Bible alone?

[Jane_Doe22]

I like your approach.

The Bible is the only reliable source of knowledge about the will of God for mankind.

How do you know your mother? She told you right? Do you trust her? I trust the Bible.

Of course. Now you are making sense.

The Bible alone is the only reliable source for divine revelation.

Negative. The church learns from the Bible. The church doesn't author the Bible. Anyone who tells you that the church has authority is in error. The only authority is Jesus Christ himself. There is no other.

Note my approach is not Sola Scriptura.

 

[theefaith]

Jesus said we don’t read and make doctrine or faith for ourselves!

eph 4:5 one faith!

We must be taught!

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Lk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.


The obedience of faith!

Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name.


humility is taught!
Pride simply boasts!
Saul that he was righteous and doing the will of God but was persecuting Christ and His church!
Spiritual blindness is the scales that cover eyes of those who have spiritual pride, presumption, and arrogance!

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Jesus said we don’t read and make doctrine or faith for ourselves!

eph 4:5 one faith!

We must be taught!

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Lk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.


The obedience of faith!

Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name.


humility is taught!
Pride simply boasts!
Saul that he was righteous and doing the will of God but was persecuting Christ and His church!
Spiritual blindness is the scales that cover eyes of those who have spiritual pride, presumption, and arrogance!

You still haven’t answered people’s questions.

 

[theefaith]

Hi Jane, how are you?

what question?

Christ founded the church on Peter, and the apostles!

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Hi Jane, how are you?

what question?

Christ founded the church on Peter, and the apostles!

CadyandZoe and I have both asked you several times: "How do you know that the Catholic church is THE church? How do you know that the Bishop of Rome is an actual Bishop?"

Him claiming it means nothing -- many many of others claim that too. You like to make that comment about thousands of different denominations, but how do you know yours is correct? Tell us about your personal faith development, thoughtful searching, and direct relationship with Christ.

If your only answer is "well, I was born Catholic and they told me Catholic is the right faith and I've never honestly actually studied another view" ... well, I appreciate your honesty. But I would also encourage you to deepen your personal epistemology and testimony.

 

[theefaith]

There is no one else who claims to be a successor of Peter?

Jesus said Matt 28:19 behold I will remain with you (the apostles) until the end!

 

[theefaith]

Jn 10:16
Jesus is the one shepherd but He appointed Peter shepherd until he returns Jn 21:17 Peter can’t live 2000 yrs so there must be successors

 

[Jane_Doe22]

There is no one else who claims to be a successor of Peter?

Jesus said Matt 28:19 behold I will remain with you (the apostles) until the end!

Jn 10:16
Jesus is the one shepherd but He appointed Peter shepherd until he returns Jn 21:17 Peter can’t live 2000 yrs so there must be successors

Once again a complete non-answer.

I do highly encourage you to find a real answer for yourself and further develop your relationship with Christ, @theefaith .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Bible never says that Peter would have successors. But putting that aside, even if it did, how do you know that the Catholic church is the one true church. I don't think it is.

The office of Apostle was a successive office from the beginning.
That's why, in Acts 1, we see the Apostles voting on a SUCCESSOR for Judas - not a mere "replacement".

Acts 1:21 says, "Let another take his office".
The word used here for "Office" is "Episkopay" (Bishopric). The office of Bishop is successive.

- Irenaeus, in his treatise, Against Heresies (2nd century) gives a list of the Bishops of Rome (Popes) - from hos own day - back t Peter.

- Respected Protestant historian and scholar, J.N.D. Kelly, in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes lists ALL of the Popes - starting with Peter.

- Protestant historian, Kenneth Samples, writing for the Christian Research Institute (CRI), in his essay, What Think Ye of Rome wrote the following:
"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two‐thousand‐year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

Thems' the facts . . .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You need to read the Bible with a microscope AND a telescope. Near sighted word games, too much dependence on concordances and lexicons misses the spirit of the letter; it's another form of works righteousness. You confuse predestination to grace with predestination to glory, explained in detail in post #212 that you ran from. I left a link there because I didn't want to flood the thread with pages and pages of scriptural evidence that you ignore!

View attachment 10727

So what they wrote is not what they meant?

Well I guess you think it is okay to write a letter and not mean what you say and allow people to discern the "spirit" of the letter? Get real. Even you r church believes that the Scriptures' were inspired by God! If god di dnot mean what was written, then did He have any meaning? And who decides what the Spirit is? Some man who sits on a throne in Rome?

No it is not another form of works righteousness. It is called obedience to the Word of God!

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 3:15-17
King James Version

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Sorry but teh "spirit" of the letter is nothing more than a cover up to rewrite Scripture to your liking instead of you conforming to scripture.

And no we are predestined to both grace and glory!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You need to read the Bible with a microscope AND a telescope. Near sighted word games, too much dependence on concordances and lexicons misses the spirit of the letter; it's another form of works righteousness. You confuse predestination to grace with predestination to glory, explained in detail in post #212 that you ran from. I left a link there because I didn't want to flood the thread with pages and pages of scriptural evidence that you ignore!

View attachment 10727

Though I would not do this I pose this as an example.

Suppose I read some writings of yours and conclude that the spirit of your writings is a support for the Bishops and priests of teh Roman Church who practice pedophilia regularly? Would you be outraged at my twisting of your words?

Would you defend your writings? Would it only be because you are alive and can defend your writings from one who would take them and twist them so terribly? If you would do that, then why are you so casual in saying that what was actually written in languages we don't speak naturally should be treated with less respect?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The office of Apostle was a successive office from the beginning.
That's why, in Acts 1, we see the Apostles voting on a SUCCESSOR for Judas - not a mere "replacement".

Acts 1:21 says, "Let another take his office".
The word used here for "Office" is "Episkopay" (Bishopric). The office of Bishop is successive.

- Irenaeus, in his treatise, Against Heresies (2nd century) gives a list of the Bishops of Rome (Popes) - from hos own day - back t Peter.

- Respected Protestant historian and scholar, J.N.D. Kelly, in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes lists ALL of the Popes - starting with Peter.

- Protestant historian, Kenneth Samples, writing for the Christian Research Institute (CRI), in his essay, What Think Ye of Rome wrote the following:
"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two‐thousand‐year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

Thems' the facts . . .

Sorry but even the Jesuits in the 1980's came out and admitted that the list of Popes from Peter to the time of constantine (teh list was known as teh donation of Constantine) was a fake document!

Peter never ruled the church!

James was teh leader of teh Jerusalem church (the early headquarters) and the Apostle Paul as the Apostle to the gentiles established and oversaw teh churches in the gentile territories and it was His appointments and the appointments of those under him that ran teh gentile churches, not the early Jewish Apostles.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

If you would do that, then why are you so casual in saying that what was actually written in languages we don't speak naturally should be treated with less respect?

Everyone should be treated with respect. Protestant, Catholic, etc.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Bible is the only reliable source of knowledge about the will of God for mankind.
How do you know your mother? She told you right? Do you trust her? I trust the Bible.
Of course. Now you are making sense.
The Bible alone is the only reliable source for divine revelation.
Negative. The church learns from the Bible. The church doesn't author the Bible. Anyone who tells you that the church has authority is in error. The only authority is Jesus Christ himself. There is no other.

WHO told you that the New Testament is the Word of God?

WHY do you trust those 27 Books as "Scripture"?

The Bible says that the Church has Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) - why do YOU reject that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry but even the Jesuits in the 1980's came out and admitted that the list of Popes from Peter to the time of constantine (teh list was known as teh donation of Constantine) was a fake document!

Peter never ruled the church!

James was teh leader of teh Jerusalem church (the early headquarters) and the Apostle Paul as the Apostle to the gentiles established and oversaw teh churches in the gentile territories and it was His appointments and the appointments of those under him that ran teh gentile churches, not the early Jewish Apostles.

WOW - what ignorance . . .

Ummmmmm, the Donation of Constantine has NOTHING to do with Irenaeus or his work, Against Heresies, which contains his list of Popes going back to Peter.

It has NOTHING to do with Tertullian's work, De Pudicitia, wherein, he refers to the Bishop of Rome as "Bishop of Bishops" and "Pontifex Maximus".

BOTH of these works were written about a century before there even WAS a Constantine.

As for Peter NOT being the leader . . .
a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if he was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if he was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if he was not in charge??

His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

I'll wait right here for your response . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Like I said, and you all threw out Christ God and the Holy Spirit, they are the only source of truth, but so few seek It.


Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men.

and you all just proved it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

WHO told you that the New Testament is the Word of God?

WHY do you trust those 27 Books as "Scripture"?

The Bible says that the Church has Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) - why do YOU reject that?

Jesus did not grant authority to the Roman Catholic Church, or any other institution. This doctrine is diabolical. Jesus explicitly tells you that he has been granted all authority in heaven and on earth. The Roman Catholic Church has become a usurper. The Roman Catholic Church represents the deification of the institution. There is only one God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Matthew 16, Jesus establishes the apostles as the foundation of church he is building. The corner stone of that foundation is Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. This is the essential doctrine and all other doctrines follow from that. Peter has not been given authority to bind and loose. Peter has been granted to understand and disseminate information concerning what has already been bound and loosed. Jesus, not Peter actually holds the keys.

In Matthew 18, Jesus instructs his disciples concerning those who claim to be a "brother." Even here, the task at hand is "identification", answering to the question, "Is this person a brother or not?" What is the purpose of such an investigation? Excommunication? No. Jesus tells Peter that we are to forgive them. He also teaches his disciples to treat a sinner as a "Gentile". But how do we treat Gentiles? We evangelize them.

Luke 10:16 describes the role of an Apostle. Here we see that the Apostle is NOT acting on his own authority. Neither is he speaking for himself. Rather, an apostle whom Jesus sends is speaking for Jesus, relaying what Jesus had already taught.

John 16 describes the role of the Apostle in greater detail, adding that the 11 will be accompanied by "the spirit of truth", who will NOT speak on his own initiative. All through John's gospel, Jesus often repeats his claim that he does not speak on his own initiative, but he speaks the things the Father taught him.

John 12:49
For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Jesus speaks what the Father taught him; the apostles speak what Jesus taught them. The apostles speak to us in the Bible.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The office of Apostle was a successive office from the beginning.
That's why, in Acts 1, we see the Apostles voting on a SUCCESSOR for Judas - not a mere "replacement".

Acts 1:21 says, "Let another take his office".
The word used here for "Office" is "Episkopay" (Bishopric). The office of Bishop is successive.

- Irenaeus, in his treatise, Against Heresies (2nd century) gives a list of the Bishops of Rome (Popes) - from hos own day - back t Peter.

- Respected Protestant historian and scholar, J.N.D. Kelly, in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes lists ALL of the Popes - starting with Peter.

- Protestant historian, Kenneth Samples, writing for the Christian Research Institute (CRI), in his essay, What Think Ye of Rome wrote the following:
"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two‐thousand‐year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

Thems' the facts . . .

Peter has not modeled apostolic succession as you suggest. Peter is not saying or implying that Jesus established 12 offices that needed to be filled at all times. We should not conclude 12 bishoprics from Peter's action that day.

Don't misunderstand Peter's concern here. Contrary to Catholic Dogma, Peter's focus was on the just punishment of Judas. Peter is electing another apostle, not to fill a vacancy in the Bishopric; he is electing another apostle as a fitting punishment for Judas. It would serve Judas right if someone else was given his job. And so, in order to fulfill righteousness, they elected someone to take his place.

Peter didn't establish a Bishopric here. He did NOT intended that every other Apostle have a successor. This was a one-time occurrence, aimed specifically at Judas.

Only two men met the qualifications to take Judas's place. In order to qualify for the job, one must have been a disciple of Jesus from the baptism of Jesus unto his resurrection. No man alive today can meet this qualification.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Note my approach is not Sola Scriptura.

I know. (smile) Wouldn't you agree that truth is truth no matter what the source?

 

[Candidus]

You confuse faith and works, true faith does work. And you take an English word and forget to look at where it comes from!

It is the word "eido" --to see. perceive or understand and it is thus:
Speech: Verb

Tense: Perfect

Voice: Active

Mood: Subjunctive

Person: 2nd Person

Number: Plural


When you see this- you know you can never lose your salvation!

Now if you want to talk about losing the assurance or conviction of your salvation- that is a totally different subject than the fact you cannot lose your salvation!

Well, if you really want to be accurate, eido in 1 Jn. 5:13 is in the Present tense, not the perfect tense.

Therefore, there is no assurance or conviction of you salvation apart from this very moment. So much for the false canard that you cannot lose your salvation!

Also, a "perfect tense" would not indicate a perpetual future condition. It does not mean that.