Bible alone

[theefaith]

Your premise is flawed from the start. You do not understand His speech, and therefore have misstated it:

Genesis 11:7
"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

In the church God established order thru obedience to hierarchical authority

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Keys of authority! And power to bind and loose! Matt 16:18 and Matt 18:18

Moral authority:
(Teaching)
Necessity of being taught by Christ:
Two edge sword: defining truth and condemning errors, and Interpreting scripture.

Jurisdictional authority:
(Governing / administering)
Necessity of Peter and the apostles and their successors to govern the holy church.

Spiritual authority:
(Life of Grace)
Sanctifying thru the mass and Sacraments the abundant life of grace!



What authority does Christ have?
What power does Christ have?
What mission / ministry does Christ have?

Peter, the apostles and their successors have the same authority, power, and mission! Jn 20:21 as my father sent me, even so send I you!

The apostles are Christ’s successors!
They have authority to send others as well, apostle means one who is sent!


Ephesians 5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ...

 

[Wrangler]

You forgot the biggie ... Christ alone is the head of man!

Joseph was administrator under pharaoh

See how you have to go back to before the Age of Grace to support your view?

 

[Wrangler]

You CANNOT give the keys (authority) to a confession but to a person! Peter

Is this like you cannot give deity status to a word but a being?

 

[Wrangler]

The successors of Moses having kingdom authority of the keys and the power to bind and loose Mt 23 was taken from them Mt 21:43 and given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: Mt 16:18 Mt 18:18 and Jesus says this power and authority is to be obeyed!

Rom 13:2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(If it applies to civil authority, how much more to religious authority)

I almost did not notice you jumping from Matthew to Romans. My oh my what does Roman 13:1 say? It is important that all of us submit to the authorities who have charge over us because God establishes all authority in heaven and on the earth. In other words, no need for Roman authority on Earth. Assertions to the contrary an usurpation of God's authority.

 

[Wrangler]

thats cos Christ is the founder

Right. Christ is the founder. That is how you know the Christian faith is founded on Christ, not Peter.

 

[theefaith]

See how you have to go back to before the Age of Grace to support your view?

just an example

 

[theefaith]

Right. Christ is the founder. That is how you know the Christian faith is founded on Christ, not Peter.

founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles eph 2:20

 

[theefaith]

I almost did not notice you jumping from Matthew to Romans. My oh my what does Roman 13:1 say? It is important that all of us submit to the authorities who have charge over us because God establishes all authority in heaven and on the earth. In other words, no need for Roman authority on Earth. Assertions to the contrary an usurpation of God's authority.

All authority

in the church
In government
In the family
In the choirs of angels even

always with obedience to hierarchical authority


Spiritual Fathers have care for our souls!

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they care 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.

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 Paul and John spiritual fathers, pastors of our souls!

 

[Wrangler]

founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles eph 2:20

No. By Christ. On Christ. Through Christ.

 

[Wrangler]

Spiritual Fathers have care for our souls!

Only God is our Father.

 

[theefaith]

Only God is our Father.

Call no man father

Typical fundamentalist misunderstandings!

Matt 23:9
Call no man Father?

Is this an absolute requirement?
Or is Our Savior condemning pride and spiritual pride of the Pharisees?

God calls men father!

Ex 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Jesus calls men father!

Jn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

Mary calls men father!

Lk 1:55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

Peter calls men father!

Acts3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

The stephen calls men father!

Acts 7 Stephen quotes the fathers over and over!

The Bible calls men father!

Luke 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.



Then there is spiritual fathers!

Spiritual Fathers have care for our souls!

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they care 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.

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!

Isa 22 the administrator of the kingdom is called father, so the same for Peter, the apostles, and their successors!

 

[Wrangler]

Call no man father

Typical fundamentalist misunderstandings!

Matt 23:9
Call no man Father?

Is this an absolute requirement?

The only requirement is to recognize that IDOLATRY you’ve made of your “one true church.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

It occurred to me : the roster of "the Bible" shifted quite a bit for quite a while. During any of those iterations, you'd be arguing "No, these are the Word of God--you can't change them!" and I'd be arguing "Well I think there're writings outside of these that are authoritative."
LOL History would be on my side--and you'd be arguing against your present self which defends the latest roster.

I don't how many times I have to tell you this: I do not believe the Scriptures was a preplanned, predestined "rollout!" It was a process. Do you not understand what I'm saying? Quit saying I believe something when I've repeatedly told you I don't believe that!

I'm well aware that certain books were not accepted right away. I'm well aware the Marcion's list of acceptable Scriptures preceded lists made by genuine doctrinally-orthodox Christians. Differences over what constituted Scripture continued on through history--Luther questioned the book of James.

I've not once told you my list of books were set in stone--never! I have certain qualifications, as I've said, by which I determine what are acceptable Scriptures to me. The writing has to be issued from the time of the original apostles, to be certain that these teachings really represent Jesus' teaching. That's my criteria.

Enoch falls into the category of OT literature, and OT Scriptures were determined by the Jews. They did not see Daniel in the same way Christians do, however. I believe it's in the category of "Writings," rather than "Prophets."

So there are some variances in my approach. But basically, it follows the same standards as those who came up with the original set of Scriptures, give or take the controversial matters. It has to be apostolic teaching, or the teaching of Jesus by people very close to the history.

And the OT literature not only has to be approved by the Jews, but it also has to infer the connection between the OT and NT, as fulfilled in Jesus. Enoch does not fit into either of these criteria.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't how many times I have to tell you this: I do not believe the Scriptures was a preplanned, predestined "rollout!" It was a process. Do you not understand what I'm saying? Quit saying I believe something when I've repeatedly told you I don't believe that!

At any stage in the "process" you would've said "These are the Scriptures, you can't change them!" and I would've said "I think there're authoritative works outside of this compilation"--history would've vindicated my position.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I was still editing. If you come up with a book that originated from Andrew or Judas from the 1st century, then I would say, "No, there are still Scriptures out there." So you're not correct in that sense. But yes, I don't expect much else this late in history to establish Scriptures designed by God to help the Church stay true to Him through the ages. You're right about that.

Incidentally, I was still editing my post when you responded. You might want to re-read, because I wanted to add my conditions required for qualifying as Scripture. I've given you this before, but I'm emphasizing it, because you don't seem to understand--I don't accept the Scriptures because a church council has said so, or a particular leader has said so, or because everybody else says so. I don't think an inspired number of books appeared, and we must hold to that number.

No, I think we were given logical criteria by which to judge what Scriptures we should follow. Those who went before used the same formula. But I don't follow them--I follow the same formula because it makes sense to me.

Obviously, reading Paul, as he gives us his doctrines and revelations, is important. His place in history has been established. The same could be said for Peter, John, James, and Jude. Hebrews is obviously a product of the time of Paul, and may have even been Paul--I don't know.

Enoch neither presents the covenant of Law in a way so as to be fulfilled in Christ, nor fits NT literature. The Jews decided what their own Scriptures are.

 

[GracePeace]

I was still editing. If you come up with a book that originated from Andrew or Judas from the 1st century, then I would say, "No, there are still Scriptures out there." So you're not correct in that sense. But yes, I don't expect much else this late in history to establish Scriptures designed by God to help the Church stay true to Him through the ages. You're right about that.

Incidentally, I was still editing my post when you responded. You might want to re-read, because I wanted to add my conditions required for qualifying as Scripture. I've given you this before, but I'm emphasizing it, because you don't seem to understand--I don't accept the Scriptures because a church council has said so, or a particular leader has said so, or because everybody else says so. I don't think an inspired number of books appeared, and we must hold to that number.

No, I think we were given logical criteria by which to judge what Scriptures we should follow. Those who went before used the same formula. But I don't follow them--I follow the same formula because it makes sense to me.

Obviously, reading Paul, as he gives us his doctrines and revelations, is important. His place in history has been established. The same could be said for Peter, John, James, and Jude. Hebrews is obviously a product of the time of Paul, and may have even been Paul--I don't know.

Enoch neither presents the covenant of Law in a way so as to be fulfilled in Christ, nor fits NT literature. The Jews decided what their own Scriptures are.

1. "Logical criteria"--I like that, since that's what I'm following when I say "Hey, these authoritative writings have writers citing material authoritatively, which they clearly lived by, and I want to do the same as they did!"
2. Why would Enoch have to present the Covenant of Law? He was prior to Law. Job doesn't present Covenant of Law. You're just inventing baseless little standards as you go along.
3. Jude was a Jew and he cited Enoch as a Prophet of God. That's enough for me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

1. "Logical criteria"--I like that, since that's what I'm following when I say "Hey, these authoritative writings have writers citing material authoritatively, which they clearly lived by, and I want to do the same as they did!"
2. Why would Enoch have to present the Covenant of Law? He was prior to Law. Job doesn't present Covenant of Law. You're just inventing baseless little standards as you go along.
3. Jude was a Jew and he cited Enoch as a Prophet of God. That's enough for me.

He cited the man, Enoch, and not the book, 1 Enoch! Just quoting Enoch, which is found in the book of Enoch, is not enough for me to endorse the book of Enoch as Scripture. But I'm fine if you want to do that.

I don't believe the author of Enoch was before the Law. Enoch himself came before the Law, but the author of the book 1 Enoch did *not* come before the Law, I feel.

Everything written in the OT about the time before the Law came by oral tradition. The Bible began to be written in the time of Moses, ie in the time of the Law. Job may be an exception.

And so, the Bible generally anticipates the covenant of God with Israel, and its development into an international faith. That, to me, is what makes Scripture "Scripture." Thanks for the conversation....

 

[GracePeace]

He cited the man, Enoch, and not the book, 1 Enoch! Just quoting Enoch, which is found in the book of Enoch, is not enough for me to endorse the book of Enoch as Scripture. But I'm fine if you want to do that.

I don't believe the author of Enoch was before the Law. Enoch himself came before the Law, but the author of the book 1 Enoch did *not* come before the Law, I feel.

Everything written in the OT about the time before the Law came by oral tradition. The Bible began to be written in the time of Moses, ie in the time of the Law. Job may be an exception.

And so, the Bible generally anticipates the covenant of God with Israel, and its development into an international faith. That, to me, is what makes Scripture "Scripture." Thanks for the conversation....

No, I would NOT endorse the Book of Enoch hastily that way. I would SEARCH to check the source. IF it could be verified satisfyingly then I would say "We should consider this book as well." I'm not saying "on par with decided-upon Scripture", but definitely "don't ignore it--there could be something good there, and just keep making sure it doesn't contradict Scripture".

Job was the exception. He wrote prior to Law. Same as an ostensible Enoch writing.

As far as the writings Paul would have cited "the Rock that followed them" they would satisfy this ad hoc criteria of yours.

 

[n2thelight]

@ theefaith

Can you answer post # 292

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, I would NOT endorse the Book of Enoch hastily that way. I would SEARCH to check the source. IF it could be verified satisfyingly then I would say "We should consider this book as well." I'm not saying "on par with decided-upon Scripture", but definitely "don't ignore it--there could be something good there, and just keep making sure it doesn't contradict Scripture".

Job was the exception. He wrote prior to Law. Same as an ostensible Enoch writing.

As far as the writings Paul would have cited "the Rock that followed them" they would satisfy this ad hoc criteria of yours.

My criteria is both reasonable and sound. I'm not sure you have an acceptable criteria--seems to be subjective?