Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

[DHK]

Originally posted by Logan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
The Holy Spirit does not guide a council of believers in any greater way than He would any believer like Briguy, Lorelei, or myself.

I find this interesting. And DHK, please keep in mind I am not saying this just for the sake of arguing. If the Holy Spirit guides all of you, how do you explain the differences that you may have or the differences that so many Christian denominations do have? They all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit and use the bible as their only guide. I think you will agree that the Holy Spirit is not the author of all this confusion, but the Author of Truth.
</font>[/QUOTE]Paul disagreed with Barnabus, and the contention between them was quite great"
Acts 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

Paul disagreed so much with Peter, he rebuked him sharply:
Gal.2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

What about the Church at Corinth? Were they all in doctrinal agreement?
1Cor.1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

As divided and contentious as the Corinthian church was, Paul also said this about the church:
1Cor.1:5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

It becomes apparent that not even the apostles agreed on everything. All of the believers of the early churches were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They all had the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide them. And yet they were carnal and divided. The reason for their division had more to do with their carnality and lack of spiritual growth, no doubt, but it was still there. They needed the milk of the word, and then later strong meat.
Even so this church "came behind in no spiritual gift." They had all the spiritual gifts available that were possible, and yet they remained carnal and divided.

Churches are divided today usually for the same reasons that the Corinth church was divided: lack of doctrine, carnality, unbelief, gross sin (adultery), etc. They tolerated such sins instead of dealing with them.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, there is absolutely no historical support for your idea that early Christians "instantly recognized" Scripture or that Paul told them "this is inspired - this is not".

Please, present actual historical evidence that your view is correct.

2Pet.3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
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:

The evidence is primarily internal. The apostles verified each others epistles as Scripture, even putting the epistles that were considered as Scripture at the same level of importance as the Holy Prophets (vs.2). "Be mindful of the words spoken by the prophets and of us the apostles and of the Lord." The prophets, The Lord, and The Apostle's Words, were the source of the Word of God. Later on Peter says about Paul:

2Pet.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.

"as also do the other Scriptures" Peter knew which epistles of Paul were Scripture and which were not, as he compares the epistles of Paul to Scripture.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
2Pet.3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
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:

The evidence is primarily internal. The apostles verified each others epistles as Scripture, even putting the epistles that were considered as Scripture at the same level of importance as the Holy Prophets (vs.2). "Be mindful of the words spoken by the prophets and of us the apostles and of the Lord." The prophets, The Lord, and The Apostle's Words, were the source of the Word of God. Later on Peter says about Paul:

2Pet.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.

"as also do the other Scriptures" Peter knew which epistles of Paul were Scripture and which were not, as he compares the epistles of Paul to Scripture.

DHK, you are:

1 Really reaching

2 Reading into the NT what you want to see

3 Unable to show that the Books in the Bible are the writings that Peter and Paul were talking about. How do you know that they were not referring to writings which are not in the Bible today.

DHK, I think that it is time for you to admit that you accept the Bible as is because of tradition.

Ron

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ron,

You suggested to DHK, "I think that it is time for you to admit that you accept the Bible as is because of tradition."

This is as obvious as day, and DHK knows it. He also knows that if he admits that he accepts the Bible because of Catholic Tradition guided through the Catholic bishops, then that will leave a gaping hole in his unbreakable fight against that part of Tradition to which he disagrees. And, this is simple unacceptable - Catholic Traditon, that is.. for DHK. So, the illogical and wanting arguments continue when all one has to do is remove the scales from one's eyes and "see" the truth, goodness, and beauty of Tradition and Christ's voice.

God bless,

Carson

 

[Briguy]

Ron and Carson. DHK showed proof that there were disputes amoung the elite of the early Christians, even involving Peter himself. DHK also pointed out the church in Corinth. I also have, on other threads, not only pointed out the church in Corinth but also the churches in Revelations, all of which were failing in one area or another. Some variation of beliefs has and will always occur, as Satan is alive and strong and we have human nature(sin) to deal with. GOD is the one who will judge in the end and wheat will be seperated from tares, though they grow closely together. Should we seek unity? sure. There is a song that the chorus goes like this:

"Let the walls come down, let the walls come down, let the walls that divide us and hide us come down. If in Christ we agree, let us seek unity, let the walls come down.

I agree that unity is a great goal but from our Biblical examples we see total unity, in all issues is not possible until we are with Christ in Heaven. If you disagree then talk to Peter and Paul

In Love and Truth,
Brian

[ December 09, 2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:
DHK showed proof that there were disputes amoung the elite of the early Christians, even involving Peter himself.

You are right, so how can he make his claim that Christians "instantly recognized" Scripture? Especially when this is contrary to historical evidence?

Given that there were disputes, why then do you simply accept your Bible in it's present form?

Should we be honest and accept the historical evidence that the Church recognized what is Scripture?

Should we not then ask by what authority?

And if we reject the authority of the Church to recognize Scritpture as coming from God, what then?

Do you think that we should all look at all of the available writings of the first century and decide for ourselves what is inspired and what is not?

Brian, why do you accept the Bible in it's current form?

Ron

 

[Briguy]

Ron, that is a great question. I will answer you but let me ask you this. "Why do you accept the RCC as authority in its current form.

My answer is because I am filled with the Holy Spirit, who leads to truth. Notice I said leads as growing up spirtually is a journey with many winds and twists along the way. I believe in God's word and have accepted that it is truth based on the OT and its accuracy and related miracles and the NT because of historical accuracy, verifications of Jesus by his own miracles and early church miracles. Again promted to believe by the Holy Spirit and believing that God would not place us on earth without a "intruction manual". Another way to say it is that the OT was proven God's word by the prophets and the NT is proven God's Word by the fulfillment of the prophets.

Your turn to answer, please don't copy me

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Logan]

DHK:

You (and Brian) quoted Acts to show there was disagreement even among the apostles. I think if you look at Acts 15 you will see that the Church, not the bible, was the final authority in deciding doctrine.

"And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'"(Acts 15:1-2)

This brought Paul and Barnabas into disagreement with them and led to debate. If this happened today among Protestants, how would it be resolved? Most likely by one group leaving and starting another denomination. But the bible did establish a method for resolving such issues and if you are a true sola scriptura student, you would follow the bible's example.

Next you see that Paul and Barnabas were sent, along with some other believers, to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
The apostles and elders held a council at Jerusalem to discuss the issue, and their discussions are described at length in Acts 15:4-29. What is interesting is that the council did not instruct the believers to individually rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them on this issue or to interpret Scriptures on their own for the decision. Instead they issued a command(Acts 15:29).

The council reached its decision through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Acts 15:28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

For the sake of the discussion here, the main point is that once the council reached its decision, the debate was over. From that point on, it was outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy to require gentile converts to be circumcised, and this decision was binding on Christians everywhere. (Acts 16:4, "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.")

There was no room for individual judgment here. The council had ruled, and the people were expected to obey. This was how doctrinal disputes were settled in the Christian Church for the next 1500 years. Since you guys claim to base everything you do and believe on Scripture alone, the burden is on you to explain why you reject the authority of the Church in favor of individual judgment, which is clearly in contrast to Scripture.

[ December 10, 2002, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

[Briguy]

Hey Logan, Hope this day finds you well.

I think your example is interesting and I need to check further into it. However, my first thought is that the people that were in that council either were some of or were direct friends of the NT writers. It is not like DHK, me and you forming a council today. There was authority with those folks that we do not have. They were granted by God to write the NT. And when they made their descions rest assured it was by prayer and study of the OT, and study of the teachings of Jesus, many of whom were with Jesus first hand. When God completed the Bible the Bible then became our "council" our "place of answers".

In Christ,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:
However, my first thought is that the people that were in that council either were some of or were direct friends of the NT writers. It is not like DHK, me and you forming a council today. There was authority with those folks that we do not have. They were granted by God to write the NT.

Brian, you seem to edging towards a belief in "Apostolic succession".

It wasn't the Apostles themselves that met in council to declare the body of Canon. It wan't even direct friends, unless you believe that everyone involved was well over a hundred years old.

It was at least a couple of generations after the Apostles, and yet you seem to be recognizing that they had some sort of authority that the average Christian did not share in.

Ron

[ December 10, 2002, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[DHK]

"This page cannot be displayed"
I lost my post (and info).
I shall return!
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Logan:
The council reached its decision through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Acts 15:28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

For the sake of the discussion here, the main point is that once the council reached its decision, the debate was over. From that point on, it was outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy to require gentile converts to be circumcised, and this decision was binding on Christians everywhere. (Acts 16:4, "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.")

There was no room for individual judgment here. The council had ruled, and the people were expected to obey. This was how doctrinal disputes were settled in the Christian Church for the next 1500 years. Since you guys claim to base everything you do and believe on Scripture alone, the burden is on you to explain why you reject the authority of the Church in favor of individual judgment, which is clearly in contrast to Scripture.

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Acts 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

Let's take this passage now in its entire context. Notice first of all that this was a church (singular) located in the city of Jerusalem It is not talking here of a universal church. This church had elders (vs.6), and it had a pastor (James). It was a well structured and organized church (assembly). We again are talking of people, not a building. The early believers did not have a building to meet in.
There was a dispute that needed to be settled so they came to the church or assembly that was in Jerusalem. Why? Because that is where the apostles were. Some people's opinion here is that the apostles also should have obeyed Acts 1:8, and like the others of Acts 8, gone hence and preached the gospel to regions beyond. But we don't know that; it is not information that is revealed to us. What is revealed to us is the apostles were with the elders and the pastor which were in the church located in Jerusalem.
Each person had their say, and each was considered. The one who made the final decision was James, for he was the pastor.
"After they held their peace, James answered."
"Wherefore my sentence is..." It was James that gave the judgement, the verdict. He, as the pastor of the church made the final decision. He then goes on and delineates what that decision is. Before he does he gets their attention: "Hearken unto me."
Then, the apostles, along with the elders, and the entire church choose men to send to Antioch with this message.
Notice in verses 28 and 30 how this "epistle is described: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." The decision was still James decision. But in the sending of the epistle it is worded: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." Why? Because the Holy Spirit was there guiding and directing in each of their lives, giving special wisdom to James as the leader. All who were there agreed with the outcome.
The purpose of the council was twofold:
1. To put a stop to the Judaizing Christians who had been teaching that circumcision and the law were necessary for salvation.
2. To make an appeal to apostolic authority for such an action. It was by mere convenience that the apostles were at Jerusalem, and not at Antioch, or any other city. Paul's "home church" was not at Jerusalem; it was at Antioch. The decision was a decision of the local church, with input from the apostles and others.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Hi Ron, you wrote,
"Brian, you seem to edging towards a belief in "Apostolic succession"."

Ron, you seem to have forgotten about the rest of what I said. I ended my post with "until God completed the Bible". I do believe the apostles were key in settling disputes and defining doctrine but when the Bible was complete then IT became the authority because IT is not corruptble like men are. How do we know even the apostles and all succeeding church leaders were in danger of having differing opinions and even doctrinal differences? We look to the examples already given(Peter and Paul, Paul and Barnabas, Corinth, the churches in Revelations)

Ron, I am betting it is an oversight but you owe me an answer to the question I asked a couple posts ago

Thanks, and oh yea, I think I am across from Holland, MI. Maybe slightly south of where Holland is.

Take care,
In Christ,
Brian

[ December 11, 2002, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Ron, you seem to have forgotten about the rest of what I said. I ended my post with "until God completed the Bible".

So, Brian, where do we see God giving the authority to any particular men to recognize the Canon of Scripture.

Then, where do we see God taking away that authority?

It would seem that your cut off of authority is a bit arbritrary.

Ron, I am betting it is an oversight but you owe me an answer to the question I asked a couple posts ago

No, not an oversight. I think that I had answered the question earlier in this thread before you had asked it.

I accept the Canon of Scripture as we currently know it because Jesus gave the Church, through the Apostles, authority on earth. I can show you in history where the Church used that authority to define the Canon for us.

The idea that early Christians simply "instantly recognized Scripture" is silly and contrary to historical evidence.

I am across from Holland, MI. Maybe slightly south of where Holland is.

I love Lake Michigan.

For the past seven or eight years we have spent the summers living on our sailboat on northern Lake Michigan. I'ts a great way to get the kids away from the distractions of tv and computers and so on.

My wife and I just bought lakefrontage on Lake Michigan just north of Harbor Springs (that's way north) and are planning to build and move there within the next two years.

Ron

 

[Bible-belted]

This isn't that tough, Ron.

My sheep will here my voice Jesus said.

If you have doubts abot that ability then that says more about you than it does about anyone else here.

Quite frankly, as a Christian you agree with all others here that God is nowable and that He reveals Himself. You agree that we have a Bible, and that the Bible is God speaking to his people.

To now call that into question is simple intellectual dishonesty.

You can argue about wheter a particular book is inspired (since that assumes that inspiration is in fact recognisable, something all Christians agree on), but you cannot, as a Christian, argue about whether we can know something is inspired. To do so puts you in place of the atheiost or the agnostic.

You wnat to argue that position, fine. But then yo'd better be an atheist or an agnostic. If you're a christian, then this is not an arguent you can use.

I realise that this may be over your head, I rather hope not. But it seems to me that you need to actually think about the impications of what you're saying.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
This isn't that tough, Ron.

My sheep will here my voice Jesus said.

If you have doubts abot that ability then that says more about you than it does about anyone else here.

Quite frankly, as a Christian you agree with all others here that God is nowable and that He reveals Himself. You agree that we have a Bible, and that the Bible is God speaking to his people.

To now call that into question is simple intellectual dishonesty.

You can argue about wheter a particular book is inspired (since that assumes that inspiration is in fact recognisable, something all Christians agree on), but you cannot, as a Christian, argue about whether we can know something is inspired. To do so puts you in place of the atheiost or the agnostic.

You wnat to argue that position, fine. But then yo'd better be an atheist or an agnostic. If you're a christian, then this is not an arguent you can use.

I realise that this may be over your head, I rather hope not. But it seems to me that you need to actually think about the impications of what you're saying.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have not bothered to read through the whole thread.

I am not suggesting that any Book of the Bible is not inspired.

I am asking why one who rejects the authority of the Church would accept the Canon in it's present form.

My sheep will here my voice Jesus said.

If you have doubts abot that ability then that says more about you than it does about anyone else here.

There are many writings of the Apostles (gospels and epsitles) that are not included in the Canon of Scripture.

Are you suggesting that you could read them and tell me which are/are not inspired?

Do you believe that there are inspired writings which are not currently included in the Bible?

Ron

[ December 11, 2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Briguy]

Ron, You believe that "doctrine" always was and that God chooses when and to whom to reveal it and thus we have the reason why the CC has established new "beliefs" over a long period of time.

I believe that God Word always was and that God wrote it down and revealed it in His time. First the OT and then the NT. It doesn't matter what anybody at the time thought in terms of what books to include. God stepped in supernaturally and allowed the books in the Bible that He wanted, or better yet, that were really His Word. If a book didn't make the Bible it is because the book is not the written "Word of God". Once established, the Christian world was different for the Word of God was now complete and written down in one place. Praise God for his everlasting Word.

Ron, Sounds like you are pretty far up north. When you move up to where you want to end up, would that be retirement for you?

Take care,
In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Ron, You believe that "doctrine" always was and that God chooses when and to whom to reveal it and thus we have the reason why the CC has established new "beliefs" over a long period of time.

Not sure that I understand your meaning, but I wonder how different what you have described above is from the development of the new "pretribulation rapture" belief that sort of jsut sprang up about eighty years ago.

I believe that God Word always was and that God wrote it down and revealed it in His time. First the OT and then the NT. It doesn't matter what anybody at the time thought in terms of what books to include. God stepped in supernaturally and allowed the books in the Bible that He wanted, or better yet, that were really His Word. If a book didn't make the Bible it is because the book is not the written "Word of God". Once established, the Christian world was different for the Word of God was now complete and written down in one place. Praise God for his everlasting Word.

I guess that my beliefs differ from yours in that I believe that God does use the Church to make Himself know to us.

I would say that you believe in the individuals ability to find in the Bible what God wants each individual person to know about Him. The problem with that for me is that there are such divergent beliefs concerning the one Truth as a result. And they can't all be right .

Ron, Sounds like you are pretty far up north. When you move up to where you want to end up, would that be retirement for you?

Harbor Springs is about as far north in Michigan as you can get on the shore of Lake Michigan without going into the UP.

As for retirement, I'm self employed and my efforts revolve around a number of different activities. None of them seem much like work to me and I can set my own schedule. So, I'll probably keep myself busy "upnorth" pretty much as I do now.

I am considering starting some sort of "meals on wheels" program when we move. Mostly just as an excuse to check in on the local homebound elderly. You know us Catholics and our works!!

Let me know if you are ever in that part of the State, I'll take you out sailing. You'd love it.

Ron

 

[Bible-belted]

Ron,

"I am asking why one who rejects the authority of the Church would accept the Canon in it's present form."

I know that. That is exactly why I posted as I did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that since you didn't get the answer you expected you just didn't bother to think about what I said.

Take some time and you'll (hopefully) see the relevance.

"There are many writings of the Apostles (gospels and epsitles) that are not included in the Canon of Scripture.

Are you suggesting that you could read them and tell me which are/are not inspired?

Do you believe that there are inspired writings which are not currently included in the Bible?"

I certainly believe that each individual has the ability to hear the voice of God in those writings that are from Him. That is not to say that each individual is infallible. (That is an RC claim, RC Realism being predicated on the idea that the individual is infallible in ascertaining knowledge after all.)

And no, there are no inspired writings outside the Bible.

Now again I urge you to examine your apologetic. I also urge you to ask why you think you need authorty, or for that mater why you think canonisation was an exercise in authoruty when histroy records that it was otherwise.

 

[DHK]

Ron,
You agree that the Bible in its current form is inspired. The question is how it got that way, if I understand you.
Your claim is that the Catholic Church through its various councils preserved the Bible, chose which ones should be in the canon, and rejected others.
Our claim is that that position holds no weight whatsoever. Those believers close to the apostles knew which books were inspired because of the direct teaching of the Apostles. The books were accepted as Scripture much earlier than the Council of Nicea, as 2Peter already points to other Apostles' writings as being Scripture. Why should we put our trust in the Catholic Church to be the defenders and preservers of Scriptures, when throughout periods of history:
1. They have kept the Word of God from the common person.
2. They have burned the Scriptures out of an adamant will to keep the Word of God from the people.
3. They have carried out a cruel inquisition upon people who believed in the Word of God.
4. Their sordid history continues today in unholiness immorality and sexual perversion, unbecoming that which sets out the character of lives changed by the Word of God.

Why would I believe that the Catholic Church would have any reason to be the preservers of the Word of God?

The early believers, taught by the Apostles, framed the canon of Scripture. It had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, its wickedness, or its heretical doctrines.
DHK

[ December 11, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]