What makes any given branch of Christianity an authority over my life?

[mjrhealth]

The fact that God did reveal this truth to the writers. What they say is what God said. Now if God has ''already'' used someone to explain what is written in Revelation's. Why would He use someone else? Why would He give someone else a different message? He did not give the revelation to Abraham or Moses. He gave it to John.

See KJ, the old testament was all about the flesh, God gave his prophets to teach the people, in teh new testament we are given teh Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth,'

Joh_16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

See god doesnt need prophets or teachers od priests or pastrors anymore for we are all,

Joh_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.

Because

1Jn_2:27 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.

And how do we know the truth

1Co_2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1Co_2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1Co_2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Jn_5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

See no onee on this forum, no not even I can teach any one anything, if you desire to know Jesus , there is only one way, and it will cost you as He said it would, The world is a hard place to learn the things of God.

In all His Love

 

[TopherNelson]

mjrhealth I agree.

 

[Barrd]

Had we not been given God's inspired Word, the Bible, none of us would have ever even heard of Jesus.
And after 2000 years, I'm afraid that some folks take Him, and His Word, for granted.

Rom 10:14 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?

Now, while it is true that some folks seem to worship the Bible more than the One Who gave it, it is also true that He gave it to us for a reason.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Isn't this verse telling us that the Scriptures (in this case, the Torah, or the Old Testament) testifies of Jesus? And yet the Jews did not recognize Him.

But what about those noble Bereans?

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They "searched the scriptures daily"....and what did they find? (Remember, this would still be referring to the Old Testament, since the New Testament had not been written yet.)

Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Evidently, they found eternal life....



The idea that "we don't need the Bible" is hopelessly naive, if not downright ridiculous. Sure, it is easy to take it for granted today, at least in the United States, where you can walk into a discount store and buy a copy for $5 or less.
But there are placed in the world, even to this day, where people are paying with their lives for the privilege of hearing God's Word.
It's so easy to criticize, when you can worship as you please, without government interference.

Enjoy the privilege while we have it....

 

[mjrhealth]

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

And yet the most important bit gets left out, this bit

for in them ye think ye have eternal life:

Andeven more importantly

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

I am sure you have all wondered why christainty is such a mess, why there are so many denomination all preaching a different Jesus, a different gospel, why there are so many false, prophets, pastors teachers evangelits all running around putting Gods people into bondage, lyong to them, corrupting teh word of God, deceving the people, and all using, guess what, the bible,

Have you not read

Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

And yet I see christians quoting different texts out of differnt bible, now if they where all teh word of God they would all be the same, so why does it happen.

Yet we today have much more than the prophets of old, God because of what Christ has done has given us, all those who come to Him, the Hly Spirirt, so he , God can teach us the truth, yet many will deny God to His face when He teaches them what is against"their " understanding.

Untill one comes to that place where they can admit that they know nothing that every thing they have learned is a lie, untill they empty themselves or allow God to empty them of all their , learing, wisdom, understanding. knowledge, God cannot teach you. Yet there are many who spend all their lives, studying the bible, learing the languages, going to bible college, watching videos, and than when the ystand before God and boast of all their learning, all He can sya is,

" with all your learning, all your wisdom. all your knowledge all your understaning and yet you still dont know Me."

There is only one way to know Jesus and that is to go to Jesus, all the rest is the flrsh, pride and arrogance.

1Co_8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

So easy to find christians who agree with teh bible yet still argue over it, harder to find christians who agree with Jesus.

In all His Love

 

[marksman]

When the New Testament Church came into being on the day of Pentecost, it was a sect of Judaism known as “The Way.” The religious leaders of the day didn’t like it because it was an affront to their rule and Rome didn’t like it because the followers of The way would not give allegiance to the Emporer. That meant they were under constant persecution from all and sundry.

When Constantine legalised it as a State religion that was the worst thing that could have happened because the backbone went out of it. God’s power was replaced by man’s rhetoric. Faith was replaced by the natural. The priesthood of all believers was replaced by the priesthood of the few. Ministry that was done by everyone was restricted to the few who qualified. The gifts of the spirit were replaced by man’s ability. In other words, it became a shell of its former self.

From this has grown a movement centred around organisation as opposed to organism where the real life of the church is. The scripture is clear “where two or three are gathered together in my name I am in the midst.” The church is not favourable to organism because they cannot control it and determine what it will and will not do.

Once you have man controlling things. God does not have a chance. He is an add on to what man chooses to do. If the Holy Spirit left your church, would you see a difference? Come to think of it, if the Holy Spirit got a look in in the first place, would things be done differently?

One of the most telling verses in scripture is the one where Jesus says “I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” Matthew 16:18. He did not say he would build your church or our church. He said he would build HIS church. I am convinced that while man is furiously trying to build their church, Jesus is quietly working in the background to build his church.

And more verses that relates to the end time which says “Not everyone that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23

Just like sleeping in a garage does not make you a car, going into a religious building does not make you a Christian even if you say the right things.

In the last days when persecution comes upon the church again, the two or three gathered in His name will become prominent again. That will be the true church meeting alongside the apostate church in their fancy buildings. The “never knew you” will not be able to control that church so the power of God will be back in operation again which will be a sign of the true church.

So does any branch of the church have authority over my life? Not unless it is HIS CHURCH. To submit yourself to any other sort of church is to submit yourself to man made religion and that will keep you in bondage and away from God and your life will be knowing about God but never actually knowing Him.

 

[TopherNelson]

When the New Testament Church came into being on the day of Pentecost, it was a sect of Judaism known as “The Way.” The religious leaders of the day didn’t like it because it was an affront to their rule and Rome didn’t like it because the followers of The way would not give allegiance to the Emporer. That meant they were under constant persecution from all and sundry.

When Constantine legalised it as a State religion that was the worst thing that could have happened because the backbone went out of it. God’s power was replaced by man’s rhetoric. Faith was replaced by the natural. The priesthood of all believers was replaced by the priesthood of the few. Ministry that was done by everyone was restricted to the few who qualified. The gifts of the spirit were replaced by man’s ability. In other words, it became a shell of its former self.

From this has grown a movement centred around organisation as opposed to organism where the real life of the church is. The scripture is clear “where two or three are gathered together in my name I am in the midst.” The church is not favourable to organism because they cannot control it and determine what it will and will not do.

Once you have man controlling things. God does not have a chance. He is an add on to what man chooses to do. If the Holy Spirit left your church, would you see a difference? Come to think of it, if the Holy Spirit got a look in in the first place, would things be done differently?

One of the most telling verses in scripture is the one where Jesus says “I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” Matthew 16:18. He did not say he would build your church or our church. He said he would build HIS church. I am convinced that while man is furiously trying to build their church, Jesus is quietly working in the background to build his church.

And more verses that relates to the end time which says “Not everyone that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23

Just like sleeping in a garage does not make you a car, going into a religious building does not make you a Christian even if you say the right things.

In the last days when persecution comes upon the church again, the two or three gathered in His name will become prominent again. That will be the true church meeting alongside the apostate church in their fancy buildings. The “never knew you” will not be able to control that church so the power of God will be back in operation again which will be a sign of the true church.

So does any branch of the church have authority over my life? Not unless it is HIS CHURCH. To submit yourself to any other sort of church is to submit yourself to man made religion and that will keep you in bondage and away from God and your life will be knowing about God but never actually knowing Him.

Finally! Someone that thinks like me!

 

[Wormwood]

So does any branch of the church have authority over my life? Not unless it is HIS CHURCH. To submit yourself to any other sort of church is to submit yourself to man made religion and that will keep you in bondage and away from God and your life will be knowing about God but never actually knowing Him.

So, I "submit" myself only to the local "Church" that agrees with me on all points. Then it is "His Church?" Maybe that is not what you mean, but it can certainly be interpreted that way. I get what you are saying, but that doesnt really sound like "submission" to me. It sounds more like, "If you think and do exactly as I think you should, then I will 'submit.'" It's like a child who tells the parent, "I'll obey you, but only when you are telling me to do what I want to do."

IMO, the church is built on the Word of God. It will always be an imperfect church and there will always be disagreements on debatable matters. Just look at the NT epistles. You see all kinds of carnality, sin and division. The true Church is not a church that is flawless and never has a disagreement. The true Church consists of those people who hold fast to the Word of God and seek to submit to each other in love in spite of differing opinions (even if they do it imperfectly). If a local church does not make the Word of God their source of authority and teaching, then we should avoid it. However, if the Church does make the Word of God their authority, then we should be open to fellowshipping with and submitting to its leadership...even if they do not agree with us on all our little peccadillos. The Word of God and service to other believers is more important than a group of people meeting all my standards of what a "true church" should look like.

 

[Barrd]

So, I "submit" myself only to the local "Church" that agrees with me on all points. Then it is "His Church?" Maybe that is not what you mean, but it can certainly be interpreted that way. I get what you are saying, but that doesnt really sound like "submission" to me. It sounds more like, "If you think and do exactly as I think you should, then I will 'submit.'" It's like a child who tells the parent, "I'll obey you, but only when you are telling me to do what I want to do."

IMO, the church is built on the Word of God. It will always be an imperfect church and there will always be disagreements on debatable matters. Just look at the NT epistles. You see all kinds of carnality, sin and division. The true Church is not a church that is flawless and never has a disagreement. The true Church consists of those people who hold fast to the Word of God and seek to submit to each other in love in spite of differing opinions (even if they do it imperfectly). If a local church does not make the Word of God their source of authority and teaching, then we should avoid it. However, if the Church does make the Word of God their authority, then we should be open to fellowshipping with and submitting to its leadership...even if they do not agree with us on all our little peccadillos. The Word of God and service to other believers is more important than a group of people meeting all my standards of what a "true church" should look like.

Amen.

 

[tom55]

Isn't the final authority Jesus Christ, Who is the Head of the church?
Look to Him, then, and not to men, for your authority.

Thru the inspiration of God It was man who gave us the bible. So how do I know that man got it right? And which bible is right? The Catholic bible or the Protestant bible? Which "man" do I accept as my authority in choosing what scripture is sacred? Martin Luther? Or the men who canonized the Catholic bible 1200 years before him?

Along with that dilemma I am personally dealing with is the dilemma of figuring out Matthew 18:15-18.What church do I "tell it too" if there is no authoritative church? AND what the heck does "....whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" statement mean? Who is "you"?? Someone has the authority and it sure the heck isn't Tom55. So who is it? There are thousands of different churches teaching many different things and they all can't be right and they all can't be wrong. If the scripture is 'the truth' and God inspired then SOMEONE has to know the truth and have the authority to bind and loose it. God didn't give us the truth and then abandon us, did he?

I am not asking you specifically The Barrb to answer these questions. I am just quoting you since it was your statement which got me to thinking about this since last month. Hopefully someone can help me thru this dilemma.

 

[Wormwood]

tom55,

Those are puzzling verses. Here is my take on them (though I could very well be wrong):

In my view, the original authors of the books of the Bible were inspired by God. Thus, the way to find the "right" Bible is to try to find translations that reflect, as closely as possible, what the original authors wrote. Now, we will never know exactly what they wrote because we do not have those original autographs. However, we have so many copies...hundreds of thousands...that we can know for almost certain. Most translations simply reflect variations of reading level, and not so much major differences in what verses actually say or teach. So, in my view, most translations pretty clearly articulate the heart and mind of God. It doesnt matter so much if the translation says, "only begotten Son" or "one and only Son" it is the concept behind the words that matters. Most translations portray the same ideas, just using different phrases in different reading levels to make it more understandable for different groups of people.

And which bible is right? The Catholic bible or the Protestant bible?

Of course the Protestant Bible! Lol. for 1200 years there was only one Bible (reflected in the books found both in the Catholic and Protestant Bible (which is the protestant bible)). However, around the 15-1600s, the Council of Trent decided to add the apocryphal books to the Scriptures by the Catholic church. This was done primarily as a reaction to the Protestants. As a Protestant, I have no problem with the Apocryphal books of the Catholic Bible. They are great books with great history that every Christian should read. I would not consider them inspired, but they definitely do not contradict anything that is found in the Protestant Bible. So, I dont think this is an issue to worry too much about.

Which "man" do I accept as my authority in choosing what scripture is sacred? Martin Luther? Or the men who canonized the Catholic bible 1200 years before him?

I am not sure what you mean here. Luther questioned the inspiration of a few books in the NT, but I dont know that he rejected them outright. I believe he held to the same Bible that was cannonized 1200 years prior. It was AFTER the protestant reformation that the apocryphal books were added to the Catholic Bible..if that is what you are getting at.

Along with that dilemma I am personally dealing with is the dilemma of figuring out Matthew 18:15-18.What church do I "tell it too" if there is no authoritative church?

This is a challenging issue that is not a simple answer for anyone. Personally, I believe in the autonomy of local churches. I think that is what we see in the NT. There was the church of Corinth, the church of Ephesus, etc. There does not seem to be a hierarchy to which those local churches answered or derived their own authority. Of course, a Catholic or Orthodox person would answer differently. Ultimately, I think we just have to do the best we can and recognize that people who are under the authority of the Word and are godly in character and are considered leaders in the local church should be held in respect and honor...even if you dont agree with their ecclesiology. If you are a member of a local church that honors the Word, you should not be afraid to put yourself under their leadership, imo.

"....whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" statement mean?

I believe this is specifically directed at the Apostles. Certainly, their refusal to spread the Gospel or accept the Gentiles would have kept people in their sins. Yet God used Peter and the Apostles (such as Paul) to share the Gospel with these various people groups and accept them into the church (see Acts 10). I think it can also be loosely applied to you and I since we also can withold the good news from people such that they will not receive forgiveness by believing on Jesus Christ. So, I dont think this is so much about a person "binding" by their own authority, but is more about our willingness to proclaim the gospel and thus loose people from their bondage to sin and the devil by the Gospel, which is the power of God that can loose/free/save them.

I got to run! Hope this helps!

 

[mjrhealth]

And what about Christ, this man, the Living Word of God,

Joh_1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Rev_19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Yes Him who gave up His holiness, His righteousness, who went to the cross of shame,

Heb_12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Him who gave His life and all that was good so that He could send you the Holy Spirit,

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

So that you could have the truth, yet men deny Him and all His works so that they can do it their way,when He go gave His all gave us the ,

Heb_8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Yes Christ

Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

But men would rather have,

The protestant way,
the JW way
The Catholic way,
the cristian way,
the Protestant way.
the Anglican way

and so on and so on, all whom "preach the bible" yet preach a different Jesus an unkown God and deny His very power

and as He said,

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men.

for it is written in the "bible"

2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

and it is by the Spirit,

Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

that we receive His life.

Our faith cost Him His lIfe,, does He not deserve first place above the "bible: and mens ways. He has given you all you need, what more does He need to do??

In all His Love

 

[Wormwood]

mjhealth,

I find it more than troublesome that anytime someone tries to make a point from the Bible, you diminish the Bible by saying its about "Spirit." Then, when someone tries to point in an area concering the Spirit, you start quoting the Bible. As I see it, this is nothing more than a clever way of idolizing yourself and making yourself the sole, chief authority on every matter in every discussion. There is no humility but a continual condescending air that comes from your posts that imagines the whole world in error and you alone in possession of the truth. The verses you quote about following Jesus (not the Bible) were spoken by Jesus as he was walking around in the Judea and Galilee in reference to the old covenant and law. The verses that pertain to following Jesus after his resurrection point very clearly to following the teachings of the Apostles that we now have in our New Testaments and walking in righteousness and humility (not based in personal feelings and imaginations).

“We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6, ESV)

 

[tom55]

tom55,

Those are puzzling verses. Here is my take on them (though I could very well be wrong):

In my view, the original authors of the books of the Bible were inspired by God. Thus, the way to find the "right" Bible is to try to find translations that reflect, as closely as possible, what the original authors wrote. Now, we will never know exactly what they wrote because we do not have those original autographs. However, we have so many copies...hundreds of thousands...that we can know for almost certain. Most translations simply reflect variations of reading level, and not so much major differences in what verses actually say or teach. So, in my view, most translations pretty clearly articulate the heart and mind of God. It doesnt matter so much if the translation says, "only begotten Son" or "one and only Son" it is the concept behind the words that matters. Most translations portray the same ideas, just using different phrases in different reading levels to make it more understandable for different groups of people.

I have come to like the Douya Rheims and Common English versions. The later helps me understand the former.


Of course the Protestant Bible! Lol. for 1200 years there was only one Bible (reflected in the books found both in the Catholic and Protestant Bible (which is the protestant bible)). However, around the 15-1600s, the Council of Trent decided to add the apocryphal books to the Scriptures by the Catholic church. This was done primarily as a reaction to the Protestants. As a Protestant, I have no problem with the Apocryphal books of the Catholic Bible. They are great books with great history that every Christian should read. I would not consider them inspired, but they definitely do not contradict anything that is found in the Protestant Bible. So, I dont think this is an issue to worry too much about.

I understand they don't contradict, however, there are some things in the Apocryphal that help support some denominations stances on issues. So if they are inspired then that is VERY important. I looked at the actual (translated) decrees from the Council of Trent (it is tough to read due to it being 'old English') and I have also read about the history of the bible and how it was put together. I never realized they had soooo many different letters they were reading in the early times of Christianity!! It seems the Catholic Church has generally always included the apocryphal books, they just re-affirmed them as being inspirational because of the reformation and the attempt to also remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. I wonder how much more of a mess Christianity would be in if Luther was able to remove those four books?? It seems to me the bible got changed by the reformation when the reformers should have just stuck to fixing some of the horrible things the Catholic church was doing. I find it hard to believe that God would let the early Christians read the wrong bible for 1200 years and then in the 1500's inspire one man to bring us the true inspired bible. The same guy who tried to throw out 4 other books. It's not logical to me!! ( I base allot of my decisions on logic and history)


I am not sure what you mean here. Luther questioned the inspiration of a few books in the NT, but I dont know that he rejected them outright. I believe he held to the same Bible that was cannonized 1200 years prior. It was AFTER the protestant reformation that the apocryphal books were added to the Catholic Bible..if that is what you are getting at.

He wanted to reject them but he didn't have enough fellow reformers supporting him is what I have read.


This is a challenging issue that is not a simple answer for anyone. Personally, I believe in the autonomy of local churches. I think that is what we see in the NT. There was the church of Corinth, the church of Ephesus, etc. There does not seem to be a hierarchy to which those local churches answered or derived their own authority. Of course, a Catholic or Orthodox person would answer differently. Ultimately, I think we just have to do the best we can and recognize that people who are under the authority of the Word and are godly in character and are considered leaders in the local church should be held in respect and honor...even if you dont agree with their ecclesiology. If you are a member of a local church that honors the Word, you should not be afraid to put yourself under their leadership, imo.

I have just started on researching the history of who had authority in the early church. It's very complicated!! It seems in Acts that Peter made the final decision on allot of things. It also seems authority was localized early on but they would also get together at times and work out some of their differences then there was a split with the East. If a certain sect didn't agree with what the early church leaders taught that sect would be cast out as heretics. It seems that eventually Rome became the dominate Church. I still have some more research to do though. I suspect because of Peter and Paul making that their home base?


I believe this is specifically directed at the Apostles. Certainly, their refusal to spread the Gospel or accept the Gentiles would have kept people in their sins. Yet God used Peter and the Apostles (such as Paul) to share the Gospel with these various people groups and accept them into the church (see Acts 10). I think it can also be loosely applied to you and I since we also can withold the good news from people such that they will not receive forgiveness by believing on Jesus Christ. So, I dont think this is so much about a person "binding" by their own authority, but is more about our willingness to proclaim the gospel and thus loose people from their bondage to sin and the devil by the Gospel, which is the power of God that can loose/free/save them.

Hmmmm.......I don't think I can go along with you on this one. I think it goes deeper than "willingness to proclaim the gospel and thus loose people from their bondage to sin and the devil by the Gospel, which is the power of God that can loose/free/save them". There are other references in scripture to binding a loosening. I need to dig into this a little more.

I got to run! Hope this helps!

 

[Wormwood]

I understand they don't contradict, however, there are some things in the Apocryphal that help support some denominations stances on issues. So if they are inspired then that is VERY important. I looked at the actual (translated) decrees from the Council of Trent (it is tough to read due to it being 'old English') and I have also read about the history of the bible and how it was put together. I never realized they had soooo many different letters they were reading in the early times of Christianity!! It seems the Catholic Church has generally always included the apocryphal books, they just re-affirmed them as being inspirational because of the reformation and the attempt to also remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

Well, in my estimation, that is the reason the Council of Trent officially adopted them into the Canon. This council gave the first "official ruling" on the matter, even though it was worded to sound as a "re-affirmation." It is simply not the case that early councils show that these books were officially considered part of the canon as a whole. The issue is that the MT does not have the books while the Septuagint does have them. Old Latin translations were made from the Septuagint and therefore included these books. Thus, they were often quoted by early Church Fathers. However, in Jerome's version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate), he followed the Hebrew canon and called the reader to see the other books as apocryphal. Not all copyists of Jerome communicated these notes. Yet what is clear, is that these books were designated by some as canonical at a later date. Even the Roman Catholic Catechism says, "Deuterocanonical does not mean Apocryphal, but simply 'later added to the canon."

In any event, there were many books read by early Christians, but the 27 books we have of the NT and the Hebrew Scriptures have always been accepted by Christians as inspired. However, the books known as the Apocrypha have always been disputed and there is early record of some accepting them and others designating them as apocryphal. Again, it should be noted that there is no "official" church ruling on the matter until the Council of Trent.

He wanted to reject them but he didn't have enough fellow reformers supporting him is what I have read.

Yes, Luther was an interesting character. I have not studied him in great detail. I know he questioned some of the books, but I dont know how much was just musing about troublesome passages and how much of it was really a concerted effort to get them removed from the canon. So, I guess I will have to plead ignorance on this one.

I have just started on researching the history of who had authority in the early church. It's very complicated!! It seems in Acts that Peter made the final decision on allot of things. It also seems authority was localized early on but they would also get together at times and work out some of their differences then there was a split with the East. If a certain sect didn't agree with what the early church leaders taught that sect would be cast out as heretics. It seems that eventually Rome became the dominate Church. I still have some more research to do though. I suspect because of Peter and Paul making that their home base?

Yes, it seems that Peter had a lot of authority as he seems to be the representative to go lay hands on people, especially as the Church began to embrace the Samaritans and later the Gentiles. Yet, it is interesting that it seems that James seems to be the primary leader at the council in Acts 15. Well, Rome was not Peter and Paul's home base. The whole history of the heirarchy of the early church is very complicated, and certainly my take on it would be different from some others.

In the Bible, we do not really see this heirarchy among cities. There was no sense that the church in Jerusalem had authority over the church in Corinth or whatever. Rather, it seems each congregation of Christians in their respective city was autonomous, with the Apostles being the foundation of all the churches. However, after the Apostles died, heresy began to creep into the church. Since there was no official canon at the time, there was debate about who to believe and where the authority of these matters was to be found. At that time, people began referring to the church Fathers as authority. For instance, someone would say, "I know the truth of the matter because I was a disciple of John." Thus, authority was conveyed by connection to the Apostles. However, over time, this hierarchical scheme became more political and as debates arouse some churches sought to have more authority over others. A big debate began to take place about which bishops were the primary authority and city prominence became a key factor. Rome and Jerusalem were the two primary locations that fought for supremacy. In my opinion, these issues are very unrelated to any teaching in the Bible and were much more political developments rather than anything we see as directed by God.

 

[tom55]

Well, in my estimation, that is the reason the Council of Trent officially adopted them into the Canon. This council gave the first "official ruling" on the matter, even though it was worded to sound as a "re-affirmation." It is simply not the case that early councils show that these books were officially considered part of the canon as a whole. The issue is that the MT does not have the books while the Septuagint does have them. Old Latin translations were made from the Septuagint and therefore included these books. Thus, they were often quoted by early Church Fathers. However, in Jerome's version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate), he followed the Hebrew canon and called the reader to see the other books as apocryphal. Not all copyists of Jerome communicated these notes. Yet what is clear, is that these books were designated by some as canonical at a later date. Even the Roman Catholic Catechism says, "Deuterocanonical does not mean Apocryphal, but simply 'later added to the canon."

I searched the Catechism website for "Deuterocanonical does not mean Apocryphal, but simply 'later added to the canon." and could not find what you are talking about. Could you be more specific so I can research this more?

In any event, there were many books read by early Christians, but the 27 books we have of the NT and the Hebrew Scriptures have always been accepted by Christians as inspired. However, the books known as the Apocrypha have always been disputed and there is early record of some accepting them and others designating them as apocryphal. Again, it should be noted that there is no "official" church ruling on the matter until the Council of Trent.

From what I have read they didn't need an "official ruling" until what had always been generally accepted was challenged by Luther. Kind of like the early Christians generally always believed that Mary was assumed into heaven and they celebrated that day in August. The Church didn't make it official (dogma) until the almost 2000 years later (1950). They always believed it, it just took a long time to make it "official". Kind of like two people living together for 25 years and they and everyone else consider themselves married. They then go and decide to make it "official" at the local courthouse. Nothing really changed. They just now have a piece of paper that says it's official even though it had been in practice for 25 years.

Yes, Luther was an interesting character. I have not studied him in great detail. I know he questioned some of the books, but I dont know how much was just musing about troublesome passages and how much of it was really a concerted effort to get them removed from the canon. So, I guess I will have to plead ignorance on this one.


Yes, it seems that Peter had a lot of authority as he seems to be the representative to go lay hands on people, especially as the Church began to embrace the Samaritans and later the Gentiles. Yet, it is interesting that it seems that James seems to be the primary leader at the council in Acts 15. Well, Rome was not Peter and Paul's home base. The whole history of the heirarchy of the early church is very complicated, and certainly my take on it would be different from some others.

In the Bible, we do not really see this heirarchy among cities. There was no sense that the church in Jerusalem had authority over the church in Corinth or whatever. Rather, it seems each congregation of Christians in their respective city was autonomous, with the Apostles being the foundation of all the churches. However, after the Apostles died, heresy began to creep into the church. Since there was no official canon at the time, there was debate about who to believe and where the authority of these matters was to be found. At that time, people began referring to the church Fathers as authority. For instance, someone would say, "I know the truth of the matter because I was a disciple of John." Thus, authority was conveyed by connection to the Apostles. However, over time, this hierarchical scheme became more political and as debates arouse some churches sought to have more authority over others. A big debate began to take place about which bishops were the primary authority and city prominence became a key factor. Rome and Jerusalem were the two primary locations that fought for supremacy. In my opinion, these issues are very unrelated to any teaching in the Bible and were much more political developments rather than anything we see as directed by God.

In scripture Peter is mentioned MUCH more often than the other apostles (only Jesus is mentioned as often), is always mentioned first or listed as 'Peter and the other's'. In Acts 15 from what I read Paul and Barnabas got into a dispute with the Church of Antioch and couldn't settle the issue so they went to the Church in Jerusalem where it appears Peter is the leader. After much discussion/debate Peter speaks FIRST on the matter and says what they believe in verse 11. Paul and Barnabas then talk some more and then in verse 14 James re-affirms what Peter said. Sounds like they took their differences to the Church (as scripture tells us to do) and it appears that "the Church" was in Jerusalem and that the church in Jerusalem was being led by Peter.

 

[Barrd]

In scripture Peter is mentioned MUCH more often than the other apostles (only Jesus is mentioned as often), is always mentioned first or listed as 'Peter and the other's'. In Acts 15 from what I read Paul and Barnabas got into a dispute with the Church of Antioch and couldn't settle the issue so they went to the Church in Jerusalem where it appears Peter is the leader. After much discussion/debate Peter speaks FIRST on the matter and says what they believe in verse 11. Paul and Barnabas then talk some more and then in verse 14 James re-affirms what Peter said. Sounds like they took their differences to the Church (as scripture tells us to do) and it appears that "the Church" was in Jerusalem and that the church in Jerusalem was being led by Peter.

Here is the scripture from Acts regarding this incident:

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Notice that the final decision was not handed down by Peter, but by James.

 

[StanJ]

James was indeed the defacto leader of the WAY in Jerusalem, given his relationship to Jesus as his brother. There was quite a bit of tension between James and Paul, and Peter was torn between the two although later in Peter's letters, He does FULLY support Paul as an Apostle.

 

[brakelite]

Despite the fact that we have so many Bibles which do differ in some important aspects, there is sufficient information within scripture to come to a working knowledge of the way to salvation. That way results in a relationship with the original author, Who by His Spirit will guide the honest seeker to further revelation of truth and His will for life.
Not having the scripture as the final authority to truth risks one being "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine", such as was the result of rejecting scripture in the early church and using the magisterium of Rome as final authority. The Roman church teaches that tradition trumps scripture, if the church says so, leaving the final word to mortal man. This resulted in the belief, held to this very day, that it is acceptable, even essential to the well-being of the church, that heretics and 'schismatics' may be tortured, and destroyed, if the end justifies the means.
The other extreme is relying on ones own interpretation to discern truth. Not being willing to submit to experience, wise counsel, and the agreement of those in leadership can lead to all manner of wild ideas and error, no less dangerous that what took place in Rome.
The balance is a combination of relationship, trusting in God to give understanding to what scripture is saying, and being humble enough to admit that others may have a better understanding.
A wonderful way I have found to discover truth is a small group, 4 or 5, sitting around the table with Bibles and concordance, and having at it. Prayer, study, prayer, investigation, trusting in the scripture to interpret itself, goes a long long way to establish comprehension. Not taking our opinion to the Bible and seeking to support what we already believe, but allowing the Bible to form our opinion. Then, and only then, we search out the church that best agrees with what we believe to be truth. If our search is honest, our study and seeking for the kingdom and God's righteousness our supreme goal, God will surely lead us to the right church.

 

[tom55]

Here is the scripture from Acts regarding this incident:

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Notice that the final decision was not handed down by Peter, but by James.

CLEARLY James is agreeing with what Peter had already declared when he said "Simeon hath declared" and then James was speaking for himself when he said "harken unto me". Peter was CLEARLY speaking for everyone at the meeting when he said "we believe". That decision, which was settled by the council, was then binding upon all believers. One man didn't hand down the decision. It was agreed upon by all AFTER Peter re-affirmed what they believe.

 

[Barrd]

Here is the scripture from Acts regarding this incident:

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Notice that the final decision was not handed down by Peter, but by James.

CLEARLY James is agreeing with what Peter had already declared when he said "Simeon hath declared" and then James was speaking for himself when he said "harken unto me". Peter was CLEARLY speaking for everyone at the meeting when he said "we believe". That decision, which was settled by the council, was then binding upon all believers. One man didn't hand down the decision. It was agreed upon by all AFTER Peter re-affirmed what they believe.

Peter had his say, and James listened....and then Paul also had his say, and James listened.
And then James spoke...and the decision was final.
Now, I've heard this referred to as a dispute between Paul and Peter, but I don't really see that here, either.
What I do see is that, at this time, the church in Jerusalem was thought of as the central authority, and that church was being led by James, the brother of Jesus.
As time passed, and the church grew, it seems that each church was more or less it's own authority. If they answered to anyone, it would be Paul, whose letters of instruction have come down to us, and are regarded by many as instructions for our churches in our own time.
I just do not see Peter as ever having been the final authority for the church in Acts, let alone the voice of Jesus Christ. I can't quite picture the Peter I read about in the Bible as a pope...

Now, my own opinion, as I have already stated, is that it is Jesus Christ who is the final authority for the Christian...no church, nor any church leader may usurp that authority. We each must answer to our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who is the Head of the Church.