Bible alone?

[CadyandZoe]

As I stated before - your grasp of "Authority" is childish and ignorant.
Let's look at some Biblical examples of transferred Authority, shall we??

Gen. 41:40-41
YOU shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as YOU command; only with regard to the throne will I be greater than YOU.’ And Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘See, I have set YOU over all the land of Egypt.’

Isaiah 22:20-22
“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; WHAT HE OPENS no one can shut, and WHAT HE SHUTS no one can open.

Matt. 16:18-19
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth will be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

In ALL 3 of these cases the servant is given Authority OF the Master - and BY the Master.
They are mouthpieces in service OF the Master - NOT themselves.

As to your last question - NOBODY gets away with ANYTHING.
GOD has the final say - even when it comes to your Protestant pedophile leaders . . .
Blogger Who Exposed Protestant Sex Abuse Cover Up Sued By Her Pastor

Denial About Sexual Abuse In Evangelical Churches

Southern Baptists Apologize For Sex Abuse Coverups

U.S. Protestants’ Views Mixed about Extent of Clergy Sexual Abuse

Churchgoers Split on Existence of More Sexual Abuse by Pastors

Confronting Evangelical Enabling of Sexual Abuse

Child abuse a Calvinist problem, podcast says

Deflection is typical behavior coming from the immature. You are arguing for Church authority and I simply point out that your so-called Church authority tolerated child sextual abuse. This kind of behavior belies any claim to being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't understand how anyone with integrity can continue to claim that Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority. In light of recent revelations, to hold this doctrine is blaspheme, suggesting that Christ approves of child sexual abuse.

Do you understand?

Claim: The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

Fact: The Catholic Church did not hold violators accountable; moving violators to new locations allowing these men to victimize others. The claim logically leads to the conclusion that Christ himself approved of this practice.

Is this what you believe?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Deflection is typical behavior coming from the immature. You are arguing for Church authority and I simply point out that your so-called Church authority tolerated child sextual abuse. This kind of behavior belies any claim to being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't understand how anyone with integrity can continue to claim that Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority. In light of recent revelations, to hold this doctrine is blaspheme, suggesting that Christ approves of child sexual abuse.

Do you understand?

Claim: The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

Fact: The Catholic Church did not hold violators accountable; moving violators to new locations allowing these men to victimize others. The claim logically leads to the conclusion that Christ himself approved of this practice.

Is this what you believe?

Individuals within the Church may be evil - but that doesn't condemns the Church itself.
If it DID - then Jesus was to be condemned for choosing Judas, a devil (John 6:70-71).

And not ONCE has the Church TAUGHT that the men responsible for the sex scandal were innocent. Individuals are guilty of having taken part in this - but this was NEVER taught by the Church.

Now - WHY is it that every time I give you BIBLICAL arguments - you respond with nonsense and opinion??
Is it because you don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on - or that you're just NOT that right?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Deflection is typical behavior coming from the immature. You are arguing for Church authority and I simply point out that your so-called Church authority tolerated child sextual abuse. This kind of behavior belies any claim to being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't understand how anyone with integrity can continue to claim that Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority. In light of recent revelations, to hold this doctrine is blaspheme, suggesting that Christ approves of child sexual abuse.

Do you understand?

Claim: The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

Fact: The Catholic Church did not hold violators accountable; moving violators to new locations allowing these men to victimize others. The claim logically leads to the conclusion that Christ himself approved of this practice.

Is this what you believe?

Sooooo - Moses had the God-given Authority over God's people.
When he failed - did GOD fail?

David had God-given Authority over God's people Israel.
When David sinned - did GOD sin?

YOUR inability to differentiate the God-given ruling Authority from the personal weaknesses and sin of those WITH the God-given Authority is pathetic - and shows a real ignorance of the Word of God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Individuals within the Church may be evil - but that doesn't condemns the Church itself.

It's a matter of credibility. Your claim does not work in the real world. Therefore, it isn't true. Your view that church authority is infallible is defeated by the fact that your so-called Church authority sheltered pedophiles and child abusers and allowed the abuse to go unchecked for many years. Your claim that the Church speaks for Christ is nothing but bloody rags. Open your eyes and admit the truth.

 

[Marymog]

Deflection is typical behavior coming from the immature. You are arguing for Church authority and I simply point out that your so-called Church authority tolerated child sextual abuse. This kind of behavior belies any claim to being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't understand how anyone with integrity can continue to claim that Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority. In light of recent revelations, to hold this doctrine is blaspheme, suggesting that Christ approves of child sexual abuse.

Do you understand?

Claim: The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

Fact: The Catholic Church did not hold violators accountable; moving violators to new locations allowing these men to victimize others. The claim logically leads to the conclusion that Christ himself approved of this practice.

Is this what you believe?

Hi CadyandZoe,


Soooo what you are suggesting is that when the men of The Church sin that means that the doctrine of The Church can't be authoritive because of the sins of those few men?

Have the men in your church ever sinned?

Curious Mary

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hi CadyandZoe,


Soooo what you are suggesting is that when the men of The Church sin that means that the doctrine of The Church can't be authoritive because of the sins of those few men?

Have the men in your church ever sinned?

Curious Mary

Yes. However, none of the men in my church claim infallibility. The men in my church and I agree that each of us is responsible to Jesus Christ himself. We are guided by the Holy Scriptures and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's a matter of credibility. Your claim does not work in the real world. Therefore, it isn't true. Your view that church authority is infallible is defeated by the fact that your so-called Church authority sheltered pedophiles and child abusers and allowed the abuse to go unchecked for many years. Your claim that the Church speaks for Christ is nothing but bloody rags. Open your eyes and admit the truth.

And you've already been handily corrected on this point - so why do you keep putting your foot in your mouth?

The Teaching Authority of the Church had NOTHING to do with the sex scandal - ANY MORE than the teaching authority in YOUR sect has ANYTHING to do with the sexual sins of the leaders of your sect or the tens of thousands of others. Not unless they TEACH this as doctrine.

As I educated you in my last post - with your moronic logic, Christ Himself should be condemned for choosing Judas, who was a devil (John 6:70).
Your ignorance is astounding . . .

 

[CadyandZoe]

And you've already been handily corrected on this point - so why do you keep putting your foot in your mouth?

The Teaching Authority of the Church had NOTHING to do with the sex scandal - ANY MORE than the teaching authority in YOUR sect has ANYTHING to do with the sexual sins of the leaders of your sect or the tens of thousands of others. Not unless they TEACH this as doctrine.

As I educated you in my last post - with your moronic logic, Christ Himself should be condemned for choosing Judas, who was a devil (John 6:70).
Your ignorance is astounding . . .

If you have nothing else to say, why do you continue? Think about it. Pray about it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you have nothing else to say, why do you continue? Think about it. Pray about it.

TRANSLATION:
"Now I have BOTH feet stuck in my mouth."

That's what I figured . . .

 

[CadyandZoe]

TRANSLATION:
"Now I have BOTH feet stuck in my mouth."

That's what I figured . . .

You have your reward.

 

[Marymog]

Yes. However, none of the men in my church claim infallibility. The men in my church and I agree that each of us is responsible to Jesus Christ himself. We are guided by the Holy Scriptures and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you CadyandZoe.

Sooooo that means that no one in your church will ever know who is right in your interpretation of Scripture which means you will never know what sound doctrine is compared to false doctrine. How does your church fulfill Matthew 18:17?

What’s confusing to me is if you are guided by the Holy Scriptures and the leading of the Holy Spirit...wouldn’t you be infallible? And if two men from your church disagree with two other men from your church on what it takes to be saved and all four men claim “the leading of the Holy Spirit”....which two men do you believe and which two are liars?

I appreciate your time and patience with me.

 

[Brakelite]

Thank you CadyandZoe.

Sooooo that means that no one in your church will ever know who is right in your interpretation of Scripture which means you will never know what sound doctrine is compared to false doctrine. How does your church fulfill Matthew 18:17?

What’s confusing to me is if you are guided by the Holy Scriptures and the leading of the Holy Spirit...wouldn’t you be infallible? And if two men from your church disagree with two other men from your church on what it takes to be saved and all four men claim “the leading of the Holy Spirit”....which two men do you believe and which two are liars?

I appreciate your time and patience with me.

You have spent years offering this same argument but using different words. And you've ignored every answer. And you avoid laying out a viable verifiable provable testable alternative.
Jesus promised... God promised the holy Spirit to anyone searching for truth, they would find it. Your whole argument directly contracticts and denies the very words and promises of the Son of God. You make Him a liar.

KJV Luke 11:9-13
9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

 

[Marymog]

You have spent years offering this same argument but using different words. And you've ignored every answer. And you avoid laying out a viable verifiable provable testable alternative.
Jesus promised... God promised the holy Spirit to anyone searching for truth, they would find it. Your whole argument directly contracticts and denies the very words and promises of the Son of God. You make Him a liar.

KJV Luke 11:9-13
9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Hi Backlit,

Lol....I make Him a liar? Fascinating...

Soooo you troll your way into our conversation but you really don't answer my questions....AGAIN....Fascinating...

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have your reward.

I'm only interested in the Truth - which is a subject that YOU keep evading . . .

 

[CadyandZoe]

Thank you CadyandZoe.

Sooooo that means that no one in your church will ever know who is right in your interpretation of Scripture which means you will never know what sound doctrine is compared to false doctrine. How does your church fulfill Matthew 18:17?

What’s confusing to me is if you are guided by the Holy Scriptures and the leading of the Holy Spirit...wouldn’t you be infallible? And if two men from your church disagree with two other men from your church on what it takes to be saved and all four men claim “the leading of the Holy Spirit”....which two men do you believe and which two are liars?

I appreciate your time and patience with me.

Understanding the Bible isn't as hard as you suggest. Most people who know how to read with comprehension can come to a correct interpretation of Scripture. It isn't that difficult. The problem isn't understanding what the Bible says, the problem is believing what it says and putting the faith into practice.

With regard to Matthew 18:17, I need to jump you up to verse 12, where Jesus supposes that one sheep out of a hundred was lost. He asks whether the reader wouldn't leave the ninety-nine to look for the lost sheep? When he finds the sheep, he will rejoice more over the lost sheep than the ninety-nine that didn't go astray. The point is, Jesus wants to save lost sheep. The son of man came to save that which is lost. Right? Okay.

Now I want to jump you down to verse 15.

15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

Here again the Lord indicates the goal of the effort. Why confront a brother with his sin? The goal is to "win your brother." We are attempting to save that which is lost, and so we must bear that in mind as we confront a brother. Our purpose is NOT to convict or punish our brother; our goal is to pull our brother from the jaws of death. We are saving that which is lost.

Now, let's jump down a couple of verses.

17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Many people think Jesus is teaching ostracism here. That is far from the truth. Rather, the assumption all along is that we are talking to a brother, which informs our approach. If we discover that the person is NOT a brother, then we need to change our tactic. We are still trying to save the lost, but now we are approaching the so-called brother as one who hasn't yet believed the gospel. We don't end the relationship.

We are saving that which is lost.

 

[rjs330]

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

tradition, that which is handed down, is both oral and scripture?

Those bretheren actually heard the apostles teach. Do you are anyone have the actual teachings of them that were oral? Is there a place that holds the apostles oral teachings?

I don't believe there is. All we have anymore is their epistles. That is what we should stand fast with and believe in. The actual teaching we have.
Otherwise anyone could say "Paul said this it Peter said that". How would we know? Can we go back and know that is truly what they said?

So, what we should do is put our understanding of their teaching and traditions to what we know and those are contained in their epistles.

The Bible is the ONLY evidence we have of what their teachings and Christ's teachings were.

There is NOTHING wrong with having a tradition. Traditions are great as long as they do not contradict what is written. If a tradition helps you be closer to God, then go for it. But we shouldn't put them on equal footing with scripture because we don't really know if they are true teachings of the apostles or not.

 

[theefaith]

Those bretheren actually heard the apostles teach. Do you are anyone have the actual teachings of them that were oral? Is there a place that holds the apostles oral teachings?

I don't believe there is. All we have anymore is their epistles. That is what we should stand fast with and believe in. The actual teaching we have.
Otherwise anyone could say "Paul said this it Peter said that". How would we know? Can we go back and know that is truly what they said?

So, what we should do is put our understanding of their teaching and traditions to what we know and those are contained in their epistles.

The Bible is the ONLY evidence we have of what their teachings and Christ's teachings were.

There is NOTHING wrong with having a tradition. Traditions are great as long as they do not contradict what is written. If a tradition helps you be closer to God, then go for it. But we shouldn't put them on equal footing with scripture because we don't really know if they are true teachings of the apostles or not.

the apostles creed
The nicene creed
The athanasius creed
The didache
And of course the normal teaching of validly ordained present day successors of Peter and the apostles

 

[theefaith]

Deflection is typical behavior coming from the immature. You are arguing for Church authority and I simply point out that your so-called Church authority tolerated child sextual abuse. This kind of behavior belies any claim to being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't understand how anyone with integrity can continue to claim that Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority. In light of recent revelations, to hold this doctrine is blaspheme, suggesting that Christ approves of child sexual abuse.

Do you understand?

Claim: The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

Fact: The Catholic Church did not hold violators accountable; moving violators to new locations allowing these men to victimize others. The claim logically leads to the conclusion that Christ himself approved of this practice.

Is this what you believe?

Deflection is typical behavior coming from the immature. You are arguing for Church authority and I simply point out that your so-called Church authority tolerated child sextual abuse. This kind of behavior belies any claim to being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't understand how anyone with integrity can continue to claim that Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority. In light of recent revelations, to hold this doctrine is blaspheme, suggesting that Christ approves of child sexual abuse.

Do you understand?

Claim: The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

Fact: The Catholic Church did not hold violators accountable; moving violators to new locations allowing these men to victimize others. The claim logically leads to the conclusion that Christ himself approved of this practice.

Is this what you believe?

no one ever said they are impeccable
Only Jesus and Mary are free from sin

 

[rjs330]

NONSENSE.

OT Scripture was appealed to when making the decision at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 because Scripture IS Authoritative.
Nobody is arguing against this.

Sola Scriptura, on the other hand posits that Scripture is our SOLE Authority - which Scripture itself rejects (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23). Peter's entire opening statement was based on the GOSPEL - which had NOT yet been written.
James, then quoted the OT in his speech.

In the end - it was the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit who made the decision.
Scripture indeed played a part - but NOT Scripture "alone" . . .

How do we know what Christ taught? How do we know what the apostles taught?

Scripture! Jesus also used scripture to support his authority. He used scripture to rebuke Satan. And if course we know Christ was God and had full authority.

We know what to believe and what sound doctrine is because we have Christa words and the Apostles writings to teach us that.

How do we know if what the preacher it teacher is telling us is true and accurate and of sound doctrine? Scripture!

Jesus taught that in Matthew 15 when he rebuked the teachers for nullifying the scriptures with their traditions. He put scripture over the traditions.

II Tim 3:16-17 says all scripture is inspired. It doesn't say all teaching or traditions are inspired.

Other scriptures also refer to this.

Now that does not mean that we don't listen to others who teach us. Far from it. We have been given teachers to teach us. We have evangelists and teachers who help us and teach and train us. Who reprove and rebuke us. BUT they must adhere to what the scripture says. Because otherwise we don't know what sound doctrine is. Have we moved to false teachers? How do we know? Because we measure it against what the apostles and Christ taught. And how do we know what the apostles and Christ taught? The inspired scriptures.

Sola Scriptura does not mean we don't listen to anyone. Or that no one can teach us. No it means Scripture is the ultimate authority of the teachings of Christ and the sound doctrine provided to us by the apostles.

If a teacher or tradition runs counter to scripture then the teacher or tradition is not of sound doctrine. We may not add requirements or traditions to salvation or righteousness that scripture does not support or teach. We may not add additional doctrine to what the scripture teaches.

 

[rjs330]

the apostles creed
The nicene creed
The athanasius creed
The didache
And of course the normal teaching of validly ordained present day successors of Peter and the apostles

Wait what? The apostles creed was not written by the apostles. Neither was the Nicene creed.

The didache also was not written by any apostles nor was it ever taught as inspired scriptures.

Remember only inspired scriptures is assigned as sound doctrine. We don't even know if the apostles taught what was written in the didache. It's not attributed to an apostle. It is a nice historical book and lists some interesting traditions, but it certainly cannot be assigned inspiration nor can it be shown to be written by an apostle and its doctrinal value is questionable because it's not inspired.