What makes these other churches think they are right and other's are wrong?

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I agree interpretation is taking place. But I am talking about the actual Truth of the interpretation. Everyone has an interpretation. But not every interpretation is right. There is no way around that. There is an underlying Truth, an Absolute, if you will. Truth is outside of the person.

This is why the Body of Christ needs a teaching authority (i.e., a magisterium) to provide authoritative interpretation.

And guess what??? "we all got 'em"!! Each of the churches you see represented here - has Bible teaching authorities within those groups. In Mark 7 the "Magesterium of the One TRUE Church started by God at Sinai" was declared to be in "Doctrinal error".

So nothing new there.

But as you point out - instruction truth and learning can also come from EACH of the denomination's "Magesterium"!! Even from your own. (I seem to recall some Papal statements about the inquisition published here not long ago).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by gb93433:
"This is why the Body of Christ needs a teaching authority (i.e., a magisterium) to provide authoritative interpretation."

The authority of 1 Cor. 13:9,10 claims, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."

You're mistaking "partial" with "error." The Universal Church certainly has only partial knowledge, but it never teaches error. No error, that's the claim, not all knowledge.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
You are claiming that "SDAs MUST accept..." anything-you-name regarding Ellen White. And that is not true. You're arguing out of the void of what you do not know.

Adventist's "must accept" the 1Cor 12 doctrine on spiritual gifts but don't have to accept the fact that God gave Ellen White an instance of one of those gifts.

The offical website for the SDA says otherwise.

 

[trying2understand]

From sda.org under the area of beliefs:

"17. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)"

From sda.org under the area of offical statements:

"As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that "in His Word God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience" (The Great Controversy, p 7). We consider the biblical canon closed. However, we also believe, as did Ellen G White's contemporaries, that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine. "


Bob, are there any other SDA beliefs that you can pick and choose to believe or not believe as you claim with the SDA beliefs about Ms. White?

 

[Stephen III]

Is that not the biggest most loaded "However", I've ever seen!?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by MikeS:
Are you including interpretation here? I assume so. If so, and if another pastor down the road interprets the same word of God differently, and somebody in that church says "My pastor preaches with authority, the final authority, the word of God," then how do you resolve the contradiction?

To be honest, I don't think this has ever happened.

Has your pastor ever interpreted something differently in the past then he does now? How would you resolve that?

I believe he has. But, don't you know more now then when you first got saved.? If this did happen, then I would ask him about this, maybe I'm wrong.

How did your pastor come to possess the ability to interpret Scripture with the "final authority"?

Prayer, fasting, and studying are some that I know.

 

[neal4christ]

To be honest, I don't think this has ever happened.

I have had pastors who speak authoritatively and only submit to the Word of God, and if you are a sample of your pastor's teaching, then we disagree on a lot. So now you can say it has happened.

So which pastor is correct? And before you accuse any of my pastors of being infidels or heretics, they all honestly are God-fearing men, believing they speak authoritatively according to the Word of God.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
Are you including interpretation here? I assume so. If so, and if another pastor down the road interprets the same word of God differently, and somebody in that church says "My pastor preaches with authority, the final authority, the word of God," then how do you resolve the contradiction?

To be honest, I don't think this has ever happened.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you realize what you are claiming? You are claiming that, you your knowledge, no two pastors anywhere, at any time, have interpreted any important (I'll throw that in for free) section of Scripture in contradiction to one another! Do you really stand by that?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Has your pastor ever interpreted something differently in the past then he does now? How would you resolve that?

I believe he has. But, don't you know more now then when you first got saved.? If this did happen, then I would ask him about this, maybe I'm wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]But then he was either wrong in the past, or he is wrong now. In either case, how can he claim to preach with final authority?

 

[RaptureReady]

He preaches from the final authority, the King James Bible. Therefore, if you use another book then you will always disagree.

 

[Stephen III]

He preaches from the final authority, the King James Bible. Therefore, if you use another book then you will always disagree.

Seeing as the original King James Bible of 1611 "disagreed" with the current King James Bible versions over what should even be included within its covers (namely the deuterocanonicals), From an antiquity-type perspective How is your position supposed to be valid? Did it become a valid position when the revision was made? Or was the KJ bible always the "final authority" whether the canon was complete or not. And How do you know the canon of the KJ Bible is complete now?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Stephen III:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />He preaches from the final authority, the King James Bible. Therefore, if you use another book then you will always disagree.

Seeing as the original King James Bible of 1611 "disagreed" with the current King James Bible versions over what should even be included within its covers (namely the deuterocanonicals), From an antiquity-type perspective How is your position supposed to be valid? Did it become a valid position when the revision was made? Or was the KJ bible always the "final authority" whether the canon was complete or not. And How do you know the canon of the KJ Bible is complete now? </font>[/QUOTE]If you're talking about the Apocrapha, then it never was considered scripture, just historical value. The Bible was completed when the book of Revelation was completed.

 

[Stephen III]

If you're talking about the Apocrapha, then it never was considered scripture, just historical value. The Bible was completed when the book of Revelation was completed.

And where might a reader of this "final authority" version of the bible have found that interesting fact? (That is: that the deuterocanonicals were included just for historical value).
Especially seeing as the 1611 original referenced these deuterocanonical books at least 7 times throughout the rest of the bible. And the preface of the bible equates the Septuagint to the Word of God.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
If you're talking about the Apocrapha, then it never was considered scripture, just historical value. [/QB]

I keep hearing this arguement.

How do you know this to be true?

Did the original KJV 1611 include a disclaimer which said that certain books were not Scripture but only included because of historical value?

Or is this merely a recent fabrication to justify removing Books from the Bible?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
The Bible was completed when the book of Revelation was completed.

That's simply not true. The Gospel of John, as well as the Books of 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John, were written some two years after Revelation was penned.

The books of the NT were written in the following order:

Gospel of Matthew (Matthew) - c. 41
1 Thess (Paul) - c. 50
2 Thess (Paul) - c. 51
Galatians (Paul) - c. 50-52
1 Cor (Paul) - c. 55
2 Cor (Paul) - c. 55
Romans (Paul) - c. 56
Gospel of Luke (Luke) - c. 56-58
Ephesians (Paul) - c. 60-61
Colossians (Paul) - c. 60-61
Philemon (Paul) - c. 60-61
Philippians (Paul) - c. 60-61
Hebrews (Paul) - c. 61
Acts (Luke) - c. 61
James (James¹) - b. 62
Gospel of Mark (Mark) - c. 60-65
1 Timothy (Paul) - c. 61-64
Titus (Paul) - c. 61-64
1 Peter (Peter) - c. 62-64
2 Peter (Peter) - c. 62-64
2 Timothy (Paul) - c. 65
Jude (Jude¹) - c. 65
Revelation (John²) - c. 96
Gospel of John (John²) - c. 98
1 John (John²) - c. 98
2 John (John²) - c. 98
3 John (John²) - c. 98

¹ - probably Jesus' brother.
² - an Apostle of Jesus

 

[neal4christ]

He preaches from the final authority, the King James Bible. Therefore, if you use another book then you will always disagree.

Good try at trying to slip out of this one, but I have had pastors use the KJV and disagree with you. You can't possibly be asserting that if someone uses the KJV they will agree with everyone else who uses the KJV, can you? Proof that this is not the case is in the Bible Versions forum, so your assertion is false, if that is your assertion. Come on, I know you are not naive. You can't seriously be claiming that all KJV pastors agree on all major issues, can you? You are trying to simplfy the situation by your claims, because you know there needs to be some sort of authority, so you randomly appoint the KJV as that authority. But users of the KJV greatly differ on views. What exactly are you trying to claim.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Stephen III:
And where might a reader of this "final authority" version of the bible have found that interesting fact? (That is: that the deuterocanonicals were included just for historical value).

It's what the translators of the King James Bible did, they placed it inbetween the Old and New Testament in 1611. As far as I know they never considered it to be inspired scripture. Here may be a couple of reasons why.
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.

1. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
2. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
3. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

Especially seeing as the 1611 original referenced these deuterocanonical books at least 7 times throughout the rest of the bible. And the preface of the bible equates the Septuagint to the Word of God.

Referring to number 2 above, where are they refered to in the Bible.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> He preaches from the final authority, the King James Bible. Therefore, if you use another book then you will always disagree.

Good try at trying to slip out of this one, but I have had pastors use the KJV and disagree with you. You can't possibly be asserting that if someone uses the KJV they will agree with everyone else who uses the KJV, can you? Proof that this is not the case is in the Bible Versions forum, so your assertion is false, if that is your assertion. Come on, I know you are not naive. You can't seriously be claiming that all KJV pastors agree on all major issues, can you? You are trying to simplfy the situation by your claims, because you know there needs to be some sort of authority, so you randomly appoint the KJV as that authority. But users of the KJV greatly differ on views. What exactly are you trying to claim.

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]On what issues are you talking about? BTW, some preachers may use the KJB, but not believe it to be the final authority.

 

[neal4christ]

On what issues are you talking about?

KJVO for starters. And yes, these men I am referring to believe that the Word of God is their final authority, and they use the KJV. However, they don't teach KJVO.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
As far as I know they never considered it to be inspired scripture. Here may be a couple of reasons why.

This is one of the worst circular arguments EVER. They didn't include it as Scriptural...because these are "unScriptural beliefs." Well, DUH, if you take them out of Scripture, they become unScriptural! If I take the Gospel of John out of Scripture, what it teaches will also beceom "unScriptural." But guess what, when you leave them, they are "Scriptural." Amazing.

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

It's obvious you didn't do this research yourself, because the verse is 3:29.

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

8 Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold;

9 for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life;

10 but those habitually guilty of sin are their own worst enemies.

Heaven forbid you use context and all. Perhaps you should compare this with the teachings of Jesus Christ on the sermon of the mount, and unless you believe that Jesus was promoting salvation by works, perhaps you should admit that you don't have a clue to the context of what is being said here.

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Yes, and Jesus performed magic when he used mud and spit to give a blind man sight. And also when a coin appeared in a fish's mouth. And also when a cloth that belonged to the apostles brought healing to those who touched it.

Methinks, again, you have jumped to conclusions. How shocking.

Originally posted by HomeBound:
1. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.

Amazing how you don't quote these...we should just trust you, right? Where are your references? I guess the NT supports suicide too, since Judas Iscariot hangs himself, right? How about the Pharoah's and his magicians?

Originally posted by HomeBound:
2. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

The Septuigent was frequently quoted by Jesus Christ, and these Greek Scriptures contained the deutero-canonical books. Further, by no means are all books of the Old Testament quoted in the New, so that cannot be a valid basis for inclusion in the canon.

Originally posted by HomeBound:
3. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

Talk about being indocrinated. What other reasons? You can't even demonstrate the validity of the reasons you gave! And why are they valuable as ancient documents of such things? Have you studied them? Or am I correct in assuming that this is solely based of the judgements of those who came before you who rejected these divinely inspired books?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> On what issues are you talking about?

KJVO for starters. And yes, these men I am referring to believe that the Word of God is their final authority, and they use the KJV. However, they don't teach KJVO.

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Many say they believe the word of God, but few declare which bible is. I however am declaring that the King James Bible is the only final authority.