Results 221 - 240 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Raven, do you want ALL the Law? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 45884 | ||
You wrote: "Then God is a sinner just like man then. If reduce God to literally dwelling,that is living inside your body, then you have to associate God as being a partaker of sin. And thats just not scriptural I don't care how you look at it." Saying that God dwells in us is not the same as saying God IS us. But Paul does address the implications of us sinning as Spirit-indwelt believers: 'Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.' --1 Corinthians 6:15-20 Paul's whole point here is to ask how anyone could live immorally as a believer, since the Holy Spirit does indeed dwell in us. Paul compares our union with Christ, being one spirit with Him, in the same terms that he uses for the sexual intercourse between a person and a prostitute, where two beings are distinct, and yet united. Paul's line of reasoning here does not make any sense at all if we are NOT indwelt by the Spirit. You wrote: 'Jesus Christ was totally human. He was also totally God. He was fully human as we are and yet He was deity. And you say that it is possible to have part of the Godhead inside our mortal bodies?' It seems that the example you have given here is the prime example of how deity and humanity can co-exist in the same person. Now I am not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not me, but the Spirit can and does indwell the believer while remaining distinct from him. You wrote: 'This is mans way of saying if "I" do something wrong, if "I" sin then thats ok its no big deal because the Holy Spirit is in "me" and "I'm" once saved always saved and everything is alright and so "I'm" going to keep on doing what "I" want to do!!' That does not logically follow from the Spirit's indwelling. I believe the Bible when it says the Spirit indwells the believer; however, I am not an antinomian. The person with a consistent attitude like the one you mention above is demonstrating that he most likely does NOT have the Holy Spirit living in Him (i.e. not a true Christian). You wrote: 'Haven't you ever heard someone say, "He's got his daddy in him" or "she's got her mother in her". Well we know the are not really inside one another, but its their attributes that make them seem just like each other. And that is what God wants and has said.' No, that is not what is meant by the list of verses I cited before. The "attributes of God" do not dwell in the believer. The SPIRIT OF GOD dwells in the believer. To take a distinctly American colloquial expression like "He's got his daddy in her" and to apply it to the verses of Scripture is quite a reach, and makes no sense in the context of all those verses. --Joe! |
||||||
222 | Raven, do you want ALL the Law? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 45908 | ||
RAVEN: You wrote: "Well I guess I can't convience you that the Holy Spirit doesn't literally live in us." Well, you haven't convinced me because you have failed to address even once the Scripture I have cited. You wrote: "But if this true I just got one more question. Why do we have the inspired word of God if the Holy Spirit lives in us? It would seem to me that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all that is right thereby making the bible useless." We have the inspired word of God because He has chosen to operate through a written revelation He has provided us. The Spirit primarily works through the Scriptures to teach us. Both Scripture and the indwelling Spirit are infallible; and that is is one benefit that we have a written, external, infallible standard to reassure us when it is the infallible Spirit speaking to us and when it is our infallible selves. In any case, we have the word and the Spirit, both working in the sanctification of the believer. --Joe! |
||||||
223 | Where does Jesus say He is God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 46035 | ||
"John, would you be so kind as to tell me what terrible sins I have committed???" Well, I am not John, and I don't know you personally, but I can quite confidently say that you, like I, have sinned against an infinitely holy God: 'as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."' --Romans 3:10-19 That is God's assessment of all of us, Nancy. Are you perfect in all of your ways? Have you been so all of your life? If not, then you have violated God's moral standard, and God soesn't "grade on a curve." He is perfectly just, and so our violations of the Creator's laws must be punished. So, you have sinned. We all have. You wrote: "I am a registered nurse. I have administered to the sick and dying. I have shown great compassion for those in pain, physical and/or mental." For whose glory? God's? Our motives make a difference as well as our actions: "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Those who are not forgiven of their sins and have peace with God CANNOT please him. You wrote: "But I do not PRESUME to know what those are!" I don't presume to have figured them out myself. God deigned to reveal them to us, however. "The bible was written thousands of years ago in a different time and under far different circumstances." Yes, and written under the inspiration of an unchanging, infinite, and eternal God. You yourself say that there is much wisdom there. Therefore, the Bible is far from irrelevant. "I do NOT think a loving, compassionate, creative god-like entity would cast those of us who are also loving and compassionate but who may have chosen a differnt path, other than Christianity, into a hellish existence for eternity." It is the fact that God is loving and compassionate that He provided ANY way out of the predicament each of ourselves has found ourselves in. We are not saved by any amount of "compassion" on our part (especially since we have seen that even our compassionate acts are done for other reasons than to give glory to a God who deserves it), but rather by God's compassion: "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to HIS MERCY" --Titus 3:5a The God of the Bible is a merciful God, but He does not ignore His justice for the sake of His mercy. That is why in His kindness he sent His Son to become a human like us, live a sinless life for us (thereby earning no condemnation for Himself), and then die on the cross as the payment of the penalty for sin on behalf of all those who trust in Him. Therefore, God remains just in that sin is punished, and remains merciful in that He extends forgiveness to those who will trust in His one and only means of forgiveness." It is not at its heart a question of what path people choose. It is more a question of "What do I do with my guilt?" We are ALL guilty. God is the supreme judge of the universe. There is no appeal, and He knows the laws you have broken; He established them, after all. God in his mercy has provided forgiveness in Jesus Christ alone. But make no mistake: you and I and everyone who has ever lived is deserving of hell, because the standard is not Nancy or Joe or Hitler or Mother Teresa. The standard is the one set forth by a perfectly holy God. --Joe! |
||||||
224 | Where does Jesus say He is God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 46036 | ||
You wrote: 'Hell is right here on earth. I see it in the suffering, the wars, the famines, and all the other disasters that mankind either brought about upon himself, or was subjected to by "Mother Nature" and the laws of physics.' If you think this is bad, it is nothing in comparison to facing the justly deserved. unrelenting, perfect and holy wrath of God for all eternity. You are absolutely correct in saying that humanity brought a great deal of the earthly suffering on itself. The same is true of hell. "I am a Unitaritan Universalist. I'm happy, have compassion for my fellow human beings and try to live a moral life. Why would god condemn me just because I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, the man?" No, you have already been condemned for rejecting God the Father: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." --Romans 1:18-21 In other words, you are looking at Christianity the wrong way. It isn't God saying, "You are guilty if you reject Jesus Christ." Rather, it is God saying, "You are already guilty, and forgiveness is only offered through Jesus Christ, who has taken care of the sentences of all those who trust in Him." Therefore, Christianity shows a merciful God, who did not spare His own Son to satisfy the demands of His own justice for the sake of all who will take refuge in that one-and-only "way out.". Whether we acknowledge our guilt before God, it exists, and neither you nor I will be able to plead ignorance before an all-knowing, all-just God. Lastly, you wrote: "IF God exists, I believe he/she/it accepts us ALL!" Then why does it matter one bit whether you and I or anyone else are compassionate people? If you and I and Stalin and Billy Graham and Ghandi and Elvis and Jeffrey Dahmer and Kublai Khan and Thomas Jefferson and Mao and Hitler all end up in the same place, why does it matter what I do? --Joe! |
||||||
225 | Where does Jesus say He is God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 46055 | ||
Well, I don't know how well the postal service works there, but I hope you won't have to find out! Your denial of the truth does not make it any less true. Please think about that. --Joe! |
||||||
226 | Where does Jesus say He is God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 46058 | ||
Romans 3 SHOULD scare you if you do not have forgiveness in Christ. The important question is, "Is it an accurate assessment of humanity?" If perfect justice and righteous wrath are aspects of God's character as well, then no amount of denial, opinion, or conjecture on either of our parts is going to make that any less TRUE. If the Bible is indeed the revelation of God, then what it says applies to everyone, no matter how much any of us may deny it. You wrote: 'However, secondly: I take care of and show compassion for the sick and others because I think it is the right thing to do! To help my fellow human beings. Not in anyone's glory! I don't understand that at all. Is a widget maker making widgets for the "glory of God?" Or his the widget maker trying to make money?' The widget-maker who follows Jesus Christ is making widgets for God's glory. The money in widget making isn't as much as it used to be, but the Christian widget maker also thanks God for providing him with his income. The sins mentioned in Romans 1 of all human beings is the fact that they rejected the clearly revealed God and refused to glorify Him for being the perfect being that He is, and that we constantly refuse to thank Him as the provider of our very existence and everything other blessing he has bestowed upon us. The very fact that you and I have sinned against our Creator and are drawing our next breaths is an incredible act of mercy on His part. The problem is that your idea of what it means to be "good" is far too puny. None of us match up to the ultimate Judge's idea of "good," and that is why we are in such trouble without the goodness of Jesus Christ being applied to us. --Joe! |
||||||
227 | Where does Jesus say He is God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 46061 | ||
You wrote: "I've lived life to the fullest. I've been of service to, loved, and been compassionate to my fellow human beings and all other living creatures I have had contact with. (This is true!!!)" Is it? In every circumstance, at every moment of your entire life, you have placed the interests of others above yourself? Never -- not once --have you had the slightest selfish thought, acted cruelly toward another individual, been unfair, or said something you know was inappropriate for you to say? If this is not the case, then you have sinned against your fellow human beings and against the God who commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves in every instance and in every circumstance. As I said, your idea of what it means to be "good" does not match up with God's. You are shooting far too low for a basis of comparison. By the way, Someone did come back from the dead for the sakes of those who will be living with Him forever. --Joe! |
||||||
228 | Raven, do you want ALL the Law? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 46241 | ||
With all due respect, you just repeated what you wrote before without commenting at all on the things I brought up in my last post on the subject. I agree that most of the Mosaic Covenant has never been applicable to me, as a Gentile believer. However, as you state here, if I love perfectly, I will do the things found in the Ten Commandments, and fulfill them in spirit as well as in the letter. So that is the problem I have with people saying that the moral aspects of the Law of Moses are null and void. No one can show me how to please God without referring to something stated in the moral code given to Moses. Everything you stated in this post and in your previous one about what it is to follow "the law of Christ" are also things explicitly stated in the Law of Moses. The best way to look at it is that the moral law of God, his righteous demands of His creation, precede and transcend the Mosaic Covenant. They are included there, but they were never limited to one specific group of people at one specific time and place. Adam sinned because he broke God's law. Abraham, when he sinned, was breaking God's law. Gentiles today, when they sin, are breaking God's law. None of them were part of the specific covenant God made with the people of Israel, but God's moral law, reflected in aspects of the Law of Moses, are binding on everyone at all times as a standard of righteousness, even though they were never a path to justification for anyone (including the Israelites). --Joe! |
||||||
229 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48031 | ||
You wrote: "When Paul said that all scripture is inspired by God, the scripture he most likely had was the Septuagint." Paul, being a Pharisee, also had the Hebrew Scriptures, which would have been used in all Jewish worship. The Apocrypha was not declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be part of the canon of Scripture until the counter-Reformation of the 16th century (that would be the Council of Trent). Which is why Luther did not recognize them: they were declared to be canonical after the Reformation began. A thorough analysis of how the church recognized the New Testament canon is beyond the scope of a 5000-word post. I would recommend a booklet by Darrell Bock entitled "Can I Trust the Bible?". It is available through Ravi Zacharias' web site (www.rzim.org). --Joe! |
||||||
230 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48137 | ||
I do know my history. The RCC did not officially declare the books canonical until the Council of Trent (4th session, 1546 -- you can look it up for yourself. The seven deuterocanonical books do not appear in the Hebrew Old Testament. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, which served as THE Bible for the RCC for well over a milennium, considered them to be questionable as well. Therefore, the Protestant Old Testament is in accord with the Jewish one, and THAT'S why we reject the extra seven as being inspired by God. A good link to examine the history of the canon,as well as the position of Luther (and the other Reformers) on the books you mentioned is: http://www.probe.org/docs/xn-canon.html --Joe! |
||||||
231 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48140 | ||
You wrote: "The bible came out of the traditions and the traditions out of the bible." That makes no sense. One or the other has to be true, or else they have a common source. Your error is in stating that there are two traditions, one oral and one written, both with equal weight. The classical Protestant understanding is that there is ONE tradition, first oral and then written down as an infallible standard for the post-apostolic church. You wrote: "Like it or not, you have your own traditions, built on the doctrines of the reformists and their successors." Of course we have traditions. The question is which of all the traditions claiming to be the apostolic one really IS the apostolic one. You wrote: "Your stand, by implication claims that after establishing his church, God allowed it to be misled for fourteen centuries." Red herring. You yourself claim that the Church was misled, or else you would be a Roman Catholic and not Orthodox. The Reformers did not hold that the RCC had been wrong for fourteen centuries, or even that the Church had abandoned all sound doctrines. What the Reformers stated is that gradually the church, in establishing itself as a source of new revelation and new traditions, had gradually abandoned the apostolic traditions. In other words, the church is not infallible (if you think that it is, please show me where the Bible says THAT), and a series of errors and setting up a second tradition alongside that of the apostles is what led to the Reformation. You also need to keep in mind that the doctrine of sola Scriptura did not begin with Luther, not did its recovery begin with Luther. Check out figures such as Wycliffe and Hus. God has preserved His church since its founding. We can clearly see from church history, however, that at no time has the church been free from the possibility of error. --Joe! |
||||||
232 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48207 | ||
You wrote: "Parts and all of the apocrypha have been incuded. In fact the Old Testament that we now have is bigger than the original Jewish canon." The Protestant Old Testament is different in size than the Jewish Tanakh? And you neglect the fact that it was not Luther who took the Apocrypha out of the Bible (it was actually in the appendix of his translation, just like it was in the Vulgate), but rather the Council of Trent who declared dogmatically that they were canonical as a response to the Reformation. You are absolutely correct that the extent of the canon has varied over time, but the books of the Apocrypha were never universally considered to be canonical, while the books which both Protestants and Catholics agree upon were pretty much settled by the turn of the 6th century. You wrote: 'Here is a question for you; when did the "protestant" church ever officialy declare it's canon?' Good question! The Protestant churches were pretty much universal in their recognition of which books were canonical. We see in Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith the 66 books listed as the Holy Scriptures. It is also found in Article 4 of the Belgic Confession, Article 7 of the Thirty-nine Articles, etc. "Again, my question was how do you or anybody else determine the authority to decide what is scripture?" The church of Jesus Christ RECOGNIZES what is Scripture. How do YOU determine that the RCC has the authority to determine what Scripture is? --Joe! |
||||||
233 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48259 | ||
You wrote: "It is very short sighted, in my opinion, to just ignore over 1600 years of Christian history." On that we can agree, and the classical Reformation position takes the same view. You wrote: "You ask me how do I tell what is scripture? That is a good question. I don't think there is a right answer to that." Well, I think you will agree that we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. We can't just accept every writing that anyone claimed is inspired. In my mind, it says a lot about the Roman Catholic view of the Apocrypha, however, when claims are made that books like Judith and Tobit are not factual accounts of real individuals. Claiming that there are divinely-inspired works of fiction in the Old Testament just doesn't sit well with me at all. It just doesn't "fit." --Joe! |
||||||
234 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48323 | ||
Regarding my claim that the Protestants hold that there is only ONE apostolic tradition, you wrote: "And just where do you get that from? Can you give chapter and verse? Or is it human tradition?" Early church history shows that the post-apostolic church used the Scriptures as the standard. The "two-level" tradition arguments did not rise in the RCC until around the beginning of the Middle Ages. Check out _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ by Keith Mathison for an in-depth analysis of the historical arguments for ONE tradition. He traces it from the sub-apostolic era through the present-day. As far as Biblical support for one tradition, the burden of proof should be on those who assert that there is more than one tradition. In any case, there are a number of verses in Scripture that indicate that the purpose of writing down the doctrine is for the express purpose of preserving it. "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL handed down to the saints." --Jude 3 You wrote: "Paul makes no claim that the church is without error but he does regard it as being the foundation of truth. You may note the absence of the word Bible here. Paul doesn't say refer to the scriptures." You are right when Paul makes no claim of the inability of the church to err. That is a later doctrine of the RCC. However, I hope you are kidding when you assert that "Paul doesn't say refer to the Scriptures." How many times does he himself refer to the Scriptures? This is an argument not even worth having. Here is what Paul says about the church: "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." --1 Timothy 3:15. The "pillar and support of the truth," not the basis of truth, and definitely not synonmynous with the truth. "I don't think you understand what infallibility is. It doesn't mean that we are without error. It does mean that the church has authority to determine what is truth. We must have this, or we have nothing." You sure want to attribute a lack of understanding to me! "Infallible" means "unable to fail." It is more than saying that something is inerrant. Something or someone that is infallible is incapable of error. The church has authority to PRESERVE the truth, not to DETERMINE truth. Truth would still be truth if the church was 100 percent wrong on every point of it. If the church were to suddenly abandon the doctrine of teh Trinity, would God cease to be triune simply because the church said so? God is the source of truth. He has infallibly and inerrantly revealed it through the prophets, in the person of Jesus, testified to by the apostles, and in the Scriptures. The church is charged with proclaiming and correctly interpreting the Scriptures, but not with adding to them or purporting that there is "new revelation" that comes through the church or that extra-biblical or un-biblical doctrines they hold are apostolic just because the RCC says they are. Jesus responded to challenges to his teachings on countless occasions be saying, "It is written..." He recognized the unique authority of the Hebrew Scriptures in the face of the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees. What we see at the Protestant Reformation is the same claim: that the traditions of the religious leaders, unless they have their basis in God's clearly-revealed written truth, have no authority. Likewise, not once will you find the epistles making any appeal to the traditions of human beings. However, they cite the Old Testament countless times in support of their teachings. Really, if the church determines what is truth, what is the point of the Scriptures in the first place? That was the apparent argument of the RCC during the Reformation, prohibiting the private ownership of Scripture, burning English-language Bibles in the open square and arresting those who possessed them. Bottom line? We have one infallible standard that God has given us. Like the game of "telephone," oral traditions are fallible. God gave us a written standard to avoid the kinds of theological metamorphosis that we see once a second, "infallible" tradition is fabricated and put on an equal or higher level than God's Word. --Joe! |
||||||
235 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48328 | ||
Brian: You wrote: "There are some teachings in which the use of your shortened definition list is appropriate, such as when the Pope does confirm that Jesus is God, the Churchs position on the Trinity and so on. "I think we all agree with those infallible teachings of the Catholic Church." I agree with them, but not because the Pope said so. In this case, the Pope is "inerrant" (not in error), not "infallible" (incapable of error). "But, there are other proclamations, announcements, decisions - which, I will accept from the Pope and I will not judge him to be right or wrong. I will accept that the Pope has prayed on it, sought counsel and is being guided with truth and honesty." You will follow without regard for whether the Pope is right or wrong? Doesn't "papal infallibility" mean that the Pope is divinely guarded completely from being wrong in his papal pronouncements? You wrote: "Now, you and I are not obligated to accept the leadership of the Pope, but I choose to." You, as a Roman Catholic, are saying that as Christians are not obligated to accept the leadership of the Vicar of Christ, who occupies the chair of Peter? I guess I will not have to post anymore if you are going to make the Protestant arguments for me. I will go with Scripture again: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." --1 John 4:1 --Joe! |
||||||
236 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48340 | ||
Emmaus wrote: "How about some EXPLICIT scripture which excludes the possibility of the Church recognizing the books outside the Protestant canon for that rather dogmatic statement?" How about some EXPLICIT scripture which excludes the possibility of my Aunt Mabel recognizing the books outside the Protestant canon for that rather dogmatic statement? In other words, is it the common practice of the Roman Catholic Church to claim for itself any authority unless it is specifically forbidden to them in the Bible? Bottom line: either the Apocrypha is divinely inspired or it is not. No amount of affirming its inspiration or denying it will change whether the apocryphal books are an infallible, divine revelation from God Himself. The Jewish people have not recognized them as such. The early church had never authoritatively recognized them as such, while within the first several hundred years there was nearly universal agreement on the 39 books we both have in our Bibles. In fact, there was much more disagreement over what to include in the New Testament than what to include in the Old. And the Catholic and the Protestant New Testaments are the same. Again, it is not to say that the Apocrypha is useless; it just isn't authoritative and "God-breathed." --Joe! |
||||||
237 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48352 | ||
That's nice, but doesn't materially address anything I wrote in my post. --Joe! |
||||||
238 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48376 | ||
For someone who claims not to be a Roman Catholic, you certainly seem to be quite adept at putting forward the standard line on the Mother Church's authority. You wrote: "Maybe the dictionary doesn't capture the actual usage of the word, which isn't unusual, but the church never claimed that every belief within it's walls is true." I am sorry, but you are simply wrong here. What the RCC declares is that the pope, when making pronouncements ex cathedra, is INCAPABLE of error. Infallible for the RCC means just what the dictionary says it does. You wrote: "What it does claim is that when for whatever reason there needs to be a decision regarding doctrine, the decision that the church makes is the right one. It is the right one only because it is the decision of the church. This is the authority that Jesus gave to the church." Where do you find the authority given to the church to DEFINE the difference between right and wrong doctrine? That is the question you never seem to directly answer. You wrote: "Infallibility is more about being authoritative, then being correct. It is kind of like going to someone else's house. Maybe you think they do things wrong, but in their house, they are right, because it is their house." Again, are you honestly saying that God's revealed truth is not absolute, but we must believe what the RCC says, no matter how much it flies in the face of the will of God? --Joe! |
||||||
239 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48419 | ||
I cannot defend my assertions from Scripture. All assertions regarding the canon of Scripture must by necessity be extra-biblical, since the table of contents of the Bible is not divinely inspired. However, your question, "How about some EXPLICIT scripture which excludes the possibility of the Church recognizing the books outside the Protestant canon for that rather dogmatic statement?" does not address the assertion I made, in any case. Your argument that the church defines what is inspired or not is quite simply an argument from silence based on a flawed notion of infallibility. My argument for the Protestant canon is based on the Jewish canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (or did God change His mind on what He inspired when He moved from covenanting with one nation to covenanting with all tribes and tongues and nations?) and based also on the debate that developed in the Church as the apostolic age faded into the distant past. Even Jerome agreed with me. Which doesn't make Jerome right, of course, but at least demonstrates that the issue was not one that had been settled and only codified as a matter of formality in the 16th century. Especially considering that Jerome's Vulgate was THE BIBLE for the RCC for over a milennium. So can you defend the assertion that the church infallibly can determine which books are canonical and which ones aren't, since it took them 1550 years and a Protestant Reformation to suddenly make its infallible decision? --Joe! |
||||||
240 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48425 | ||
You wrote: "I realize that you probably consider this a heresy, but there are Christians that consider the garden story of Adam and Eve to be a parable." Non-thinking Christians, maybe. Some of the most important theological arguments made in the New Testament hinge on there being a single, historical pair of human parents. Romans 5 becomes meaningless if there was not a literal Adam, which in turn shaters everything Paul says about what it means to be "in Christ" as opposed to being "in Adam." Likewise, 1 Corinthians 15 compares Adam and Christ in the context of our human nature and our blessed future as children of God. The weight of Paul's argument crumbles unless we believe, as he did , that Adam was real. "It isn't out of God's character to tell parables at all. Jesus did it all the time." Nowhere in the Bible are parables presented as if they were historical accounts. Jesus told stories to illustrate theological truths. Nowhere are we led to believe that the prodigal son was a real individual, for example. The Old Testament historical accounts, however, must be taken as real if we are to believe the New Testament, since the OT had much to say about Jesus' person and ancestry as well. You wrote: "I think that people have made too much out of the Bible today. It has become an idol for many. They worship it more the Christ himself." The Psalmist wrote: "I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified YOUR WORD according to all Your name." --Psalm 138:2 and "Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You. Blessed are You, O LORD; Teach me Your statutes. With my lips I have told of All the ordinances of Your mouth. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, As much as in all riches. I will meditate on Your precepts And regard Your ways. I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word. Deal bountifully with Your servant, That I may live and keep Your word." --Psalm 119:11-17 and "The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward." --Psalm 19:7-11 Seems I am in pretty good company for "making too much" out of God's Word. Where are such things said about the church, God's people? You wrote: "Christ indwells the church. We are his body." Yes, but that does not make us free from error. The Bible is free from error. You wrote: "The Bible is a book." Paul wrote: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." --2 Timothy 3:16-17 The same is not said of the church. The Bible is THE infallible standard. You wrote: "When it comes down to it, I go with the body of Christ." So you are acknowledging that there may be a difference in what some communions practice and what is found in Scripture. Furthermore, you choose to follow sinful human beings even when their teachings directly contradict God's infallible Word. Not terribly wise. You wrote: "We have the knowledge of the truth through the power of the Holy Spirit, not the Bible alone." Jesus said: "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." --John 17:17 Notice that he did not say, "My church is truth." Incidentally, how do you know ANYTHING about the Holy Spirit apart from Him being revealed in the Bible? You wrote: "I beleive that God can reveal himself to us without the Bible" But does He, now that Scripture is complete? I would say, "not normally." In any case, however the Spirit works will be consistent with His written revelation. You concluded: "but the Bible is nothing without the Holy Spirit in us." What a horrible statement you have made here. God's Word is the truth, whether we are His children indwelt by the Holy Spirit, or His enemies. To say that the Bible is "nothing" unless we personally have the means to appreciate it is the height of humanistic arrogance, and pretty clearly demonstrates the value that the Bible has in your own life. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [97] >> |