|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 11:33:41 GMT -5
Yes, but affiliation with Christ absolutely means that we OBEY Him.
To what Church will you bring a brother that has offended you?
Where will you be baptized, or partake of the body and blood of the Lord as He commanded?
If you say, I will find other believers who believe the Bible, fine, but what if one believer says that the Eucarist is a symbol and one says it is truly Christ's body? How will you have unity?
Where will you go to submit yourself to the teachings of the Apostles? Did not Jesus command them to teach the word to obey everything that He commanded them?
If you say you will go to the Bible that does not suffice, for the Bible says that there is a "household of God" which is the "Pillar and foundation of truth"
Now since we are reasonable people, you will agree that truth is something objective, something explainable, something that can be taught. Because Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach the world, there must be a way for us to learn what Jesus commands. The Bible teaches us much of what Jesus commands, but it does don't teach all. Never was the Bible intended to replace the authority of the Church. They are one authority, not to be separated.
Because Jesus never commanded the printing and distribution of Bibles, (though both are utterly holy and right) the Apostles (and their successors) could have preached to the whole word and taught people to obey everything Christ commanded without a New Testament. However, it cannot be possible for us to do without the Church since the Church was formed by Christ and preserved by Christ. Whoever does not submit to the teachings of the Apostles and their successors is not submitting to Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 25, 2009 12:02:05 GMT -5
Teresa- My final authority is the Bible, not myself.
Like I said, discipleing orally was appropriate until the Bible was completed. But now, we no longer should play telephone but read, believe, and teach the Living Word of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 13:51:49 GMT -5
Which Bible do you use Emily? I hope that you don't use the one that has had entire books removed by the "reformers"?
Even if you use the whole Bible, do you think that your interpretation of it is correct?
Interpretation is very important, because the Bible itself says that it contains some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort.
The Bible itself says that it is possible to be distorted, and if it is possible for it to be distorted, then how can you know that you yourself are not distorting it? (or your pastor, your church or denomination, etc.)
It is fine to say that the Bible is your final authority, but which interpretation of the Bible is your final authority?
Of the many thousands of denominations (33,000 or more) almost ALL of them claim the same thing as you, that the Bible is their final authority. That would make sense if they all believed the same doctrines about God, Christ, the Church, salvation, baptism, the Lord's Supper etc. but as it is, there are very few, if any that agree on all doctrines.
Can you honestly say that does not bother you?
Can you honestly say that this system of "Bible alone" and all the fruit thereof is God's plan for the Church?
Jesus fervently prayed that all believers would be "ONE" as He and the Father are ONE. How could this oneness be possible through the system of "Bible alone" since oneness must be in Spirit and in Truth with no divisions?
Where does the Bible say "The Bible is to be the final authority for all Christians"?
If it does not say that, where did you learn it from? Were you taught that concept by a source outside of the Bible (a book, a pastor etc)? If so, then you are nullifying the concept because you based the idea on an authority outside of the Bible.
Perhaps many people are emotionally attached to this idea and so are unable to listen to reason.
Besides the fact that it is no where written in the Bible that the Bible is our final authority, you must realize that you are excluding the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church and therefore speaks through the Church (as seen in the Holy Scriptures.) Therefore, "Bible Alone" actually removes the authority of the Holy Spirit from the concept of "final authority".
But if the Holy Spirit's guidance is also a "final authority" then it is also logical to conclude that the Church is also part of that "final authority" because God has willed that the Holy Spirit speak through the Church.
You would be in grave error to say that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is not also the "final authority" for believers. Essentially you would be creating a trinity of "Father, Son and Holy Bible". This cannot be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 25, 2009 15:27:01 GMT -5
I use the KJV, and I do not interpret it. I rightly divide the word of Truth, and put precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.
Of course it bothers me that Christians choose to interpret the BIble on their own...thus messing things up.
All Believers are one. We all want to serve Christ and will all end up in the same place.
The Bible is the Word of God...why wouldn't it be my final authority?
The HS helps us understand God's Word, so I guess in a way it is part of the final authority (God and what God says). Nothing the HS says will be in disagreement with the Word.
The "Church" (I'm assuming you mean the Catholic Church) has and does mess up all the time.........if it is protected by God, it wouldn't...
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 16:09:13 GMT -5
The modern KJV is missing several books from the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church doesn't "mess up" doctrine all the time. Yes, Catholics as well as all Christians "mess up" but the teachings of the Church do not "mess up".
You said it bothers you that Christians interpret the Bible "on their own" but isn't that exactly what you just said you did? There is no difference between "interpreting" it and "dividing it" that means exactly the same thing.
What makes your method any different from the methods of other people that read the BIble?
Have you ever known another Christian that you knew for certain was a "true believer" yet you disagreed with them about an interpretation of the Bible?
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 25, 2009 17:04:06 GMT -5
The CC messes many things up.
I do not privately interpret the Word of God....other Christians do. I read, believe, compare Scripture to scripture if I do not understand something. If we all privately interpret It...we come up with all kinds of crazy ideas people believe.
Yes, I know born-again Christians who privately interpret the Bible. They are no less Saved...just confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 25, 2009 18:54:35 GMT -5
The modern KJV is missing several books from the Old Testament. The Catholic Church doesn't "mess up" doctrine all the time. Yes, Catholics as well as all Christians "mess up" but the teachings of the Church do not "mess up". You said it bothers you that Christians interpret the Bible "on their own" but isn't that exactly what you just said you did? There is no difference between "interpreting" it and "dividing it" that means exactly the same thing. What makes your method any different from the methods of other people that read the BIble? Have you ever known another Christian that you knew for certain was a "true believer" yet you disagreed with them about an interpretation of the Bible? There are many false teachings within the RCC. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 22:22:24 GMT -5
Are you tired? Is that your only rebuttal?
You have said that time after time but never talked about much besides "the millennium".
If we say we are "Bible believing Christians" yet disagree with you, you would have absolutely no way to prove who was right.
We do believe the Bible and take it literally, so there is absolutely no way for you to accuse someone of having false teachings if you have no way to prove that your teachings are true.
Watchman, is there one person that you know that agrees 100% with you on all your interpretations of the Bible?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 23:30:49 GMT -5
Martin Luther looked around and saw the damage that Sola Scriptura and 'private interpretation' of Holy Scripture was doing to his 'reformation', and made the following remarks...
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet" De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208....
..."We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
All of this and much more was said by the founder of Sola Scriptura, just a short time later, as he surveyed the damage it had caused, and was continuing to cause. By this time, Zwingli, had run in this direction, Munzer in that direction, Calvin in yet another direction, all of them scattering the sheep and taking their flocks with them. Luther had let the cat out of the bag and he was helpless to put it back in. He had started something that he was powerless to stop. home.inreach.com/bstanley/sorigin.htm |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 25, 2009 23:33:03 GMT -5
Are you tired? Is that your only rebuttal? You have said that time after time but never talked about much besides "the millennium". If we say we are "Bible believing Christians" yet disagree with you, you would have absolutely no way to prove who was right. We do believe the Bible and take it literally, so there is absolutely no way for you to accuse someone of having false teachings if you have no way to prove that your teachings are true. Watchman, is there one person that you know that agrees 100% with you on all your interpretations of the Bible? My wife ;D However I do not claim to be infallible as does the RCC. The millennium is not the only thing they are wrong about. The perpetual virginity of Mary is another and there are many more, and it can be proving incorrect through scripture. Further many ''Bible believing'' christian believe many thing that are contrary to the Bible not just the RCC, but for you to claim the RCC is infallible is simply not true. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 23:34:30 GMT -5
Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is 'teaching' them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?
1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, 'once saved always saved', and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD? home.inreach.com/bstanley/sorigin.htm |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 23:37:14 GMT -5
Okay, so your wife agrees with you. That's good.
Who else? Is there a certain denomination that agrees with you 100%? Or maybe a small group, like a "home church"?
There's gotta be some teachers or prophets or somebody out there that agrees with you 100% that is spreading those same teachings, isn't there?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 25, 2009 23:42:33 GMT -5
Okay, so your wife agrees with you. That's good. Who else? Is there a certain denomination that agrees with you 100%? Or maybe a small group, like a "home church"? There's gotta be some teachers or prophets or somebody out there that agrees with you 100% that is spreading those same teachings, isn't there? I doubt it, I do not yield to anyone's teaching. I believe what the bible says through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as you said many claim, and do I. My pastor and I agree for the most part but not 100% and he knows that. I will believe what the Holy Spirit reveals to me through His Word. I have not learned my beliefs from anyone, although I may agree with certain leaders teaching. It is because I agree not that they have taught me. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 23:43:25 GMT -5
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. (John 16)
You see, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth.
I'm not the one claiming that there would be an infallible Church, Jesus did.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 25, 2009 23:45:01 GMT -5
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1st John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I need not that man teach me anything, but I have the Spirit of God in me that reveals to me His truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 25, 2009 23:45:46 GMT -5
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. (John 16) You see, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth. I'm not the one claiming that there would be an infallible Church, Jesus did. That church is not the RCC, so where is this infallible church. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 23:49:22 GMT -5
Really?
So the only one that agrees with your doctrines is your wife?
Do you believe that you may be wrong about certain interpretions of the Bible?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 25, 2009 23:52:55 GMT -5
Really? So the only one that agrees with your doctrines is your wife? Do you believe that you may be wrong about certain interpretions of the Bible? I would not be so vain as to believe that I could not be wrong. However if I knew I was wrong about something then I would change my view. What I do is stick to what I can confirm with scripture, and what God confirms in my spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 23:53:20 GMT -5
It is the same Church that brought us the infallible Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 25, 2009 23:56:58 GMT -5
It is the same Church that brought us the infallible Bible. They very well may have, that proves nothing. Many of their teaching directly contradict scripture, so either the Bible is not infallible or the RCC is not infallible. I am putting my money with the Bible. |
|
