Bible alone

[theefaith]

Yea, do you hear yourself? He prepared the Apostles, not their successors. If he meant successors, he would have said it.

matt 28:19
Are there still nations to be taught?
Are the still disciples to be baptized?
Behold I’m am with you (the apostles) until the end

 

[theefaith]

Well certainly the wisdom of men who form "Sacred Tradition" cannot save.

How are we saved by calling on the name of the Lord in faith
and where does that faith come from? Hearing the Word Of God

Romans 10:
13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

then obey Mk 16:16
Acts 8
Faith and baptism
It’s not a bible study but a covenant with an outward sign, Christian baptism
Acts 2:38-39
The promise of the father
Ez 36:25-27
A sacred oath by God is a sacrament

 

[Wrangler]

matt 28:19
Are there still nations to be taught?
Are the still disciples to be baptized?
Behold I’m am with you (the apostles) until the end

Right. Not with the successors. Reading into Scripture what is not there gets RCC in trouble.

 

[theefaith]

Right. Not with the successors. Reading into Scripture what is not there gets RCC in trouble.

does Timothy succeed his spiritual father Paul? 2 Tim 1:2
Matthias succeed judus?
Acts 1:26

 

[Wrangler]

does Timothy succeed his spiritual father Paul? 2 Tim 1:2
Matthias succeed judus?
Acts 1:26

Jesus is the head of the Church per 1 Co 11:3. It disgusts me how traditional churches seek spiritual power & authority over others.

Traditional dogma is oppressive.

 

[theefaith]

Jesus is the head of the Church per 1 Co 11:3. It disgusts me how traditional churches seek spiritual power & authority over others.

Traditional dogma is oppressive.

dogma is catholic and divine faith revealed by God!

Jesus is the head of the church but he ascended to heaven

He put peter and his successors and the apostles and their successors in charge until His return Matt 16:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20

 

[theefaith]

Obviously, this claim is in error. God, who is perfect, made man, and mankind sinned. Man's sin did not make a perfect God flawed or deceptive.

Neither is it illogical for a perfect God to produce a flawed Church. God is no less perfect when Christians, who still live in the flesh, have sin and commit sin. And the Apostle John made it clear that if we try to deny our sinfulness we make God to be a liar. 1 John 1.



Just because you want the head of your own denomination to be supreme and more like Christ than any other doesn't make it true! That just makes you biased! The Pope is no better than you or me. He is flawed and still lives in his flesh. And the flesh has sin by definition.

This isn't an insult to Catholic leadership. This is true of all denominational leaders. This is true of us, as well.

We are all, individually, part of one Body, the Body of Christ. This means we're all equally joined to one who is perfect, namely Christ. It is Christ who is perfect, and never us, as long as we remain in these bodies of flesh. This is not an insult--just the truth.



Yes, Christians can and obviously have taught error. There is no perfect denomination where perfect teaching is taught. That is pure bias, and untrue. All men sin. All men are imperfect. All men have flawed teaching.

Obviously, faithful Christian leaders can be relied on whereas corrupt and heretical leaders cannot be relied on. Still, we need to judge even good leaders by apostolic teaching. If they say "trust me," don't. Check out their claims against the Scriptures, and don't be afraid to scrutinize their lives, to ensure they are living pure lives.

Eph 5: 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus is the head of the church but he ascended to heaven

No but.

He put peter and his successors and the apostles and their successors in charge until His return

Request denied. Jesus alone is our sole mediator to God. Obviously, I reject RCC claims to authority over their fellow man.

 

[theefaith]

No but.



Request denied. Jesus alone is our sole mediator to God. Obviously, I reject RCC claims to authority over their fellow man.

mediator of justice, savior salvation
But anyone in the communion of saints can pray and make intercession

James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

no king administers his own kingdom
Joseph under pharaoh and peter and the apostles under Christ Matt 16:18

 

[Randy Kluth]

I certainly wouldn't want to be "Bible alone"--the codifiers forgot to include (at least) books like Enoch (whereas it was considered worthy to be cited, thus treated as Scripture, in Jude 1:14), as well as the text, probably a midrash, Paul cited in 1 Corinthians 10 "the Rock that followed them". At the very least I would want to take seriously texts the "accepted" Scriptures relied on!

Not only that, but I remember a Russian Orthodox once proved to me that I should take the Apocrypha (what Protestants reject but the Catholics and Orthodox have accepted as divinely inspired) seriously!

I do say "Scripture is Supreme" though--especially the "Old Testament" Scriptures (they were what "Scripture" referred to in the NT writings)--it's God Himself speaking after all!

I don't know. We all quote things from imperfect sources only because the part we're quoting is relevant. Enoch is not, in my view, pure truth. So it should not be included in Scriptures, even though it may be useful as a source for ancient beliefs, and sometimes even ancient truths.

The basis upon which Scriptures are determined are, as follows (as I understand it). The Jewish Scriptures were determined by the Jews. They may have categorized their books differently from Christians, but in matters, such as Daniel, we do see Jesus quoting him, endowing him with prophetic authority.

But just quoting something does not automatically endow the writer with Scriptural authority. If he is a prophet, like Daniel, that is so. But claiming someone is the authentic "Enoch" is another thing entirely. Nobody is quoting "Enoch the Prophet."

As to the NT, Jesus specifically chose his Apostles precisely because they were to spend enough time with him personally that they could reliably convey true doctrine, without error, to others. This doesn't mean that the Apostles were capable of inerrant behavior--only that they could convey the truth, responsibly, from an inerrant person, namely Christ.

So those known in the Early Church to be apostles, like Peter, John, and Paul, could be trusted to convey truth that is pure for the Church. Paul didn't spend 3 years with Jesus, but he was called, as all acknowledge. And he did consult with the apostles of Christ.

When these apostles wrote their doctrines down, it was precisely for the purpose of preserving Christian truth, pure and reliable. And so, we would call their writings "Scriptures," when they were written precisely so as to codify Christian beliefs for the historic Church.

Other leaders, like James and Jude, may have been of the family of Jesus, and as such, were more than capable of conveying the pure truths of Jesus' teaching, even if Jude quoted Enoch. Mark and Luke were very close associates with the apostles, and gifted to be able to convey these same truths. Luke was an historian, capable of not just conveying truths of the Gospel, but also capable of conveying an accurate accounting of the apostles' adventures.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ez 36 is the promise of the father
Sacred oath or sacrament
Acts 2:38-39

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

I see nothing in Acts 2.38-39 to warrant conflating Eze 36 with Water Baptism. More than likely, it indirectly relates to the spiritual cleansing that Christ brings with the New Birth. This is Spirit Baptism, which Water Baptism merely symbolizes.

Eze 36 certainly does *not* establish a *ritual* of Baptismal cleansing! To insinuate that is far from the thought of that passage.

 

[Randy Kluth]

no pope is better that us, all are one in Christ
But the roles are different
Husband and wife may be equal but have different roles

I would agree with that. The Pope has a call and a gift to lead. The only problem I have is that the Catholic Church has gotten greedy over the centuries, claiming to be the exclusive source of Christian unity in the world. The idea that unity must be *organized,* like the Roman Empire was organized into an empire, is false and not Christian.

However, there is nothing wrong with organizing a Church organization, so as to facilitate the ministry of the Gospel. How well the Catholic Church is doing in that department is for God to judge--not me.

I would embrace the Catholic Church as a brother organization, along with many other Christian communions. The only problem I have with the RCC is that the organization has adopted many questionable traditions and beliefs that I don't feel jibe with Scriptures. And the Catholic Church never seems to receive correction from outside of its own communion.

That being said, I believe there are likely many good Christians in the Catholic Church. More than anything, I intensely dislike the exclusivity that the RCC represents in its own beliefs. This hardly makes for good relations among the many communions.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't know. We all quote things from imperfect sources only because the part we're quoting is relevant. Enoch is not, in my view, pure truth. So it should not be included in Scriptures, even though it may be useful as a source for ancient beliefs, and sometimes even ancient truths.

The basis upon which Scriptures are determined are, as follows (as I understand it). The Jewish Scriptures were determined by the Jews. They may have categorized their books differently from Christians, but in matters, such as Daniel, we do see Jesus quoting him, endowing him with prophetic authority.

But just quoting something does not automatically endow the writer with Scriptural authority. If he is a prophet, like Daniel, that is so. But claiming someone is the authentic "Enoch" is another thing entirely. Nobody is quoting "Enoch the Prophet."

As to the NT, Jesus specifically chose his Apostles precisely because they were to spend enough time with him personally that they could reliably convey true doctrine, without error, to others. This doesn't mean that the Apostles were capable of inerrant behavior--only that they could convey the truth, responsibly, from an inerrant person, namely Christ.

So those known in the Early Church to be apostles, like Peter, John, and Paul, could be trusted to convey truth that is pure for the Church. Paul didn't spend 3 years with Jesus, but he was called, as all acknowledge. And he did consult with the apostles of Christ.

When these apostles wrote their doctrines down, it was precisely for the purpose of preserving Christian truth, pure and reliable. And so, we would call their writings "Scriptures," when they were written precisely so as to codify Christian beliefs for the historic Church.

Other leaders, like James and Jude, may have been of the family of Jesus, and as such, were more than capable of conveying the pure truths of Jesus' teaching, even if Jude quoted Enoch. Mark and Luke were very close associates with the apostles, and gifted to be able to convey these same truths. Luke was an historian, capable of not just conveying truths of the Gospel, but also capable of conveying an accurate accounting of the apostles' adventures.

To quote from an imperfect source to appeal to unbelievers (as a means of outreach--the way Paul did on Mars Hill) is different than teaching doctrine to believers--when you teach doctrine to believers you have to be citing authoritative sources.

 

[Gary Urban]

mediator of justice, savior salvation
But anyone in the communion of saints can pray and make intercession

James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

no king administers his own kingdom
Joseph under pharaoh and peter and the apostles under Christ Matt 16:18

One mediator bewteen God and the Son of man jesus God not seen not a legion (3500 and rising)

John 6: 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Not to our sister in the Lord Mary.

Those who do say we do need a man to teach us it simply idenfies the working of the antichrists many mediators .they refuse to hed the warnings so that they can rather kep this oral traditon of sinful men

1 John2: 26-27 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

Like shown in Mathew 16 when Peter blasphemed the Son of man , Jesus in false pride claiming he was the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against . The father gave Jesus the chief apostle words to rebuke the spirit (singualr )of the anchrists (many) that worked in Peter . He fogave Peter of his blaphemy against the Son of man that window cloesd when Jesus disapeared .A 33 year window of opportunity .

Mathew 16: 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

Jesus venrated Peter and said I come to do your will .... Not

Mathew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

What did the lord not seen tell Peter to get behing him not seen and not Peter seen? Did Peter heed the warining in 1 John 2:27-28 ? even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

 

[Wrangler]

no king administers his own kingdom

There are many Christian administrators. They just don’t flow through Rome.

 

[Gary Urban]

no king administers his own kingdom
Joseph under pharaoh and peter and the apostles under Christ Matt 16:18

Joseph under our unseen eternal Father. Peter under the same when he was not denying Jesus over and over.

The foundation of the matter must be sought out

The kingdom of the faithles, athiest Jew as fools who gathered themselves together They did not beleive in a God not seen as one that does call men togehter. They in self righteous pride became jealous of the sourrunding Pagan nation(out of sight out of mind)

Our Lord as Father as King of kings and Lord of lords declared to Samauel its not you they reject as King reinging over them But me the Faithfull Creator of the universe . That period of time used a parable for the time present it came to a end at the time of the first century reformation. The veil is still rent.

1 Samauel 8:4-7 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

To quote from an imperfect source to appeal to unbelievers (as a means of outreach--the way Paul did on Mars Hill) is different than teaching doctrine to believers--when you teach doctrine to believers you have to be citing authoritative sources.

Paul was, it could be said, teaching doctrine when he cited pagans on Mars Hill. He was teaching the fact of the "unknown God." That disqualifies your point. Enoch could very well have stated something that was a known fact in the time of the author. Then, to quote Enoch is not to give credence to the book of Enoch, but only to recognize a truth that Enoch made popular.

 

[GracePeace]

Paul was, it could be said, teaching doctrine when he cited pagans on Mars Hill. He was teaching the fact of the "unknown God." That disqualifies your point. Enoch could very well have stated something that was a known fact in the time of the author. Then, to quote Enoch is not to give credence to the book of Enoch, but only to recognize a truth that Enoch made popular.

Mars Hill was Paul's self-confessed "becoming all things to all men to win souls" 1 Corinthians 9:19-22--he appealed to what EVER could move them toward Christ--he wouldn't have cited those sources teaching the Church, teaching the Church he cited SCRIPTURE.

 

[GracePeace]

Paul was, it could be said, teaching doctrine when he cited pagans on Mars Hill. He was teaching the fact of the "unknown God." That disqualifies your point. Enoch could very well have stated something that was a known fact in the time of the author. Then, to quote Enoch is not to give credence to the book of Enoch, but only to recognize a truth that Enoch made popular.

Do you realize what you're saying? Jude uses the title "prophet", one who hears God's Words and speaks them, to describe Enoch and his writings. Do not play games here.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Do you realize what you're saying? Jude uses the title "prophet", one who hears God's Words and speaks them, to describe Enoch and his writings. Do not play games here.

Not playing games. The passage in Jude indeed ascribes to Enoch the role of prophet who foretells the coming of the Lord. And yet, in the same passage, Mt. Sinai is mentioned, which likely hadn't even been named in the time of Enoch.

1 Enoch 1.4. And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai...

So my assumption is that Enoch probably did, by tradition, proclaim the coming of the Lord. But the book is pseudepigraphal, someone using some of Enoch's words, traditionally accepted as Enoch's words, even though the book itself is falsely ascribed to the prophet Enoch.

Who says "Prophet Enoch?" The Jews did not accept the book as canonical, and the Jews created the OT canon, for the most part.

But yes, Enoch likely prophesied before he was caught up to heaven, and he likely left some kind of tradition bearing the prophecy of the Lord's coming in judgment. After all, it was just prior to the Flood of Noah.

Although Jude says that Enoch prophesied, I'm not sure he is referred to, officially, as having the role of a prophet. For example, where in any of the books ascribed to him does he set forth his calling as a prophet?

On the other hand, the biblical prophets largely attribute their office of prophet to a divine calling. We see only a small part of that with Enoch. In the Bible we only read that he walked with God, and intimately knew God.

So he likely had insight into the future. But the book of Enoch may capture only a small part of what he actually said. We don't know how much the book may actually capture what Enoch prophesied.

As an aside, I don't believe that the real Enoch said angels and women had sexual relations. Jesus himself said that angels are asexual. We are told that in the resurrection we will be without gender, "like the angels."

Mat 22.30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

The Nephilim were likely larger human beings who used their strength in an aggressive, sinful way. Women apparently were attracted to them. These were conditions, possibly existing in Enoch's time, but in particular, in Noah's day.