The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid

[lori4dogs]

Reformed Baptist: Do you ever read theological books other than the bible? I do, but I am more interested to read someone who sat at the apostles feet. That is what I'm saying.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Do you ever read theological books other than the bible? I do, but I am more interested to read someone who sat at the apostles feet. That is what I'm saying.

I have enjoyed theological books, both ancient and recent.

But I am more interested in sitting at the feet of Christ.

 

[lori4dogs]

I have enjoyed theological books, both ancient and recent.

But I am more interested in sitting at the feet of Christ.

So should we ignore the writings of someone who got first hand information from an apostle because those writings were not included in the canon?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So we should ignore the writings of someone who got first hand information from an apostle because those writings were not included in the canon?

Wouldn't you rather be Mary than Martha?

 

[lori4dogs]

Wouldn't you rather be Mary than Martha?

I think you miss my point.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I think you miss my point.

I think I got it. But I am not that interested in winning arguments/debates. I love Jesus. I wish I followed Him closer than I do sometimes, but I do love Him.

I have read many good works of old and current ones. But nothing compares to the Scripture. Sitting down with the Bible and Holy Spirit is like sitting at the feet of Jesus. It's truly wonderful.

Lately that happens from a deer stand...:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I contend against the papacy and orthodox churches because their traditions, in my opinion, have perverted the Gospel found in the Bible, specifically as it relates to the doctrine of justification.

I respect your opinion, as we all have an opinion and its good that we have a forum as this to share such opinion.

But on the other hand, the Church as a whole from the beginning has an opinion as well...so I have to ask myself the question...do I trust a Reformers opinion, some 1,650 years removed from the Apostolic Church? Or do I trust the men who studied under the very Apostles themselves and also wrote, just as the Apostles did to Churches they started?

It's my opinion that these men and what they have to say about theological doctrines can't be ignored...they were there, they got to ask the questions...and God didn't have His hands tied until the Reformers came along and suddenly figured this all out.

Christ promised His Holy Spirit would lead His Church in ALL truth and remind His Church of ALL things and protect His Church from the gates of Hell...that's a pretty big promise. That promise started day 1 the day the Church started on Pentecost and it continues today. It never stopped and picked up with the Reformers, if so, then Christ wasn't true to His word.

The Reformers didn't find anything new hidden in Holy Scripture, what's been revealed to the Church has already been revealed long before the Reformers came on the scene. And this goes for the Roman Catholic Church as well...there was no Papal Infallibility or Immaculate Conception...ect...in the Early Church...

In XC
-

 

[lori4dogs]

"...so I have to ask myself the question...do I trust a Reformers opinion, some 1,650 years removed from the Apostolic Church? Or do I trust the men who studied under the very Apostles themselves and also wrote, just as the Apostles did to Churches they started?"

And it is not like the Reformers were of one accord.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

And it is not like the Reformers were of one accord.

Of course they weren't...there were at least 26 key Reformers some of which started their own mainline Protestant Churches with different doctrinal views. Therefore the flood gates were open and we get what we have today...thousands of schisms...

In XC
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But on the other hand, the Church as a whole from the beginning has an opinion as well...

So why isn't the Apostle's doctrine sufficient for you? I am not trying to be snide or win an argument here. This is an honest question. I haven't run into a Roman Catholic or Orthodox person who is laying a charge against the NT Scripture that its corrupted. And I have no doubt that you don't hold an aberant liberal postion on the Bible.

So, if we have an accurate NT that contains the teachings of the Apostles themselves, then honestly...why isn't that enough? Why would God who chose Apostles (and prophets for that matter) and move them by His Spirit to write an infallible record of the life and teachings of Jesus do it in such a way that I cannot understand it and need someone (or group) beside His chosen Apostles to understand it?

See, that makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, I find it suspicious. It has the appearance of deception.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And let me add, that I would say it is the papacy and other false doctrines that were brought among God's people by the false teachers that are the source of Schisms. What happened during the Protestant Reformation was a return to the Gospel as taught by the APostles themselves found in the NT Scriptures.

So, it was the papal system and the orthodox with their false doctrines that brought schism and division.

 

[lori4dogs]

And let me add, that I would say it is the papacy and other false doctrines that were brought among God's people by the false teachers that are the source of Schisms. What happened during the Protestant Reformation was a return to the Gospel as taught by the APostles themselves found in the NT Scriptures.

So, it was the papal system and the orthodox with their false doctrines that brought schism and division.

Really, then why haven't they stopped dividing??

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Really, then why haven't they stopped dividing??

Please address my other reponses and points before you add more or raise new questions.

 

[lori4dogs]

And let me add, that I would say it is the papacy and other false doctrines that were brought among God's people by the false teachers that are the source of Schisms. What happened during the Protestant Reformation was a return to the Gospel as taught by the APostles themselves found in the NT Scriptures.

So, it was the papal system and the orthodox with their false doctrines that brought schism and division.

Whoa, so you can make this assertion and I can't question the validity of it?

 

[lori4dogs]

I have enjoyed theological books, both ancient and recent.

But I am more interested in sitting at the feet of Christ.

Personally, I prefer to read my bible to reading other peoples commentary on what it says. However, if I read commentary, I prefer to read something that was written by someone who was taught by the apostles themselves. Ignatius, Polycarp.

 

[lori4dogs]

Please address my other reponses and points before you add more or raise new questions.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Doesn't Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God?

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Jesus.

 

[lori4dogs]

You may not agree with this interpretation of these verses. That is my point. How many denominations have been created because of 'private interpretation' and bible only theology? I prefer to follow the teachings of a church that is apostolic.

 

[Matt Black]

Believe what you will, but I have refuted your confidence. The first churches established while the apostles were still alive were riddled with conflict, division, and different teaching other than the Apostle's doctrine. That is a fact even you can't deny. So your "proof" fails.

Which is why they needed Apostolic authority - and why we still need it today. Take that away, and you have chaos - which you yourself now acknowledge

Who said they would include NT Scripture? The Bereans search the Scriptures to see if the Apostle's doctrine was correct. They WOULD NOT have consulted any NT Scripture, whatever may have been written. It was that which they were judging!

Er...no they weren't - they were judging Paul's preaching. You're reading something into the text that isn't there: they were not judging the NT since it hadn't been written.

And to bring up the Apocrypha in this discussion is to just divert the focus of our discussion. It shows the weakness of your argument and position.

Au contraire it is utterly germane to the discussion, which is why you're trying to brush it under the carpet - it goes to the heart of what is meant in that passage by 'the Scriptures'.

This is the argument made by all such who have a interpretor for them rather than private judgment. Implied in its argument and often stated (just not here) is that private judgment is bad. Says who?

I think that's pretty obvious - we see the pernicious fruits of such individualistic nonsense around us all the time and epistemological chaos and disaster it leaves in its wake.

As A.A. Hodge put it so well:

Who he?

Basically, the argument is stupid.

Explain why.

And where in the world do you garner the idea that the Church began at Pentecost? You speak as though the Covenant of God with His people began with Jesus!

You're conflating the two concepts here. The Church is the people of the New Covenant - or are you seriously suggesting that the Jews both then and today constitutute 'the Church'???

You ask a ridculous question about jettising the NT from our Bibles, but should I say that you suggest ignoring 4000 years of redemptive history through the prophets and Moses?

No, I'm no Marcionite.

 

[Matt Black]

Furthermore, the differences among most Protestant and Evangelical churches are minute. And their unity is vast and wonderful. You probably suppose that there is division between, say, myself as a Baptist, and my Presbyterian brethren. There is not. Do we differ on some important matters of doctrine? Sure. Do we therefore have no unity? God forbid.

Oh come on!! The Calvinists worship a deity whohas power to save all men but chooses to save only some and leave the others to eternal damnation; the Arminians worship a deity by contrast who wants to save everyone but lacks the power to do so. One is omnipotent but not all-loving, the other all-loving but not omnipotent. These are scarcely 'minute' differences; they are utterly foundational and produce two totally contradictory deities!! Unity? You must be joking!

Let me personalize this. You are as one who is coming to me to say, "You must have tradition and your Scripture. Your Scripture is not sufficient for you." By what measure do I reliquish myself to such a view? All I have outside of myself is the Scripture themselves. So I am going to use them to jude your doctrine.

But you say, that is using your private judgment. Well, I say I would have to use my private judgment to give up my private judgment! So your argument, as Hodge said, is baseless and I would add, stupid.

No, what's stupid is the fruit of this private judgement where every man does what is right in his own eyes. Pure subjectivism. Epistemological suicide.

As to what the Scriptures teach regard their sufficiency, I have given you the references. You read them. What do they say?

I've already answered this

 

[Matt Black]

Here is how your argument fails.

All of your points are rooted and ground in Scripture except your conclusion. Apostolic Succession is not proven from the Scripture you have used, as though there are still Apostles today or that these so-called successors carry the same authority as Apostles.

No, I agree you can argue it either which way. But the weight of history and Tradition itself supports my conclusion, not yours. Where is the evidence to back up your conclusion?

1. You are, as many do, separating oral tradition from written tradition andascribing authority to oral tradtion. As Hodge said, "The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7."

That's Hodge's (again, who he?) interpretation that you're relying on!

2. History has shown that those ascribing authority, either infallible or others, to their traditions, put their tradition before and against Scripture.

On the contrary, Trdaiiton interprets Scripture accurately; the two are in harmony not conflict. You are proposing a false dichotomy which only exists in your own mind.

3. The entire argument you make must depend on an unbroken succession which is impossible to prove.

As I've said above, the weight of history is against you. Try Eusebius' Church History as a starting point.

4. The traditions now held by romanists and orthodox were unknown for the first 300 years of the church.

Which ones?