Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 22:32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 22:32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." [Ex 3:6] |
Subject: purgatory is it true? |
Bible Note: Good. See, we can agree, up to a certain point! To that I would add, "They are not the Church that continues in the teachings and tradition of the apostles and the prophets." "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 on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" --Ephesians 2:19-20 The big question is whether the foundation IS the apostles and prophets, or whether the foundadtion is something OF the apostles and prophets (i.e. something possessed by and delivered to us by them). "By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" --Ephesians 3:4-5 Here Paul is definitely speaking of the message given to the apostles and prophets, and not to their offices themselves. "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." --2 Peter 3:1-2 Again, the authority of the apostles and prophets is in the message that they possess, and not in the position of being an apostle and prophet. As we read the last epistles of these two men (2 Timothy and 2 Peter), we see a real sense of wanting to impart some final words that could be forgotten otherwise. If the church indeed is founded on an organizational structure, rather than on the teachings and tradition, why would Paul and Peter be so concerned with writing down their teachings, repeating to their disciples what they had said before? In other words, if the church is infallible, why have a Bible at all? In fact, until the Protestant Reformation set in, most did NOT have a Bible. Classical Protestants see the church not as a single human organizational structure, but rather the communion of all those who hold to the traditions and teachings of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ. We hold that the church of Rome started out that way, but started deviating from that tradition in the Middle Ages by adding decrees and edicts which have no connection whatsoever to the traditions and teachings of the apostles. We see a move from the striving to interpret Scripture correctly to DISCERN doctrine to the CREATION of doctrine which was to be accepted simply because the source was viewed to be infallible. As I have said before, Luther never argued against the importance of tradition. He himself appealed not only to the Bible, but to early church fathers (particularly Augustine) in defense of his position. What sola Scriptura means is not "just me and my Bible." It means that the traditions and teachings of the apostles and prophets are inscripturated in the Old and New Testaments, and they should be the church's sole guide to correctly discerning what the will of God is and in what the traditions of apostles actually consist. --Joe! |