Bible alone

[Wrangler]

bunker mentality, thinking you are always being attacked

Your question has a false implied premise. I do not think I am always being attacked. I do think Catholics try any avenue to assert authority over others.

ok successors of the apostles
The bishops as it says in acts 1:20

There you go again, referencing Scripture that does not explicitly teach your position. Bishop is not referenced ins Acts 1:20. Beyond that v 21-22 is insightful and destroys your claim:
So we need to determine his replacement from among the men who have been with us during all of the Lord Jesus’ travels among us— 22 from His baptism by John until His ascension.

 

[Randy Kluth]

LOL You like the phrase "crystal clear".

On the "Enoch" issue, you misunderstood, so please reread.

I mentioned their Mariolatry BECAUSE you don't follow it.

yes, "crystal clear" is now officially over-used. I welcome further explanation. I did feel I was missing something....

 

[theefaith]

Your question has a false implied premise. I do not think I am always being attacked. I do think Catholics try any avenue to assert authority over others.



There you go again, referencing Scripture that does not explicitly teach your position. Bishop is not referenced ins Acts 1:20. Beyond that v 21-22 is insightful and destroys your claim:
So we need to determine his replacement from among the men who have been with us during all of the Lord Jesus’ travels among us— 22 from His baptism by John until His ascension.

acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

says bishop

 

[theefaith]

Your question has a false implied premise. I do not think I am always being attacked. I do think Catholics try any avenue to assert authority over others.



There you go again, referencing Scripture that does not explicitly teach your position. Bishop is not referenced ins Acts 1:20. Beyond that v 21-22 is insightful and destroys your claim:
So we need to determine his replacement from among the men who have been with us during all of the Lord Jesus’ travels among us— 22 from His baptism by John until His ascension.

the church has the authority of Christ
The so called reformers were not apostles or successors and had no authority

 

[Wrangler]

acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

says bishop

bishoprick. Catholic Bishop. Not the same.

 

[theefaith]

Your question has a false implied premise. I do not think I am always being attacked. I do think Catholics try any avenue to assert authority over others.



There you go again, referencing Scripture that does not explicitly teach your position. Bishop is not referenced ins Acts 1:20. Beyond that v 21-22 is insightful and destroys your claim:
So we need to determine his replacement from among the men who have been with us during all of the Lord Jesus’ travels among us— 22 from His baptism by John until His ascension.

you don’t have to obey I guess

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I see your view as being "Mariolators told me, and I unthinkingly obey."
I militate against tradition.
I question everything.
I try to get to the bottom of everything.
I militate against my own views--hence I accepted that Russian Orthodox's argument, because it was more reasonable than mine, that the "Apocrypha" probably was Scripture.
I want ANY blessing from God I can get--I don't want tradition standing in my way.

What I've been trying to tell you is that I'm more like you than you think--we may just disagree on the conclusions we've come up with. Since you're in your 30s, I've been doing this a lot longer than you. Doesn't make me smarter than you--I'm not. But I've been doing this a long time, and can explain precisely why I've come to the conclusions I do.

I have nothing but respect for your "critical" approach to information, Christian or not, traditional or not. That's a good part of our Western tradition, and a good part of being Christian and honest.

I do *not* accept Catholic, traditional statements robotically, as if "they said it, it must be true." I don't do that at all. Obviously, you don't know me at all.

 

[Wrangler]

the church has the authority of Christ

Never! That is usurpation of Christ's authority and why there was a Protestant Reformation.

 

[Wrangler]

you don’t have to obey I guess

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you

There you go again, referring to Scripture that does not support your position. The anti-Christ Catholic Church, who usurps Christ's authority over me - per 1 Corinthians 11:3 - does not have any authority over me whatsoever!

Friend, you preach oppression and I won't have it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

On the "Enoch" issue, you misunderstood, so please reread.
I mentioned their Mariolatry BECAUSE you don't follow it.

I'm not going to re-read, because I'm not sure it's going to get any clearer. But thank you for acknowledging that I *don't* follow Mariolatry. But then it confuses me because you say you think I follow the Catholic traditional line on what Scripture consists of.

But my argument has *not* been that I believe the Scripture canon is set because Catholics said so, because Catholics set the number of books. Obviously, Catholics like to add the Apocrypha to their Bibles!

I do not reject Enoch as canon because Catholics or Fundamentalists do so. I reject it for the same reasons that it traditionally is rejected as canonical--it lacks Jewish acceptance as OT canon, and lacks value as having apostolic doctrinal content.

 

[Wrangler]

But my argument has *not* been that I believe the Scripture canon is set because Catholics said so, because Catholics set the number of books. Obviously, Catholics like to add the Apocrypha to their Bibles!

I do not reject Enoch as canon because Catholics or Fundamentalists do so. I reject it for the same reasons that it traditionally is rejected as canonical--it lacks Jewish acceptance as OT canon, and lacks value as having apostolic doctrinal content.

I think this deserves its own thread. I only learned a few years ago that there are different Bibles with different content. I find the subject fascinating. Although I have not understood the full arguments for and against EOC (77)> RCC (73) > Protestants (66), I'd love to be in audience to such a debate.

 

[theefaith]

bishoprick. Catholic Bishop. Not the same.

whatever

 

[theefaith]

I agree : “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” means the message was complete.
All so-called "authoritative" Johnny-come-lately additions aren't part of it.
They're not "the faith".
We already know where to look to become "wise" with regard to faith : Scripture.
That's APOSTOLIC doctrine 2 Timothy 3:15.
We LOVE the Apostolic dogma, "the faith", teaching us "GO TO SCRIPTURE".

what wring with tradition?
Or Marian doctrine?

 

[theefaith]

Never! That is usurpation of Christ's authority and why there was a Protestant Reformation.

There was no reformation, the church was founded by Christ and therefore cannot be reformed
Truth is immutable and cannot change

what happened to being opposed to the actions of men, was luther and calvin not men?

Christ has all authority but he shares it with his church and apostles even to the point of making them judges, judging the twelve tribes of Israel

Matt 19:28

 

[theefaith]

There you go again, referring to Scripture that does not support your position. The anti-Christ Catholic Church, who usurps Christ's authority over me - per 1 Corinthians 11:3 - does not have any authority over me whatsoever!

Friend, you preach oppression and I won't have it.

who has authority over you, Christ alone? None to care for your soul and your salvation?


1 Tim 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you

1 John 2
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.

That makes Peter, Paul and John spiritual fathers, pastors of our souls!

 

[Wrangler]

who has authority over you, Christ alone?

Not RCC.

 

[theefaith]

Not RCC.

your an orphan

no spiritual father (apostle)
No spiritual mother (Mary)

 

[Wrangler]

your an orphan

no spiritual father (apostle)
No spiritual mother (Mary)

Wrong. I am not an orphan but a child of God.


Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
Galatians 4:7

The Father has loved us so much that we are called children of God. And we really are his children.
1 John 3:1 (NCV)

 

[theefaith]

Wrong. I am not an orphan but a child of God.


Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
Galatians 4:7

The Father has loved us so much that we are called children of God. And we really are his children.
1 John 3:1 (NCV)

I did not deny that!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think this deserves its own thread. I only learned a few years ago that there are different Bibles with different content. I find the subject fascinating. Although I have not understood the full arguments for and against EOC (77)> RCC (73) > Protestants (66), I'd love to be in audience to such a debate.

I'll leave that to GracePeace, who is apparently more interested in the subject than I am.