Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
I certainly believe that each individual has the ability to hear the voice of God in those writings that are from Him.

This is very different than DHK's claim that individuals were able to differentiate which writings were/not inspired. So you still haven't answered the question as asked.

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

And you know this because....?

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.

Please, show me that history.

Ron

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
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.

Then you should have no problem showing me in Scripture where each individual Book of the New Testament is declared as Scripture. A list of each Book with the appropriate declaration cited in some other part of the New Testament would settle the whole thing.

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.

You keep saying this but you do not offer historical evidence to back it up. How about some thing more?

Ron

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
I certainly believe that each individual has the ability to hear the voice of God in those writings that are from Him.

This is very different than DHK's claim that individuals were able to differentiate which writings were/not inspired. So you still haven't answered the question as asked.

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

And you know this because....?
</font>[/QUOTE]Ron, you are trying very hard Trying NOT 2 Understand, as your monicker portrays. You have played what Lateria has said against what I have said, and then said that we do not agree, even though we say essentially the same thing.
U Try Not 2 Understand!
And it seems deliberately so.

What I have said: God gives understanding to those that are saved through the Holy Spirit. It is the natural man (the unsaved man) that cannot understand the Word of God, for he has not the Spirit of God:

1Cor.2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--These verses are self explanatory unless you are unsaved.

What did Lateria say?
"I certainly believe that each individual has the ability to hear the voice of God in those writings that are from Him."
--I guess we know how to say the same thing in different words. What he said is backed up in the above verses. The voice of God is the Holy Spirit of God which is given to every man (that is saved) in order to be illumined by God through His Word.

Your own admission was that we have a closed canon of Scripture, and that the Scripture that we do have is inspired. You did admit to that did you not?

If you admit to those things, which both Carson and Logan do, why would you even ask Lateria (and in a sarcastic way, I might add),

"And no, there are no inspired writings outside the Bible."
"And you know this because....?"

Are U Trying 2 Understand?
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
Your own admission was that we have a closed canon of Scripture, and that the Scripture that we do have is inspired. You did admit to that did you not?

If you admit to those things, which both Carson and Logan do, why would you even ask Lateria (and in a sarcastic way, I might add),
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"And no, there are no inspired writings outside the Bible."
"And you know this because....?"

Are U Trying 2 Understand?
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]I am trying to understand why you believe as you do.

I know why Carson, Logan and I accept the Canon as inspired and closed.

I do not know why you do.

So far the besst that you have offered is that early Christians just knew, but you have no evidence to support this.

If the Canon was universally accepted by early Christians before the Councils met and declared the Canon, show me the evidence.

Or you say that Paul declares the other New Testament writings to be Scripture. Then show me the verses that show him saying that each and every Book is Scripture.

Ron

[ December 12, 2002, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Bible-belted]

"This is very different than DHK's claim that individuals were able to differentiate which writings were/not inspired. So you still haven't answered the question as asked."

No it is not different. Yes the question has been answered. That you are unable to understand that is not my problem.

Quite franly the only reason I thin that you don't "get it" is because you are unable to read without prejudice and accept any answer that does not coform to the box of pre-packaged apologetics that you are habded. You are no different from a Mormon in that respect. And whats' more in your efforts to sow discord and fabricate disagreement, you are showing yourself to be merely contentious, and the Bible tells us not to deal with such.

"And you know this because....?"

Answered already. I won't repeat myself. Th answer is found if you will read what I have already said.

"Please, show me that history."

Its in historey books, lad. It is disappointing but not surprising that RCs, who claim history as their own, are so ignorant of it. But you have it wrong. If you want to assert authority as an issue, despite the fact that scholars admit that the councils of early history were not an exercise in authority, then YOU demostrate it. And use historians, not apologists.

So far you have given atehistic apologetics, illustrated a failure tograsp teh epistomological issue at hand, and have read nothing said to you in anything like a charitable light.

So, as I said on the other thread, wake me whern you're ready to interact.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
Its in historey books, lad.

Not exactly specific.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
Its in historey books, lad.

Not exactly specific.</font>[/QUOTE]It's not intended to be. You obviously need to read more broadly than you do. That is, something other than apologist handbooks. So I am telling you to read history books for history. Read a lot of them. Consider it encouragement to do some work.

 

[Briguy]

Hi Ron, You wrote:
""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"".

You are right that they can't all be right. Does the fact that they can't all be right make the right one wrong?

Ron, Satan is a master at lies and confusion. I believe that the plan he is carrying out is to give people more and more choices. The more Churches with different doctrines to choose from the harder it is for a person to find the right one. If I ask you what 2+2 equals and then give you 1,000 pages of numbers to look through it is hard to find the right answer in all those pages. 4 is still the right answer whether there is 1 choice or a thousand choices. I believe the Bible teaches a clear Truth about Jesus and salvation and it is not less true because someone says there are other possible interpretations. I do realize that the CC or any group can make this claim. I will trust my God that I am one who found the "right" answer amoung the wrong ones. Hope that made sense. I am almost afraid to re-read what I wrote.

Ron, Thanks for the sailing offer. I went sailing on Lake Michigan one time and got sick, so I don't know if you want me on your boat

I met mess it up.

Take care,
Brian

btw, I work with disabled folks and the elderly and meals on wheels are a key part of some people staying in their homes. It would be a great "work" to start a program like that. You would be surprized by the volume of people you could serve.

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by DHK:
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.

Yes it was a church in Jerusalem, which was part of the universal(Catholic)Church. The same as the church that sent them. "Therefore, being sent on their way by the church..." (Acts 15:3)

We again are talking of people, not a building. The early believers did not have a building to meet in.

I dont remember stating that they did??

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.

Including Peter..

The one who made the final decision was James, for he was the pastor.

You are missing the context of this chapter. Peter stood up and and proclaimed doctrine to them in verses 7-11. This is the defining moment. After Peter speaks, then James stands up and starts off by saying; "Brethren listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about..." Yes James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and it was his job to speak here.

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.

Where does the text say that James was given special wisdom?

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.

Agreed

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.

This is where your argument fails. 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."
This decision was binding on all Christians, not just the "local church" as you say. Next, we see that it was the apostles and elders decision, not just a declaration by James as you implied.This was the councils decision and it was binding on all Christians. The council as a whole was guided by the Holy Spirit. He would not lead them into error.

[ December 13, 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Logan:

Yes it was a church in Jerusalem, which was part of the universal(Catholic)Church. The same as the church that sent them. "Therefore, being sent on their way by the church..." (Acts 15:3)

It was church was the local church in Jerusalem, the only kind that was known. You also need to look up the word "ekklesia" in a Greek lexicon. It never means universal. You cannot have an unassembled assembly. The word means assembly or congregation. The congregation was at Jerusalem and no where else. There was no such thing as a universal church.

You are missing the context of this chapter. Peter stood up and and proclaimed doctrine to them in verses 7-11. This is the defining moment. After Peter speaks, then James stands up and starts off by saying; "Brethren listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about..." Yes James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and it was his job to speak here.

And so you agree with me that James was the bishop (another word for pastor or overseer) was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. Thus he was in the position to give the final judgement after all the others had spoken.

Where does the text say that James was given special wisdom?

By implication. The pastor was given the role of the leader of church and usually had the gift of administration listed in 1Cor.12. He was the overseer, the pastor, the shepherd. He would need wisdom to carry on his duties. Even the "deacons" that the church chose in Acts 6 set as a qualification had to be men "full of wisdom." How much more so for the actual pastor of the church.

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.

Agreed

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.

This is where your argument fails. 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."
This decision was binding on all Christians, not just the "local church" as you say. Next, we see that it was the apostles and elders decision, not just a declaration by James as you implied.This was the councils decision and it was binding on all Christians. The council as a whole was guided by the Holy Spirit. He would not lead them into error.

The decision was binding on all Christians because it was a decision brought to the apostles and dealt with doctring. It affected Paul wherever he went. The Judaizing Christians followed Paul trying to destoy the works that he had started by imposing the law on those that had beleived by faith, much like the Catholic Church does today to a new believer. A person comes to Christ by faith and the Catholic Church, like the Judaizers says that use cannot be saved except through the sacraments (law). They preach a false gospel as Paul said. Salvation is by faith, and by faith alone. Peter, Paul, and all the other apostles made this clear in the church of Jersualem. James, as the pastor proclaimed it to be so. Others recognized it as an apostolic decision, as well as a church decision. There were no such decisions (councils) made after the apostles died, for there were no apostles to gather to make those decisions. The Book of Acts is a Book of history which shows Christianity in transition. The churches at Jerusalem, Antioch, Iconium, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, etc. were independent one of another. They were all separate congregations or assemblies. They were not united as a denomination or some kind of universal monster. There is no such thing. Use your Greek lexicon.
DHK

 

[Bible-belted]

Let's just get a lexicon's gloss out shall we?

From Gingrich/Danker "Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament"

ekklesia, as, n- 1) assembly regularly convened for political purposes, Ac 19:39; meeting generally 19:32,40. - 2) congregation, assembly, of the Israelites Ac 7:38; Hb 2:12. - 3)the Christian church or congregation: as a church meeting 1Cor 11:18; 14:4f; 3Jn6; as a group of Christians living in one place Mt 18:17; Ac 5:11; Ro 16:1,5; 1Cor 1:2; Gal 1:22; 1Th 1:1; Phlm 2; as the church universal, to which all believers belong Mt 16:18; Ac 9:31; 1Cor 12:28; Eph 1:22; 3:10 Church of God or Christ 1Cor 10:32; 1Th 2:14; Ro 16:16.

So there yo have the Lexical evidence.

Incidentally Vines also coroborates the idea of "universal church as a gloss for ekklessia when it says (under "assembly"): It [ekkelsia] has two appications to companies of christians, (a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company of which Christ said, "I will build My Church," Matt. 16:18, and which is further described as "the Church which is His Body," Eph. 1:22; 5:23

I will point out though that the RC concept of ekklessia does not appear at all. And that is the decisive point.

 

[DHK]

Here also is what I have found for those interested:

Ekklesia Phonetic Spelling, Parts of Speech ek-klay-see'-ah Noun Feminine Definition
1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a.. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b. the assembly of the Israelites
c. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d. in a Christian sense
i. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
ii. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
iii. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
iv. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
v. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven.

King James Word Usage - Total: 118. church 115, assembly 3
(Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public.)

Notice that it is given one basic definition, which then has four sub-definitions. Only under one of those subdivisions do you find one reference to a universal church, which I believe came in at a much later date in time in history.

A good article to read would be:

The New Testament Church
DHK

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by DHK:
It was church was the local church in Jerusalem, the only kind that was known. You also need to look up the word "ekklesia" in a Greek lexicon. It never means universal.

That contradicts your own definition.

You cannot have an unassembled assembly. The word means assembly or congregation. The congregation was at Jerusalem and no where else. There was no such thing as a universal church.

An "unassembled assembly?" I don't really get you here. The biblical fact is that Jesus built one Church. Not several thousand different churches that teach several different variations of truth.

The pastor was given the role of the leader of church and usually had the gift of administration listed in 1Cor.12. He was the overseer, the pastor, the shepherd. He would need wisdom to carry on his duties. Even the "deacons" that the church chose in Acts 6 set as a qualification had to be men "full of wisdom." How much more so for the actual pastor of the church.

This sounds good, but in reality I'm sure we both have known some pastors that we would be hard pressed to say were guided by the Spirit and "full of wisdom." How would you interpret someone as being full of wisdom? By whether they agree with you or not?

The decision was binding on all Christians because it was a decision brought to the apostles and dealt with doctring.

If it is binding on all Chrisitians then it is an infallible decision, and therefore the council was guided by the Holy Spirit.

A person comes to Christ by faith and the Catholic Church, like the Judaizers says that use cannot be saved except through the sacraments (law). They preach a false gospel as Paul said.

This statement shows that you really dont understand the Catholic faith.

There were no such decisions (councils) made after the apostles died, for there were no apostles to gather to make those decisions.

The Councils that officially formed the canon of the New Testament are a clear example of what you just denied. The knowledge of which books comprise the bible must be infallible; if not, there is no way to know for certain if the books we regard as inspired really are. Further, this knowledge must be binding; otherwise men would be free to create their own customized canon containing those books they value and lacking the ones they don't. This knowledge msut also be part of divine revelation; if not, it is merely a tradition of men.

The Book of Acts is a Book of history which shows Christianity in transition. The churches at Jerusalem, Antioch, Iconium, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, etc. were independent one of another. They were all separate congregations or assemblies. They were not united as a denomination or some kind of universal monster. There is no such thing. Use your Greek lexicon.

Are you telling me that these churches had different beliefs as many of the churches today have? I think not, and if they did, they had the model from the apostles in Acts 15 in how to resolve the differences, not as of today, where men go and start a new church. So, yes they were universal in their beliefs.

[ December 14, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Logan:

Originally posted by DHK:
It was church was the local church in Jerusalem, the only kind that was known. You also need to look up the word "ekklesia" in a Greek lexicon. It never means universal.

[QB]That contradicts your own definition.
How does that contradict my own definition? The curch at Jerusalem was a local assembly, not a universal church. There is no such thing as a universal thing as a universal church.

You cannot have an unassembled assembly. The word means assembly or congregation. The congregation was at Jerusalem and no where else. There was no such thing as a universal church.

An "unassembled assembly?" I don't really get you here. The biblical fact is that Jesus built one Church. Not several thousand different churches that teach several different variations of truth.
Read the link that I gave you. Jesus said I "WILL" build my church. There is two ways to take that verse. One is that assembly will not be assembled until we reach Heaven, and then Christ will present it to Himself a glorious assembly without spot or wrinkle as the Bride of Christ (Eph.5:27). The other view is that the word "assembly" is a generic word representative of every Bible believing church that has Christ as its head and the Bible as its foundation. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against such a church. They already have against the Catholic Church, proof that it wasn't a Biblical Church to begin with. It never has been.

The pastor was given the role of the leader of church and usually had the gift of administration listed in 1Cor.12. He was the overseer, the pastor, the shepherd. He would need wisdom to carry on his duties. Even the "deacons" that the church chose in Acts 6 set as a qualification had to be men "full of wisdom." How much more so for the actual pastor of the church.

This sounds good, but in reality I'm sure we both have known some pastors that we would be hard pressed to say were guided by the Spirit and "full of wisdom." How would you interpret someone as being full of wisdom? By whether they agree with you or not?
The fact remains that the deacons chosen in Acts 6 were men full of the Holy Spirit. They would of set the same requirements for their pastors, if not higher.

The decision was binding on all Christians because it was a decision brought to the apostles and dealt with doctring.

If it is binding on all Chrisitians then it is an infallible decision, and therefore the council was guided by the Holy Spirit.
No one said that those involved were not guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact Scripture says they were. "It seemd good to us and to the Holy Spirit." The problem was not with Christians from a Jewish background. The problem was with Christians from a Greek background, and primarily with Paul's missionary journeys to the gentiles. He was known as the Missionary to the Gentiles. He wanted a clear-cut decision from the apostles, who just happened to be gathered at the church at Jerusalem that salvation was by faith alone; no works involved; no circumcision, no keeping of the law. If the apostles had happened to be gathered at the church in Antioch where Paul was from, then this same meeting would have taken there instead.

A person comes to Christ by faith and the Catholic Church, like the Judaizers says that use cannot be saved except through the sacraments (law). They preach a false gospel as Paul said.

This statement shows that you really dont understand the Catholic faith.
This statement shows how naive you are to how the average Catholic thinks. You are a Catholic e-pologist, with a much greater knowledge of the Bible and the Catholic dogma than the average Catholic. I meet "average Cathlics" almost everday. My own parents, who go to church every Sunday, every day during lent, believe that salvation is by works. They said very plainly, that if they keep the Ten Commandments that God would accept them. That is a works salvation. Most Catholics think somewhat along that line. If I go to church on Sunday and get my sins confessed by a priest, I will go to Heaven. That is a works salvation. It really does not matter to them about Christ taking their place on the cross and atoning for their sins, and shedding His blood for them. They couldn't care less. Right now they are more concerned about buying "Christmas presents" than actually celebrating the birth of Christ. They would rather sing "Jingle Bells" than "O Holy Night." Where your heart is there where your treasure is also. For out of the abundance of the heart man speaketh.

There were no such decisions (councils) made after the apostles died, for there were no apostles to gather to make those decisions.

The Councils that officially formed the canon of the New Testament are a clear example of what you just denied. The knowledge of which books comprise the bible must be infallible; if not, there is no way to know for certain if the books we regard as inspired really are. Further, this knowledge must be binding; otherwise men would be free to create their own customized canon containing those books they value and lacking the ones they don't. This knowledge msut also be part of divine revelation; if not, it is merely a tradition of men.
A group of probably unsaved men, gathered together to decide what was the Word of God, and what was not, is preposterous even to think of, let alone a workable theory. The New Testament Christians accepted Scripture as Scripture shortly after it was written, not hundreds of years removed after it was written. The Bible says give honor where honor is due. You give no credit (honor) to the intellectual capacity of the early Christians. You treat them as dummies unable to ascertain what books were Scripture, and what were not, even though they had the very presence of the Apostles with them in many cases.

The Book of Acts is a Book of history which shows Christianity in transition. The churches at Jerusalem, Antioch, Iconium, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, etc. were independent one of another. They were all separate congregations or assemblies. They were not united as a denomination or some kind of universal monster. There is no such thing. Use your Greek lexicon.

Are you telling me that these churches had different beliefs as many of the churches today have? I think not, and if they did, they had the model from the apostles in Acts 15 in how to resolve the differences, not as of today, where men go and start a new church. So, yes they were universal in their beliefs.
Then you need to read and study your Bible. Each church was different and had its set of own unique problems. The problem which Paul addresses to the believers at the church of Thessalonica revolved around the Second Coming. The problems that he addressed to the church of Corinth were many and varied. They split up into different factions: some denied the very resurrection of Christ, one was involved in incest and the church would not do anything about it, they abused the Lord's Table, they were taking each other to court, etc. One of the problems faced at Ephesians was the fact that both Jews and Gentiles were now one in Christ. Though they had different backgrounds they were one in Christ.
The so-called Council in Acts 15 had nothing to do to resolve these conflicts. They were resolved from within with Paul's help, who was the founder of these churches, and therefore had a part in solving these problems. The problems were not addressed before a Council, or the other apostles. The matter of incest in 1Cor.5 was dealt entirely from within the church with the offending member excommunicated. It did not take the pope months to decide on that one. It only took a word of encouragement from Paul to act on it. Then they took action immediately. This is a far cry from the way the Catholic Church acts toward sexual offences today. It didn't take a council, a gathering of pope's and bishops. It took the church of Corinth gathering together to make a decision, and so they did. They excommunicated the offendeding member. Too bad the Catholics don't act in a similar manner.
DHK

[ December 14, 2002, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by DHK:
How does that contradict my own definition? The curch at Jerusalem was a local assembly, not a universal church. There is no such thing as a universal thing as a universal church.

One of the definitions you posted had "universal" as a secondary meaning.

Read the link that I gave you. Jesus said I "WILL" build my church. There is two ways to take that verse. One is that assembly will not be assembled until we reach Heaven, and then Christ will present it to Himself a glorious assembly without spot or wrinkle as the Bride of Christ (Eph.5:27). The other view is that the word "assembly" is a generic word representative of every Bible believing church that has Christ as its head and the Bible as its foundation. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against such a church. They already have against the Catholic Church, proof that it wasn't a Biblical Church to begin with. It never has been.

Jesus' words in Matthew 18:15-17 would have no meaning then if this a future church and would not even fit the criteria of every "bible believing" church as you stated, as they cannot all agree on what is biblical Truth.

I also cannot find in Scripture anywhere where a church is to have the bible as its foundation. Ephesians 2:19-20, "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone."

This statement shows how naive you are to how the average Catholic thinks.

Believe me D, I know many Catholics that believe somwhat along the lines you describe. That does not change what the Church actually teaches though. I have many friends who are baptist. Some are devout in their love of Christ; others, call themselves Christians, but seem to think little of committing adultery. I do not hold my respect for the baptist faith on the ones that don't hold to it, but on the ones that do.

It really does not matter to them about Christ taking their place on the cross and atoning for their sins, and shedding His blood for them. They couldn't care less. Right now they are more concerned about buying "Christmas presents" than actually celebrating the birth of Christ. They would rather sing "Jingle Bells" than "O Holy Night." Where your heart is there where your treasure is also. For out of the abundance of the heart man speaketh.

This is indeed a shame. And I agree there are "Catholics" that are like this. But again, this is not what the Church teaches. I'm sure you will agree there are many people who claim to be Christians, of all denominations, that fit the bill.

A group of probably unsaved men, gathered together to decide what was the Word of God, and what was not, is preposterous even to think of, let alone a workable theory.

Why do you say, "probably unsaved men?" Do you know the men that made up these councils?

The New Testament Christians accepted Scripture as Scripture shortly after it was written, not hundreds of years removed after it was written.

Yes...some they did, others were unsure of certain writings as some books that claimed to be written by the apostles were eventually proven to be frauds. This was the need for the councils, to seperate the frauds and uninspired writings from the actual Word of God.

The Bible says give honor where honor is due. You give no credit (honor) to the intellectual capacity of the early Christians. You treat them as dummies unable to ascertain what books were Scripture, and what were not, even though they had the very presence of the Apostles with them in many cases.

You misjudge me my friend. I have great respect for the early Christians. Many of these men died for their faith in Christ. That is awesome and I certainly would'nt refer to them as dummies.

Then you need to read and study your Bible. Each church was different and had its set of own unique problems. The problem which Paul addresses to the believers at the church of Thessalonica revolved around the Second Coming. The problems that he addressed to the church of Corinth were many and varied. They split up into different factions: some denied the very resurrection of Christ, one was involved in incest and the church would not do anything about it, they abused the Lord's Table, they were taking each other to court, etc. One of the problems faced at Ephesians was the fact that both Jews and Gentiles were now one in Christ. Though they had different backgrounds they were one in Christ.

You are correct. I do need to read and study the bible more. But you are missing my point here. Though these churches had different problems, they were all grounded on Truth. Their doctrines were not up to the popular vote.

The so-called Council in Acts 15 had nothing to do to resolve these conflicts.

Yes the council had everything to do with resolving the debate about circumcision. This was not to be an issue for the Church after their binding decision.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Logan:

One of the definitions you posted had "universal" as a secondary meaning.

The definitions that I quoted were from authoritative sources. I qualified my remarks saying that I disagreed with the one minor definition concerning the universal church. It disagreed with the primary definition, and did not probably come into usage until a much later daye in history.

Jesus' words in Matthew 18:15-17 would have no meaning then if this a future church and would not even fit the criteria of every "bible believing" church as you stated, as they cannot all agree on what is biblical Truth.
I personally believe that the word "church" or ekklesia, still means assembly and is a generic word referring to every Bible-believing church down throughout all ages from the time of the Apostles onward. As far as agreement on doctrine is concerned it has been amply demonstrated that not even the Apostles agreed on every thing. Doctrinal unity was not the most important issue back then. Paul withstood Peter to the face. The contention between Paul and Barnabas and Paul was so great that they parted asunder. Look at the differences within the churches themselves. The church at Corinth was divided up into many different factions. Some of the members didn't even believe the resurrection (1Cor.15). The church at Thessalonica was confused on the rapture, the Second Coming and the saints that had already died in Christ. What would become of them? Doctrinal unity? Hardly!

I also cannot find in Scripture anywhere where a church is to have the bible as its foundation. Ephesians 2:19-20, "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone."
Look more carefully at the context. Paul is referring to the unity that the Greek Christians are now able to have with the Jewish Christians. That is the immediate context of the passage. There is one interpretation but many applications. So, that is not to say that the passage cannot be applied in other ways as it often is.
The problem with the Catholic Church here is their constant refusal of Sola Scriptura. Once they define a passage of Scripture or a doctrine, then that's that. You have to believe it: right or wrong. There is no margin for error. That is what the Bible calls a "private interpretation" being enforced upon the people, and it is wrong. We are to study the Bible ourselves and find out whether these things are true or not. The Apostles, the Prophets, and even Christ Himself, all referred to the Bible as their final authority.

Believe me D, I know many Catholics that believe somwhat along the lines you describe. That does not change what the Church actually teaches though. I have many friends who are baptist. Some are devout in their love of Christ; others, call themselves Christians, but seem to think little of committing adultery. I do not hold my respect for the baptist faith on the ones that don't hold to it, but on the ones that do.
I can agree with you only in part. It is true that there are many ungodly Baptists. I won't deny that. But here is what I am trying to say:
The average Catholic doesn't have a clue about salvation itself. They think that salvation is obtained through the Ten Commandments or the sacraments, which is a salvation of works and not of grace by faith, which the Bible teaches.
Perhaps 5% or less understand the plan of salvation in the Catholc church if that.
But I would say that over 90% of Baptists at least understand what the plan of salvation is, though all may not live up to what they profess. They may not all believe it. But they do know and understand what it is. That is the basic difference. A Catholic doesn't understand salvation; a baptist does--despite their lifestyles.

This is indeed a shame. And I agree there are "Catholics" that are like this. But again, this is not what the Church teaches. I'm sure you will agree there are many people who claim to be Christians, of all denominations, that fit the bill.
Agreed

Why do you say, "probably unsaved men?" Do you know the men that made up these councils?
I do not know all of the teachings of the church fathers. But I do know that many of them are fraught heresies. Origen, for example, is a good example of a heretic. He was known as the Father of Arianism. He in turn influenced Eusebius. I cannot look into the hearts of these men and say for sure that these men were saved or not; but then neither can you.

Yes...some they did, others were unsure of certain writings as some books that claimed to be written by the apostles were eventually proven to be frauds. This was the need for the councils, to seperate the frauds and uninspired writings from the actual Word of God.
Why do you think that it was the work of the councils. That is where I think Catholic bias comes in. Catholic councils took care of Catholic business. It was the early believers along with the Apostles that canonized the Scriptures. He had given them the promise that "He would guide them into all truth."

You misjudge me my friend. I have great respect for the early Christians. Many of these men died for their faith in Christ. That is awesome and I certainly would'nt refer to them as dummies.

You are correct. I do need to read and study the bible more. But you are missing my point here. Though these churches had different problems, they were all grounded on Truth. Their doctrines were not up to the popular vote.
No, it wasn't up for popular vote. They solved their problems mostly with the guidance of Paul who had a hand in establishing most of these churches. And when problems arose and Paul was not present, they had a government in place that was ordained by God, and they had the Holy Spirit to guide them, working through His Word. Everything was grounded on the Word of God.

The so-called Council in Acts 15 had nothing to do to resolve these conflicts.

Yes the council had everything to do with resolving the debate about circumcision. This was not to be an issue for the Church after their binding decision.
No, the so-called Council at Jerusalem dealt with one problem and one problem only, because it related to the salvation of Gentile believers everywhere (all over the known world at that time), and it would involve the Jewish Christians realtion to them. All other problems were solved by the local churches themselves. There is no evidence anywhere to believe anything to the contrary. Every church in the Bible solved it own problems, only appealing to its founder (Paul) on occasion. Their guide for solving problems--the Bible. What is that called: Sola Scriptura.
DHK

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by DHK:
As far as agreement on doctrine is concerned it has been amply demonstrated that not even the Apostles agreed on every thing. Doctrinal unity was not the most important issue back then. Paul withstood Peter to the face. The contention between Paul and Barnabas and Paul was so great that they parted asunder. Look at the differences within the churches themselves. The church at Corinth was divided up into many different factions. Some of the members didn't even believe the resurrection (1Cor.15). The church at Thessalonica was confused on the rapture, the Second Coming and the saints that had already died in Christ. What would become of them? Doctrinal unity? Hardly!

The fact of the matter is that the ones who did not believe in the ressurection were wrong. And Paul accordingly, corrected them. There was not two different teachings on the ressurection that were correct. The same goes for Thessalonica, there is but one truth on their disagreements. This one Truth had been taught by Jesus and the apostles and is alive today through the ages through the protection of the Holy Spirit.

The problem with the Catholic Church here is their constant refusal of Sola Scriptura. Once they define a passage of Scripture or a doctrine, then that's that. You have to believe it: right or wrong.

When Jesus gives us a command, I do not believe it is open to debate. That is one of the problems of some churches today. A majority of the members may think it is all right for the marriage of homosexuals and the next thing you know, their church suddendly changes their stance on the issue. This is rediculous. The Word of God is unchanging and not open for one to decide if it should apply to them or not.

We are to study the Bible ourselves and find out whether these things are true or not.

D, that is part of the problem...these same people will twist the Scripture to justify their actions. They do not acknowledge the authority Jesus left here on earth.

The Apostles, the Prophets, and even Christ Himself, all referred to the Bible as their final authority.

Your going to have to give me Scripture to back up this claim...

I do not know all of the teachings of the church fathers. But I do know that many of them are fraught heresies. Origen, for example, is a good example of a heretic. He was known as the Father of Arianism. He in turn influenced Eusebius. I cannot look into the hearts of these men and say for sure that these men were saved or not; but then neither can you.

I dont pretend to, but that is exactly why I am thankful for the Holy Spirit guiding the councils. That is the only way for absolute assurance that the canon is infallible. Not relying on whether or not the men who made up the council were holy or not. Even if they were holy, if they were not guided by the Spirit, they could have erred.

Why do you think that it was the work of the councils. That is where I think Catholic bias comes in.

D, this is a historic fact. This is not Catholic bias. Protestant historians have agreed on this issue.

All other problems were solved by the local churches themselves. There is no evidence anywhere to believe anything to the contrary.

Around the year 80 A.D., the church in Corinth had issue arise they could not agree on and wrote to the Bishop of Rome (Clement) for a decision on the matter. I can look up the cite for this and give it to you if you need it.

Every church in the Bible solved it own problems, only appealing to its founder (Paul) on occasion. Their guide for solving problems--the Bible. What is that called: Sola Scriptura.

Acts 15?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Logan:

The fact of the matter is that the ones who did not believe in the ressurection were wrong. And Paul accordingly, corrected them. There was not two different teachings on the ressurection that were correct. The same goes for Thessalonica, there is but one truth on their disagreements. This one Truth had been taught by Jesus and the apostles and is alive today through the ages through the protection of the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you. I don't think I stated my position very clearly. There was much doctrinal disunity in the churches at that time. That much is true. But Paul constantly warned Timothy and others to "take heed to thyself and to the doctrine." As you say, he corrected false doctrine. There is but one Truth, and that is contained in the pages of the Bible.

Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

The faith, that Jude contends for, is that faith, that body of doctrine that the Apostles were teaching and even at that time was being inscripturated. "The faith" is a body of doctrine.

When Jesus gives us a command, I do not believe it is open to debate. That is one of the problems of some churches today. A majority of the members may think it is all right for the marriage of homosexuals and the next thing you know, their church suddendly changes their stance on the issue. This is rediculous. The Word of God is unchanging and not open for one to decide if it should apply to them or not.
That's a nice platitude that you stated there. Too bad the Catholic church has not been consistent in holding to it. As I have menntioned before, the Assumption of Mary was not accepted as a Catholic dogma until 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared it to be so. The Bible does not change; the Catholic church and her dogmas change. The apocrypha wasn't "officially" accepted by the Catholic Church until 1534. The Bible doesn't change; the Catholic church does.
I agree with you on your stand on homosexuals. I believe that that is a sign of the moral degeneracy of our society today, which the Bible indicates would be another sign of the soon coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

D, that is part of the problem...these same people will twist the Scripture to justify their actions. They do not acknowledge the authority Jesus left here on earth.
No the problem is that people never study their Bibles, (well almost never). This was the problem with the Jewish nation.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

God's people were being destroyed because they did not know the Word of God.

Paul praised the Bereans because they did search the Word of God (Acts 17:11).
The authority that Jesus left on earth was His Word, not the Pope, not Peter, not the Keys.

The Apostles, the Prophets, and even Christ Himself, all referred to the Bible as their final authority.

Your going to have to give me Scripture to back up this claim...
I don't have time to do an in depth study right now, but to give you a few examples.
1. The Apostles. They were constantly referring to the Scriptures as their authority. Many times did they quote the Old Testament in their writings as their authority. They also referred to each other. Peter in 2Peter 3 referred to Paul's writings as Scripture. In the same chapter he puts the writings of all the apostles on the same par as the prophets of old. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians he used language that made it clear that they were to accept these words as the words of God.

2. Hebrews 1:1 explicitly tells us that God spoke to us in old times through the prophets. That is how God chose to convey His Word, through the prophets.

3. Christ Himself. In an appeal to Satan, who was tempting Him in the wilderness, Christ appealed to the Scripture every time. Thus saith the Scriptures. He quoted mostly from the Book of Deuteronomy. He fought Satan with the Word of God. The Word of God was his authority. When the soldiers went back and reported to the Pharisees, the report was: "he speaks as one who speaks with authority." His words were authoritative.
When He was in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas betrayed Him with a kiss, and the soldiers and Pharisees came to get him. "Whom do ye seek," He asked. They said, "Jesus of Nazareth." He said, "I am (he)." At that saying they fell backward. The power of His Word was enough to make them fall backward to the ground. The Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. The Word of God is our final authority.

I dont pretend to, but that is exactly why I am thankful for the Holy Spirit guiding the councils. That is the only way for absolute assurance that the canon is infallible. Not relying on whether or not the men who made up the council were holy or not. Even if they were holy, if they were not guided by the Spirit, they could have erred.
If you admit that you do not know the hearts of those men that sat on those councils, and that there was the possibility of some holding to heresy, then how can you say that the Holy Spirit was guiding them? Why is that should be the only way that one could have assurance that the canon is infallible?
God is not confined to any group of men.

Why do you think that it was the work of the councils. That is where I think Catholic bias comes in.

D, this is a historic fact. This is not Catholic bias. Protestant historians have agreed on this issue.
Not at all. I have explained before that there are many protestants that take the view that even though that is where the books were "officially" canonized, that does not take away from the fact that the early believers still knew which ones were Scripture. They early believers also believed in the trinity. They didn't have to wait for a council to tell them it was so. It was only officially decreed as dogma then. It was like a rubber stamp on what believers all along had been believing.

All other problems were solved by the local churches themselves. There is no evidence anywhere to believe anything to the contrary.

Around the year 80 A.D., the church in Corinth had issue arise they could not agree on and wrote to the Bishop of Rome (Clement) for a decision on the matter. I can look up the cite for this and give it to you if you need it.
No need to look it up. I'll take your word for it. As a Pastor I also consult other pastors for advice in certain matters. That does not put one church in higher position than any other. It only bears out the Biblical principle that there is wisdom in a multitude of counsellors. That does not infer that Clement held a position of authority over him, but may have been a friend that could offer him some godly advice.

Every church in the Bible solved it own problems, only appealing to its founder (Paul) on occasion. Their guide for solving problems--the Bible. What is that called: Sola Scriptura.

Acts 15?
No, Acts 17:11 and Isaiah 8:20
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Ron, was hoping you would reply to my last post. Hope all is well with you and your family.

DHK, Good in depth work on your last few posts.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:
You are right that they can't all be right. Does the fact that they can't all be right make the right one wrong?

No. But I don't know why that would give you much comfort considering that you have no real way of knowing that you would be the "right" one. Look at all the disagreement on this board between Baptists who claim to hold the same beliefs. There is very little agreement on anything. Often one is questioning the salvation of another.

I believe the Bible teaches a clear Truth about Jesus and salvation and it is not less true because someone says there are other possible interpretations.

But if it is so clear, why so much disagreement?

Ron, Thanks for the sailing offer. I went sailing on Lake Michigan one time and got sick, so I don't know if you want me on your boat

I met mess it up.

I've been there too. It's all part of the experience.