"The Bible and the Bible Only"

We worship on The Lord's Day, not the Sabbath. Saint Paul OKd it.

 

Bible 0nly? you gots to be kidding. Bible and Mrs White.

 

I am not sure of the Roman Catholics, but I know that the SDA's adamantly accuse the Catholics of doing so. The Bible itself teaches that the believers began to meet on the first day of the week which has nothing to do with the RCC. Some here have been made biased by some denominational teaching, instead of searching the Scriptures.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
DHK

 

The RCC "admits" it did several things that it never did -- like creating the cannon (Scriptures came from the church, not the church from the scriptures, therefore, the church has the ability to determine teh canon)

 

How true that is. They even "discovered" that there was a trinity or triune God in the Bible.

 

How true that is. They even "discovered" that there was a trinity or triune God in the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Discovered Wasn't that around the second or third century?

MEE

 

No, MEE. It's been in the Bible all along. We don't reject doctrine on the basis of our inability to comprehend it, rather we accept it by faith whether we understand it or not. A finite man is not able to comprehend an infinite God. So the excuse, "But I don't understand..." is no excuse at all for not believing the doctrne of the trinity which is most assuredly taught in the Bible, and most assuredly understood as humanly as possible by the Apostles who taught it.
DHK

 

Here is what Catholics really believe on these topics:

Sabbath and the Lord's Day

Scripture

Trinity

 

Where did the Apostles teach the Trinity? (I'm fully Trinitarian, BTW). The Trinity is "most assuredly taught in the Bible" and was "most assuredly understood as humanly as possible by the Apostles" because that happens to be an area where Protestants agree with Catholics and Orthodox, but find an area of disagreement with those two ancient Churches, e.g. the Real Presence, and that's not in the Bible and the apostles never taught any such a thing.

I wonder how many unbiased persons would say that the Trinity is clearly in the Bible, and the Real Presence is clearly not in the Bible?

 

Doesn't the Church (whatever its exact nature and composition) have the authority to bind and loose? Why wouldn't this change come under that authority?

 

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
--I don't accept the argument that this is a "spurious" verse. I don't believe it is.

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Did they believe in the deity of all three persons? Scripture tells plainly that they did.
Over and over again John states the deity of Christ. (John 1:1,14; 8:58; 10:30, etc.), just to name a few)

Peter clearly identifies the Holy Spirit, not only as a person, but as God.

Acts 5:3-5 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

The person of the Holy Ghost is identified as God. One is without excuse for not believing these things. Nature itself declares them unto us:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
DHK

 

Doesn't the Church (whatever its exact nature and composition) have the authority to bind and loose? Why wouldn't this change come under that authority? </font>[/QUOTE]That is the RC claim and the logic used to defend it.

ON the other hand (as the debate here shows)many non-Catholics do not appeal the Catholic argument at all for the change.

So the fact that history does or does not show the Catholic origin of the change would not matter to them as along as the Bible supports the change.

But as for your point about the RC argument on this same topic -- here is an interesting source that is from a more current point in time ...

The Catholic commentary on the Baltimore catechism post
Vatican ii explains that keeping Sunday is in obedience to the Sabbath commandment. Catholics attend "in obedience to the third commandment of God 'remember thou keep holy the Lord's day'"
((from "The Faith Explained" pg 241.))

page 243

Ten Commandments -

Note: Catholic teaching embraces the authority of the 10 commandments - all ten, and makes them obligatory for all Catholics.

. A question was asked by a
Catholic to Catholic digest's fr Ken Ryan in sept 93.fr. Ken ryan -

But as I said - these RC quotes are not meant to provide motivation/incentive/proof of any kind to a non-RC Christian audience.

They should however be of interest to a Catholic reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, MEE. It's been in the Bible all along. We don't reject doctrine on the basis of our inability to comprehend it, rather we accept it by faith whether we understand it or not. A finite man is not able to comprehend an infinite God. So the excuse, "But I don't understand..." is no excuse at all for not believing the doctrne of the trinity which is most assuredly taught in the Bible, and most assuredly understood as humanly as possible by the Apostles who taught it.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Well DHK, if you "don't understand it" how am I to believe in your doctrine of the trinity if you can't explain it?

Remember, I'm limited as to what I can say about me believing in one God or posting any links.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "I don't understand it!"...it seem as though we have the same problem.

See ya later! Going to a Bible study on the
"Prophecies of St. Malachy."

MEE

 

Bob,

I never asked about or mentioned the Catholics. Does the Church (however you choose to define it) have the power to bind and loose, or doesn't it? Please, please don't bring Catholicism into your answer.

 

In the quote - I showed "Someone" making that point.

As for what "I believe" - I believe that "NOT one LINE or jot" will change from the Law of God until all is completed.

That means we have to love our neighbor as ourselves JUST like HE said in Lev 19:18. WE have no authority to "change His Word.

We have to love God with all of our heart just like HE said in Deut 6:5 -- we have no authority to "change His Word".

As James said - you have to be a doer of the law of God - and not its "judge".

See?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Trinity is a logical construct from the available data.

We tal about lots of things we don't understand such a gravity and quantum mechanics.

 

Understanding is not the problem MEE; it never has been. The problem is unbelief. There are many things that you don't understand and yet you believe.

The same was true with Nicodemus, a ruler and teacher of the Jews. But at least he was more teachable.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Nicodemus didn't understand how the wind came and went, and yet he believed it. He could sense the effect of the wind.
That happens in everday life with many things. Not everyone can explain how the flick of switch will turn on the light, but they believe it will. They can see the effect.

I can see the effect of believing the Bible, in my life, and the lives of others. It is called faith. There are many things in it that I cannot understand. As I said, I (like all others) am finite. God is infinite. How can a finite mind understand an infinite God. You are asking too much!

Romans 11:33-36 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

 

Nate,

Yep. All of the books of scriptures were all written before the book of Acts generation had died...yet the Catholic Church, who didnt come to be until the 3rd century, arrogantly and pridefully proclaims that if it werent for them we would not have the scriptures.

Unbelieveable.

DHK,

It stuns the mind, doesnt it.

God bless,

Mike

 

Sometimes our antagonism toward one group or another, and especially the Church of Rome, stands between truth and error. Credit must be given to the early Romish Church for the preservation of scripture and the development of theology. The church was not always corrupt. We give much credit to Augustine as the forerunner of Calvinism, as one example. The canon was established by a "Catholic" council. Prior to this time there were many scriptures and fragments spread among the churches and including false doctrine.

I am as anti-Rome as anyone, but prefer to accept historical truth over my prejudices.

Cheers,

Jim