 |
By teaching:Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Sincerely,
De Maria
This is a common mistake made by those who wish to force their view of sola scriptura on the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Seems everyone skips the context...
A Berean is someone who accepts the faith as preached, finding the pertinent Scriptures. The Thessalonians searched the SAME Scriptures and did not believe Paul's interpretation. The Bereans did believe. Not because they were smarter, had more Bible college graduates, had Thayer's Greek Lexicon, or had a superior "personal relationship" with God! God has not required that people be really smart to understand Scriptures. He has given apostles, evangelists, preachers, etc. for that purpose.
It's also important to note that Acts doesn't hold Paul accountable to the Bereans. Nor is Scriptures holding Paul accountable to Scriptures. Have you read Galatians 1? Who is Paul accountable to? Certainly not the Galatians or THEIR interpretations of Scriptures...
When one considers the REST of the Bible, that thesis is promptly destroyed. Acts 15 is the pinnacle of proof of that concept - and Paul states it quite clearly in Gal 1:8-10 that HIS GOSPEL, not some Berean's INTERPRETATION of the Bible, was the Truth.
Jesus very clearly tells that Apostles that "he who hears you hears me". The Apostles were given authority. The Apostles were given the power to bind and loosen. Rejecting the Apostles' teachings were akin to rejecting Christ (Luke 10:16, for example).
You advocating that men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard is ludicrous, because it make the BEREANS authoritative over Paul.
Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
If you are going to claim that I said something - quote it - don't take a snippet out of context and mis-represent me. That is not what I said at all. I said that there is no need because of the fact that we all agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally accepted as canon, and thus, based upon Proverbs 30:5-6 and others, the onus is on you if you wish to argue other sources to be God's word.
Are you arguing that the 66 original books of the canon are NOT the word of God?Quote:
However, I find it unclear and illogical that a book can authenticate itself.
It isn't. How come each time that I ask you questions, they are dodged or ignored?Quote:
How am I to understand that each time I ask this question it’s dodged or ignored?
Not all of it, but parts, yes. So?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Now I see where you are mis-understanding. If I got this right, you think that anything spoken is doctrine then. Perhaps you could validate why you believe that. The men of Berea tested paul's words using scripture. Paul did not claim his spoken words to be the standard of doctrine, but rather commended the Bereans for checking what he said by testing it with scripture. When Jesus was on earth in the flesh, he validated doctrine by going to scripture.Quote:
If the spoken word being taught was not the standard of doctrine then, what was?
Now we have what is written and scripture tells us not to go beyond what is written.Quote:
Of course, the spoken word was then written in the New Testament.
Read the context. They checked what Paul said to see if what he said was true. That is a test of true or false, and how do you test - you use a standard which you know is always true - the scriptures.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Really? You must be reading quite a different Bible than I am. Do you allow the Bib le to interpret itself or do you accept your denomination's private interpretation?Quote:
When one considers the REST of the Bible, that thesis is promptly destroyed.
His gospel is what he was inspired to write. This says nothing about it being his gospel verses how his gospel aligns with the Bibklical interpretation of it. If his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit (and they were), then allowing the Bible to interpret will give us the right understanding because the Hioly Spirit does not contradict Himself.Quote:
Acts 15 is the pinnacle of proof of that concept - and Paul states it quite clearly in Gal 1:8-10 that HIS GOSPEL, not some Berean's INTERPRETATION of the Bible, was the Truth.
On the other hand, private interpretations by men (i.e. leaders of a denomination) can indeed get it wrong.
To think that the Bereans had AUTHORITY over Paul is absurd...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Are you saying that if they read the OT and decided Paul was wrong they could just ignore his teachings and toss him out of town?
Hardly screams respect for the Bible.
Yet again, I'll point out the contradiction of this... you are interpreting the Bible... you can say the Bible is doing it by "itself", but anyone above the age of 3 understands that you are simply giving your opinion.Quote:
On the other hand, private interpretations by men (i.e. leaders of a denomination) can indeed get it wrong.
That is right the Bible does say anybody that teaches contrary to the Bible is not to be followed and it also says study to show yourself approved and so you do not follow false doctrine. By questioning Paul it is not so much to prove him wrong but that it is good study habits to back up what Paul said. No disrespect. And as you said the Bible was not written until hundreds of years later but now you want to use the Bible to back up your point of them respecting the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
You seem to be forgetting that the Bereans were referring to the OLD Testament... I would challenge you to find PROOF of the New Testament from the writings of the Old.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Please show me where in the Old Testament does it say that we are no longer bound by the Law of Moses.
You can't... these teachings were NEW and some CONTRARY to the clear teaching of the OT and Judaism... the notion that all Christian teaching needed to be supported by the Jewish OT is kind of foolish.
What laws are we bound to and what laws are we not bound to?
Because I have noticed everybody seems to pick.
The 10 commandments sure we are to live by them.
Again... please show me in the Old Testament that our salvation is not tied to meeting the standard of the Law of Moses.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
You break one law, you break them all... and must go to the Jewish high priest to attone for your sins, right?
Please... just like the Bereans... show me in the OLD Testament why you don't need to any longer.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law: Matt. 5:17, "...I am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill..." He fulfilled the Commandments by living perfectly under the Law. His impeccability and perfect life fulfilled Code I. The Ordinances, Code II, were fulfilled by Christ's death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and session. The Judgments, Code III, were fulfilled by Christ as He observed the law of the land; he lived under divine institutions and establishment.
Jesus Christ is the "end of the Law" for believers: Rom. 10:4.
Believers in the church age are under a higher law of spirituality: Rom. 8:2-4; Gal. 5:18,22,23; I Cor. 13. The believer who functions under the filling of the Holy Spirit takes up where Christ left off and fulfills the Law.
Limitations of the Mosaic Law
The Law cannot provide justification either for individuals or for groups: Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:20; Rom. 3:28; Acts 13:39; Phil. 3:9.
The Law cannot give life: Gal. 3:21.
The Law cannot give God the Holy Spirit nor the divine power and energy from the Holy spirit: Gal. 3:2.
The Law cannot solve the problem of the Sin Nature: Rom. 8:3. While there were laws of punishment in varying degrees, and fear of punishment helps keep people in line, the Law does nothing to provide victory over sin.
Present Purpose of Mosaic Law
The Commandments provide laws of human freedom and provide a divine standard to which the sinner can compare himself and his actions and recognize that he is a sinner and needs a Saviour: Rom. 3:20,28; 1 Tim. 1:8,9.
Jesus fulfilled the law so now we are to do the law intent but through love for Christ rather than obligation to the law.
Jesus said something along the lines of I give one command to love others and in all that all the other laws are met.
Again... please show me LIKE THE BEREANS DID... the teaching of the Old Testament that confirms this.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tj3, you're invited to show me as well:
Please show me, like the Bereans did, that was Jesus was God and died for your sins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Please show me, like the Bereans did, that Peter's claim that we could toss out the food laws.
Please show me, like the Bereans did, that physical circumsision is no longer required.
If you can't find proof of these from the OT, like the Bereans did, then by your own standard they must be FALSE.
Usually I deal with questions like this from atheists who are trying to discredit Christianity. I have spent time researching question such as this many times, but unless you are questioning whether the NT and the OT are canonical, this is simply playing games, and is a tactic that I see used often to keep your opponent in a debate tied up on wild goose chases while you get away with ignoring the real question. The approach which would resolve this isssue is:Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
- We agree on the original (common) 66 books as canonical. So lets not play games and waste each others time in that regard.
- I presume that you agree with scripture which says that we are not to add to God's word (Prov 30:5-6).
So the onus is on you to validate addition to the Bible. Why do I see so many folk opposed to sola scriptura run when I ask this each time?
I never said that. I said that God's word had authority over us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
You know, I once was a person who asked that same question, until I studied scripture in more detail, and I was amazed at how much of the NT is found in the OT. What the NT added was primarily more detail regarding the fulfillment of OT prophecy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
No, history shows ample evidence that the canon INCLUDED those "additions"... the onus is on YOU to try to show why Luther and non-Catholic Christians REMOVED those books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Which does not come close to answering my questions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
... but NOT over an APOSTLE.Quote:
I never said that. I said that God's word had authority over us all.
Too many people seem to ignore that the Bereans did not accept Paul at his word, something I doubt many Christians would support.
Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia which I have posted up here a number of times acknowledges the facts of history. I have other Roman Catholic books that do also. Why then, do so many Roman Catholics refuse to acknowledge that the books were added at the Council of Trent?Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Really? Would you care to show us scripture which says that an Apostle has authority over the word of God? This is like saying that an Apostle does not need to submit to God.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Let's just stick with one error at a time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Have you ever even read the Council of Trent?
One more time:Quote:
Council of Trent
SESSION THE FOURTH
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
HAVE BEEN USED (past tense)
AS THEY ARE CONTAINED IN THE VULGATE (from 404 AD)
PART OF CHRISTIAN TRADITION
All Trent did was make it official IN RESPONSE to the heresy of Luther and his removal of books from the Bible.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:42 PM. |