Featured Would you stay? 2

And that is one of the arguments against the Scriptures as the "final authority", it says no such thing. One could live their whole life without opening the book and receive salvation upon only hearing and accepting the saving grace of Christ. Jesus never said to write a book, but to go out and preach the word.

The collation of the NT came about like the growth of the One Christian Church as an institution, (yes Virginia, once there was just one) - organically. God set the whole thing in motion and it just came about. The Scriptures are authoritative, but not "the authority", that can only exist in a living, breathing human.

For example, a law book states the crime and the punishment, but humans must enforce what is written down and decide any of the mitigating factors. Many things have come to pass as part of the Christian experience that weren't written down which I am sure are perfectly acceptable to God

 

How do you know the Scriptures are authoritative? How do you know who gets to be the authority?

How do you know Jesus said, "go out and preach the word"?

 

Says who? Where did you get that idea from? "Saving grace of Christ", what's that and where did you come up with such a thing?

 

1Th 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

By what measure are we to obey this command to prove all things?

 

Whatever would cause a person to believe these writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and given to believers as profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:? Do you honestly believe someone has to tell you what writings are inspired of God? Just read them and you will know. I certainly am not going to believe any writings are from God just because someone tells me to. I need to read them for myself.

 

" Do you honestly believe someone has to tell you what writings are inspired of God? Just read them and you will know. "


Guarantee we put you in a library with all books separated with forgeries and mistakes here and there. You are not going to pick out your same 66 books. Especially if your a new fresh christian.

Can you even name the 66 without having to google it or a bible in hand?

They were picked out for you.


Can't even interpret it alone.

2 peter 1
20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

 

I do not interpret Scripture. Scripture interpret's Scripture when needed. Otherwise, God says what He plainly means. As for 2 Pt 1:20 you have quoted, Peter is telling us that Scripture is of God and NOT any personal interpretation by the one who penned it for God. How do we know this? Simply read the whole context......"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Has nothing to do with needing help to interpret what was written.

 

Actually, when I was a "fresh christian" I poured over the NT books looking for contradictions and reasons they might be bogus. All I found was genuine Holy Spirit inspiration. It is why my faith became super strong. I have read over these other writings Dave brought up as well as many others and can plainly see they have nothing to do with Holy Spirit inspiration.

 

So scripture interprets scripture, eh? On the face of it, such a statement simply does not hold up to any scrutiny. This can be confirmed by the following:

1.) The ‘regular’ Bible is devoid of a Glossary, maps, and footnotes to explain social/legal customs at the time.

2.) For the most part, this is not an example of ‘Western’ literature, but, rather ‘Eastern’ literature - and people really do things differently. So, how is someone in one culture to understand what is really going on in another - unless another person explains it.

3.) The on-going splintering of Protestantism (Oneness Pentecostals, Church of Christ, SDA, LDS, Disciples of Christ, etc) into an almost infinite number of denominations, sub-denominations, cults, groups, assemblies, etc. is abundant proof that the Bible DOES NOT interpret itself. Sadly, all of these individual interpretation just leads to more chaos. Now, as I understand it, the Devil is quite at home in Chaos!

 

So you stayed away from listening to pastors teaching from the bible? If the Bible were to interpret itself, there would be no need of pastors or long years of training in Bible institutes. As a 'fresh Christian' reading and interpreting the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit you were on par with a 60 year old experienced pastor doing the same?

When Philip the Deacon saw the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah, he asked him, “Do you understand what you are reading?”The Eunuch (traditionally known as Djan Djarabba by the Ethiopians) replied, “How can I, unless someone explain it to me?”And it took a clergyman in major orders–a deacon–to interpret the Scriptures with the authority of the Church.Have things chanaged that much in 2000 years?

Christ entrusted authentic Christian revelation to His Church through the process of Sacred Tradition. This does not mean “human tradtion” which nullifies the Word of God (Mt 15:6-9)

1 Tim 3:15 states that the Church is “the pillar and foundation” of the truth.

John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn21:25). Paul writes in 2 Tim 2:2 “What you have HEARD from me before many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to TEACH others also.” Nowhere is there any mention of writing the truths down for posterity.

Very few people could read at the time so the written Word, The Bible, would not have been much use to believers.

The Church through the Apostles was given the authority by Christ to teach (Mt 28:19) This was done by preaching (Oral Tradition) "See how faith comes from hearing through Christ’s Word (written and oral) (Rom19:17) You cannot limit Christ’s Word to the Written Word only, All the teachings were not reduced to writing, God, through Isaiah, promised a living voice in the Church (Is59:21) “And this Word is none other than the gospel which has been preached to you” (1 Peter1:25). Note the word “preached”

The New Testament is a “reflection” of what the Catholic Church had been teaching for the first four centuries before the Canon of the Bible was discerned.

 

Do you prove your questions to be valid?

Do you prove your assumptions or premises that would be the basis for your questions to be true?

Since a question can be answered by a question, it would be incorrect on your part to say that you are not given an answer if your question is answered by a question.

If your questions are based on unproven assumptions or premises, it would indicate that they may be invalid and would not need to be answered. Questions can be based on fallacies [false arguments] or on untrue premises.

Would it be wrong to ignore invalid questions?

 

1&2 one does not need a "Pope" to explain historic culture. As for 3, it actually proves my point, one should not go beyond what is written and one should allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and stay out of the conjecture business. As far as the devil being quite at home, hmmmmm, sex scandals anyone?

 

It's the example of His life that Christ wants us to follow. If I tell you that we are to love God with all our hearts, follow the commandments, and love one another we have done what Christ wants us to do so no reading of the Scriptures is really needed. The book does not save you, Jesus and His way does.

As for the "saving grace of Christ", my church preaches that reality, dosen't yours?

 

Oh I see. So if you had been around in the 100's or 200's or 300's, you would have been able to discern the true gospels of the many that were being bandied about at that time? It took a Church to decide the correct one's, not just one man. If you had chosen the Gospel of Thomas to be included in the Canon, you would have been in error.