It is impossible to have a universal assembly. Try and understand that! Where would a universal assembly meet? How would it function? Who would conduct the service? Who hold the Lord's Table and how would it be carried out in a universal assembly? You haven't even thought this through have you? Assembly cannot be used in a universal sense.
Jesus can have but "one' spouse, and His spouse is the Catholic Church. Which is WorldWide [ universal, as Jesus commanded ]
The RCC did not come into existence until the 4th century. So that is ruled out right away. It isn't worldwide. There are nations that are close to 100% Islamic, and the few that are there that are not Islamic are not Catholics. The RCC was never around when Jesus was or even when the apostles were.
The bride of Christ is composed of all true believers. But you cannot be a true believer and sincerely believe RC doctrine of salvation at the same time. A doctrine of works salvation only points one to hell! Hence it is not Christ's church no matter what way you look at it. It does not have the doctrine of Christ, the authority of Christ, the history back to Christ, etc. It, for all intents and purposes, is a pagan church outside the realm of Christianity.
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines , which must be the same as the apostles [ Jude 3 ] along with Luke 10 :16
The RCC teaches heresy that comes nowhere near what the Apostles taught, nor what is taught in any other part of the Bible.
The Church is Holy Eph. 5:25-27, Rev. 19:7-8 By His grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as He is Holy.
You are taking Scripture out of context.
Eph.5:25-27 is speaking of marriage first. Second the church is the Ephesian church. Third he is using the Ephesian church in a generic way as representative of all other churches just like it: local, Biblical assemblies.
Rev.19 speaks of the coming of Christ. It has nothing to do with the church.

Here is a passage that has to do with the RCC:
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. (Revelation 17:5-6)
--There have been more "saints" (believers in Christ) martyred by the RCC then by any other organization on earth throughout the annals of history.
The Church that Jesus formed is Catholic.
The Bible doesn't say that--anywhere--not even once.
Jesus' Church is called catholic [" universal"in Greek] because it is His gift to all people.
Don't tell lies. Catholic propaganda is not permitted here. Make your case from the Bible or don't make it all.
He told His Apostles to go throughout the world and make deciples of " all nations" [ Matt 28: 19-20 }
The apostles are not the RCC.
The Church is apostolic -Eph. 2:19-20. The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because He appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders/ teachers.
Every biblical local church has Christ as the chief cornerstone, then the prophets and apostles that make up the rest of the foundation. So every church is "apostolic" in its makeup.

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Ephesians 2:20)
--Written to the local church at Ephesus, which is an example for every local church.
Why is it DHK that you never support your answers with biblical verses/ passages??
I do. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rom. 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.



A. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: - v. 4


In verse 4 Paul uses the common analogy of the physical human body which "we" all have in common. Paul directs them to take a look at their own physical body and see how it is composed of many members all working in unity together.

Now, do you suppose when he said "we" in regard to the "one body" in verse 4 he is talking about ONE BIG UNIVERSAL VISIBLE (or invisible) HUMAN BODY that "WE" all are part????

No, He is speaking about "ONE BODY" in kind that "we" all share.


B. So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another

In verse 5, "so we" also share in common "ONE BODY" in kind that is composed of "every one members of another"

The historical contextual "we" in all of Paul's epistles are to those in congregations of like faith and order.

However, when he addresses a particular congregation he always drops "we" and says either "ye" or "you" (I Cor. 12:27).

The very same analogy introduces 1 Cor. 12:13 in verse 12. In neither case is he insisting that "we" all share in one huge physical visible (invisible) human body any more than "we" all share in one huge visible (invisible) congregation.

The congregational institution was shared in common with all of his readers in all of his epistles.
 

lakeside

New Member
Walter, you say that the church is not the light of the world [ in your response back to me ] I believe that is the typical Baptist/Protestant concetion of the Church ,it is invincible.Though individuals may group together for fellowship and Bible study, their churches are really like clubs in a city. The real church, say Protestants, is the broad and unseen group of the saved.

The Catholic Church, in contrast, teaches that the Church is a visible organization. Being a visible organization, it can be identified--it has marks. The marks are that it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic--"one" in that it is a unified organization, "holy" in that it is an organization divinely established, "catholic" in that it is to embrace all of mankind, and "apostolic" in that a line of succession has been kept with the authority Christ passed to Peter and the apostles
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Walter, you say that the church is not the light of the world [ in your response back to me]

I will let Walter answer for himself. I saw Walter introduce himself and make a post just a couple of days ago but I have not seen him make another post.

Each individual child of God is a light. An assembly of individuals is an assembly of lights. The congregation is likened unto a "lampstand" or assembly of lights. Each congregation is such an assembly of lights or a "lampstand" (Rev. 1:20) and each assemby may have its lampstand removed (Rev. 2:5).
 
Bibicist: I will let Walter answer for himself. I saw Walter introduce himself and make a post just a couple of days ago but I have not seen him make another post.

No one confuses you with Walter. It is Dr. Walter that we ask about , NOT the Walter on the board. Are you and Dr. Walter one in the same or not?
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No one confuses you with Walter. It is Dr. Walter that we ask about , NOT the Walter on the board. Are you and Dr. Walter one in the same or not?

I don't believe I have made any personal attacks on your person or demanded your real name or etc.

It seems that when those who oppose the grace of God cannot win on the basis of objective evidence and issues they want to get personal.

May I ask what has anyone's personal name have to do with the issues we are discussing? May I ask is it your business or anyone elses what may or may not be the personal name of posters? Are not the handles used for the very purpose of concealing personal identity in order to protect the posters from personal attacks????

Deal with the issues and lets leave personalities and personal issues alone IF you can deal with the issues?

I will not respond to any more "personal" questions about who I am or who I am not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top