Would you stay?

[Davyboy]

The whole argument of the supreme and final authority rests in the scriptures alone or the argument of when some ask me “to show me where in the Bible this doctrine is. I say, show me where the Bible says I have too. In other words where does the Bible demand that I prove this doctrine from the Bible?

This mindset that arose at the time of the Protestant Reformation is that everything must be proven from the Bible, in fact if you survey the major creedal statements of the Protestant reformers and their disciples in the years immediately after the time of Martin Luther, you'll find that it specifically says in these creedal statements that are produced by the protestant bodies at that time that unless something can be proven from the bible it should not be accepted.

The Bible nowhere makes this claim. The Bible nowhere says that anything must be proven from the Bible and think about this for a minute in order for that claim to be to be rationally coherent, itself, that that claim must be found in the Bible, in other words for somebody to say, I only go by those teachings that are found taught in the pages of the Bible in order for that claim to be coherent inconsistent that claim itself must be demonstrable in the pages of Scripture and it’s not. There is no verse in the Bible taken by itself or in a group of other verses that even begins to hint at the idea that everything must be proven from the Bible.

 

[Walter]

I did not think the Eastern orthodox recognize the validity of the Papacy though?

I'm not talking about the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Yeshua1. I'm talking about the millions of people who are members of the Eastern Rites (23 of them) of the Holy Catholic Church that are under the authority of Rome. Their liturgies look almost identical to the Eastern Orthodox Church and they are difficult to distinguish. If you read the link I provided it states that these churches are part of The Holy Catholic Church. It also states that their priests can choose to be married.

Actually, there is rite of the Latin Church that allows married priests. It is the Anglican Rite Churches (Anglican Ordinariate) started to provide shelter for the many Anglicans and Episcopalians who have want worship using many aspects of their Anglican liturgies but don't want to be persecuted for their orthodox beliefs. However, I do believe these priests must be married before they become under the authority of Rome or they would need to choose celibacy. Not sure about that though.

DHK had this discussion with me years ago, however. he insisted I was 'lying' (a very strong accusation) and he refused to believe it despite overwhelming evidence affirming what I stated. SAD!!

 

[Walter]

The Church in acts was NOT the Roman church, peter was NOT the first Pope etc!

Early Church history proves you wrong. I know, I know 'Bible only, bible only, bible only', ignore what the disciples that sat at the Apostles feet believed. Ignore the fact that you don't have on scintilla of historical evidence to back up this statement of yours. Ignore that no church in the early centuries of the Church looked ANYTHING like the church of which you belong. Oh, I know 'the evil Catholics destroyed all historical evidence of the Baptistic churches existing'. Yeah, somehow the evil Catholics destroyed all historical evidence that the church you now belong to ever existed in the Early Church, but for some crazy reason they left tons of historical evidence that heretical groups were around at the time. I find no historical evidence that Baptistic beliefs were ever disputed by the 'Evil Catholics' during the early centuries of the Church. That doesn't bother you in the slightest though.

 

[steaver]

There is no verse in the Bible taken by itself or in a group of other verses that even begins to hint at the idea that everything must be proven from the Bible.

Didn't Jesus do quite a bit of "It is written" to support His teachings? And the Apostles also referenced the Scriptures while persuading their audience?

 

[Walter]

Didn't Jesus do quite a bit of "It is written" to support His teachings? And the Apostles also referenced the Scriptures while persuading their audience?

Yes, there is some of that. But, 'Bible Only' Is Not Taught in the Bible. The "Word of God" refers to Oral Teaching also: "Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). You see, tradition is not a dirty word. Evangelicals often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

It should bother you that there is no historical evidence that any Christian & Missionary Alliance like churches existed in the early centuries of the Church.

 

[Yeshua1]

Early Church history proves you wrong. I know, I know 'Bible only, bible only, bible only', ignore what the disciples that sat at the Apostles feet believed. Ignore the fact that you don't have on scintilla of historical evidence to back up this statement of yours. Ignore that no church in the early centuries of the Church looked ANYTHING like the church of which you belong. Oh, I know 'the evil Catholics destroyed all historical evidence of the Baptistic churches existing'. Yeah, somehow the evil Catholics destroyed all historical evidence that the church you now belong to ever existed in the Early Church, but for some crazy reason they left tons of historical evidence that heretical groups were around at the time. I find no historical evidence that Baptistic beliefs were ever disputed by the 'Evil Catholics' during the early centuries of the Church. That doesn't bother you in the slightest though.

I know that there is NO historical proof that peter was seen as being the first pope, and that the Roman church was NOT the one in Acts, as when the early church went partly pagan and into false apostasy, we ended up with Church of Rome and the papacy!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, there is some of that. But, 'Bible Only' Is Not Taught in the Bible. The "Word of God" refers to Oral Teaching also: "Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). You see, tradition is not a dirty word. Evangelicals often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

It should bother you that there is no historical evidence that any Christian & Missionary Alliance like churches existed in the early centuries of the Church.

The Church in acts was Baptist like in doctrines and practices, not Catholic!

 

[Walter]

Here is a really good debate on whether the bible is only source of authority. It was organized by an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor:

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is a really good debate on whether the bible is only source of authority. It was organized by an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor:

Jesus always appealed ONLY to the scriptures as the ultimate authority, so we should follow his lead!

 

[Walter]

The Church in acts was Baptist like in doctrines and practices, not Catholic!

Then the churches in the early centuries of the church should have looked like the Baptist church you attend. They didn't. Not one scintilla of evidence that ANY Christians believed and practiced as you do Your insistence that the Christians in the book of Acts were Baptists is ridiculous.

 

[Walter]

Jesus always appealed ONLY to the scriptures as the ultimate authority, so we should follow his lead!

Chapter and verse where Jesus said that the scriptures are 'the ultimate authority'. BTW, take the time to listen to the Youtube debate. It gives equal time to leading apologists by a Reformed Baptist and a Catholic. I believe in keeping and open mind.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then the churches in the early centuries of the church should have looked like the Baptist church you attend. They didn't. Not one scintilla of evidence that ANY Christians believed and practiced as you do Your insistence that the Christians in the book of Acts were Baptists is ridiculous.

The doctrines and practices of the NT church after John passed woudl have been very similiar to a Baptist church!

 

[Yeshua1]

Chapter and verse where Jesus said that the scriptures are 'the ultimate authority'. BTW, take the time to listen to the Youtube debate. It gives equal time to leading apologists by a Reformed Baptist and a Catholic. I believe in keeping and open mind.

When jesus was asked a question by anyone, ALWYS answered by the word of God, the OT!

 

[Walter]

When jesus was asked a question by anyone, ALWYS answered by the word of God, the OT!

Jesus taught many, many truths without referencing scripture. Remember the Sermon on the Mount?

 

[Walter]

The doctrines and practices of the NT church after John passed woudl have been very similiar to a Baptist church!

The doctrines and practices of the NT church after John passed woudl have been very similiar to a Baptist church!

Please provide historical proof of that. Got to be something written by someone, somewhere to prove that was the case.

 

[Walter]

Yeshua!, you mentioned the people in the book of Acts being Baptistic Christians, when in fact Acts 17:11 reveals that the people of Berea were not sola scriptura adherents at all. In actuality, they were primarily Jews converting to Christianity through Paul’s use of Sacred Tradition. Here’s the verse within its fuller context:
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (Acts 17:10-12)
Luke’s words commend the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessalonians because they eagerly received "the word." They also examined the scriptures to see if the word was true. So just who were the Bereans? What was "the word" they received and what scriptures did they examine?

 

[Davyboy]

I’ll throw out this question out again,

The whole argument of the supreme and final authority rests in the scriptures alone or the argument of when some ask me “to show me where in the Bible this doctrine is. I say, show me where the Bible says I have too. In other words where does the Bible demand that I prove this doctrine from the Bible?

This mindset that arose at the time of the Protestant Reformation is that everything must be proven from the Bible, in fact if you survey the major creedal statements of the Protestant reformers and their disciples in the years immediately after the time of Martin Luther, you'll find that it specifically says in these creedal statements that are produced by the protestant bodies at that time that unless something can be proven from the bible it should not be accepted.

The Bible nowhere makes this claim. The Bible nowhere says that anything must be proven from the Bible and think about this for a minute in order for that claim to be to be rationally coherent, itself, that that claim must be found in the Bible, in other words for somebody to say, I only go by those teachings that are found taught in the pages of the Bible in order for that claim to be coherent inconsistent that claim itself must be demonstrable in the pages of Scripture and it’s not. There is no verse in the Bible taken by itself or in a group of other verses that even begins to hint at the idea that everything must be proven from the Bible.

The argument of when someone asks me “to show me where in the Bible this doctrine is. I say, show me where the Bible says I have too. In other words where does the Bible demand that I prove this doctrine from the Bible?(Please include specific book and verse) I’ll add another question also. Using only the Bible (since it’s the final authority) where did books of the NT come from? How did they get into the Bible? How do you know what belongs in the Bible?

 

[Davyboy]

A few more questions regarding the same topic.

The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?

How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

The early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?

Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

 

[Adonia]

The early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?

They didn't. They relied on the Church and as for worship the traditions that were established and handed down. Sure, as the Early Fathers tell us, they had readings from some of the writings of what we now know as the New Testament, but the Holy Spirit guided them as they proclaimed the basic Christian doctrines that we all believe.

 

[Adonia]

Didn't Jesus do quite a bit of "It is written" to support His teachings? And the Apostles also referenced the Scriptures while persuading their audience?

"It is written" - in the Old Testament that is. Both Jesus and the Apostles were referring to the OT as I am sure that you are well aware the NT was not in existence at that time.