A few questions for Protestants

[Fidelibus]

I am the way and the truth and the life. John 14:6

And you have an Anointing from the Holy One, so you all know the truth. 1 John 2:20

Thank you KIS144 for your response. However, these passages do not answer the question. So again, for a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[keepitsimple144]

Thank you KIS144 for your response. However, these passages do not answer the question. So again, for a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?

Why don't you just stop with the riddles and tell us the answer Fid.

Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

 

[JulieB67]

Why don't you just stop with the riddles and tell us the answer Fid.

The answer is the church which according to them is the CC. But to me the CC is far from the upholder and foundation of the "truth". Even my last post shows they haven't even been the upholder of Peter's simple truth. This along with many traditions the CC has added to the Word or created clearly tells me this verse has nothing to do with the CC. But I do know many protestant churches don't uphold certain truths as well.

That's why it's up to the individual to really seek out the truth as best as they can for themselves and go from there. It's good to have leaders/certain churches for fellowship but we have to check them out and back them up. In the end, the church is the many membered body that does uphold the truths that Christ/prophets/apostles brought forth. And we thankfully we have those truths. You already know this I'm sure. I'm just stating this for whomever.

Straight is the gate and narrow is the path and few find it...

 

[concretecamper]

Jesus told us to listen to the Church. He gave the Church authority over men Mat 18:17 and 1Tim 3:15.

Now, it is incumbent upon all Christians (validly and Trinitarian Baptized) to find the Church both Jesus Himself and Paul, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit was referring to

Hint: If the Church has Authority, the the Church IS NOT some invisible collection of so called believers.

 

[keepitsimple144]

In the end, the church is the many membered body that does uphold the truths that Christ/prophets/apostles brought forth. And we thankfully we have those truths. You already know this I'm sure. I'm just stating this for whomever.

Straight is the gate and narrow is the path and few find it...

Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. Ps 2:12

 

[jas3]

Of course we aren't privy to every spoken word, every miracle, etc of Christ's ministry. It would be impossible to convey everything. But that's not a license to add new traditions that make void the written word. I'm sure they wrote out everything one needs to know. I don't think the gospels are lacking in that regard. Why would John and others leave anything out we needed to know? They wouldn't- they were inspired by God. He was just letting us know there were many more things Christ did. And one thing we know for certain is that Christ was not about traditions of men.

You are assuming a lot here. John says he wrote his gospel "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." But we know that there's more to being a Christian than just believing that Jesus is the Christ - that's the first step, but not the only step, because "the demons also believe, and shudder."

My Dad and I used to argue over the Word and he would say to me, "Do you think you're smarter than Pastor...?

I recognize that that objection isn't a good one; there are Jews and Muslims and atheists who are extremely smart, but that doesn't make them right. What I was pointing out was not that there are Catholic or Orthodox theologians who are more educated than us, but that in general it's possible for anyone to make an error of judgment and therefore we can't rely on personal study alone.

Once he taught them about Christ, they were immediately baptized. Again, showing there is no initiation process.

The initiation process was them becoming disciples in the first place. You can't be a disciple if you don't know anything about what you're following. When Paul found out that they had some gaps in their knowledge, he filled them in and, yes, immediately baptized them.
The specifics of Acts 19 aside, catechesis taking a significant amount of time was the only way it was done for a millennium and a half. If you see that as a red flag then that has some serious implications for Christianity as a whole.

 

[keepitsimple144]

You are assuming a lot here. John says he wrote his gospel "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." But we know that there's more to being a Christian than just believing that Jesus is the Christ - that's the first step, but not the only step, because "the demons also believe, and shudder."

You can rest assured that demons don't have life in His name, "what does light have in common with darkness?" 2 Cor 6:14-16

I recognize that that objection isn't a good one; there are Jews and Muslims and atheists who are extremely smart, but that doesn't make them right. What I was pointing out was not that there are Catholic or Orthodox theologians who are more educated than us, but that in general it's possible for anyone to make an error of judgment and therefore we can't rely on personal study alone.

Extremely smart atheists studied themselves disapproved, since they can't grasp that God exists, non believing Jews stumbled and Muslims are under the illusion that they can get to Allah outside of Christ.

The initiation process was them becoming disciples in the first place. You can't be a disciple if you don't know anything about what you're following. When Paul found out that they had some gaps in their knowledge, he filled them in and, yes, immediately baptized them.
The specifics of Acts 19 aside, catechesis taking a significant amount of time was the only way it was done for a millennium and a half. If you see that as a red flag then that has some serious implications for Christianity as a whole.

The initiation process is saving faith. How else would they point others to Christ? Who became the source of eternal salvation Heb 5:9.

 

[JulieB67]

But we know that there's more to being a Christian than just believing that Jesus is the Christ - that's the first step, but not the only step, because "the demons also believe, and shudder."

Yes, I realize that and I often make the same point in other threads. But I've been a Christian for most of my life- the last 20 I would like to believe maturing as I grow, etc. What makes you think the Word can't help make all the steps and that some physical church instead is needed for the final steps? Especially when we are told the Word can fully "furnish" making one a mature Christian?

and therefore we can't rely on personal study alone.

Anyone can make an error that's correct. But you believe that a physical church would set you right before yourself? Even when we have this verse which urges us to study for ourselves? And we are part of the 'church" regardless.

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

Anyone with understanding can read chapter by chapter and verse by verse, knowing the context and how to apply it when studying, etc. Yes, errors and faulty interpretations can happen but a physical church can error in that regard as well. Even more so imo at times because they do put tradition over the written word even resulting in false doctrines.

What makes you so sure the church you are putting faith in is delivering you the truth? Tradition? History? If they teach you something are you backing it up in the word or trusting the traditions that have been handed down or even though some are contradicting the Word? In the early days the scriptures were searched to see if the word spoken was the truth. That should be a tradition that's carried down but it's not.

And I can see with my own eyes from the Word, how one is to behave. I take communion and so on. It's good to have fellowship, etc. But we are in charge of how we should study and how we receive the Word.

I've learned more (meat, not milk that most churches feed) on my own than I could ever learn sitting on a pew in a lifetime. The maturation happened because of what I did on my part through the Father/Son -not from a physical church. If you aren't moving past the milk, your church is of no profit to you. But it can be done. You can move past the milk into the meat and mature as a Christian in the Word. The veil was rent from top to bottom, symbolizing that anyone can go straight to the throne for guidance, help, growth, etc. That is a truth I know.

II Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

II Timothy 3:17 "That the man of God may be perfect, (mature) thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

We can be thoroughly furnished. Can a physical church thoroughly furnish in this day and age? I don't believe so. I believe they keep most on "milk". That's my belief. We can go straight to the Father. But not according to some. They would rather keep that control to themselves and have you go to them instead, even seeking forgiveness for sins which is certainly not biblical. Far from it.


God's Word has it all, the beginning- teaching us how this present age started, God's overall plan, the ending teaching us to be prepared for the end times and much much more on how to live our lives on this earth (Ecclesiastes for example is a great one) The Word should continue to grow for the person that's in it every day. My personal relationship with the Father has only grown in the last 20 years as well. Sure I have ups and downs but that is living in the flesh. But there's no way you can convince me that if I could trade the last 20 years sitting in "any" physical church that I would have learned more and had been more guided into truths. I would not believe it.

catechesis taking a significant amount of time was the only way it was done for a millennium and a half.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that after someone has gladly received the Word and honestly repented, the Lord adds them to the 'church" not man. It's God that gives the increase in the individual, not man. That's on God's time.

I know this thread is about promoting the CC as the authority and one real church but I don't believe it. Christ states by their fruits we will know them. They might have had good intentions in the early days but there are just too many false doctrines, some of their books have blatant errors even after putting together the canon of the rest and the list goes on. They certainly have branched off in their own direction and are still making decisions to this day (blessing same sex couples-not individuals) that are contrary to God. That right there tells me they are not part of the true church. Why would I put my trust and faith in that and believe that they can set me on the right course when they themselves have jumped off a cliff? And we haven't seen the end I'm sure of them molding themselves more into "this world" and not the next. The only thing we know for certain that will not change is God's Word.

ETA I will again state you will be hard pressed today to find a physical church that is the pillar and ground of the truth at all times.

In the early days they were all of one common mind. Today there are so many spread out and many have different beliefs, doctrines and so on. You would be better off setting up church in your home imo. The church certainly met at homes or wherever telling me that it's the body/assembly not the building.

Romans 16:5 "Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well beloved Epaenetus , who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ."

You don't greet a building, you greet the members.

 

[keepitsimple144]

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

We can go straight to the Father. But not according to some. They would rather keep that control to themselves and have you go to them instead, even seeking forgiveness for sins which is certainly not biblical. Far from it. Again, we can go straight to the throne through Christ.

And all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
So since we have a High Priest, Jesus, the Son of God, Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain help Heb 4:13-16

Draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith...for He who promised is faithful. Heb 10:19-23

 

[jas3]

What makes you think the Word can't help make all the steps and that some physical church instead is needed for the final steps? Especially when we are told the Word can fully "furnish" making one a mature Christian?

Because He established the church (Matt. 16) and instructed the Apostles in how it was supposed to function (Matt. 18). And the Church is called the Body of Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth. If it weren't divinely established, it would only be good for fellowship, which is nice, but not necessary. But since it was, we know that Jesus works through the Church he established.

But you believe that a physical church would set you right before yourself? Even when we have this verse which urges us to study for ourselves?

In general, yes. For one thing, I am not a native speaker of the languages the Bible was written in, so even to the extent that I know a little Greek, I don't understand the New Testament like the early Church Fathers did. Spiritually, I am not nearly as righteous or conformed to the will of God as the great doctors of the Church were. I have no reason to believe that I alone, by studying a set of documents identified by the Church as divinely inspired and translated by men at least 1500 years removed from the original authors, can come to an understanding different from what they taught and be right. 2 Tim. 2:15 doesn't contradict this - in the first place, "study" is just one possible translation of a word that can also mean "be diligent" or "make effort," so it's not clear that the verse even refers to textual study, but secondly, even if it does, it says nothing about preferring self study to church.

Anyone with understanding can read chapter by chapter and verse by verse, knowing the context and how to apply it when studying, etc.

Sure, but I don't think that level of understanding is nearly as common as you think it is. We have multiple examples from the Bible of people failing to have that kind of understanding: the Ethiopian eunuch openly told Philip that he couldn't understand Isaiah unless someone explained the meaning to him, and Peter wrote that there are many confusing things in Paul's letters that people twist to their destruction. And history shows us no shortage of heretical sects that came up with strange ideas about God; this situation didn't end during the apostolic age.

What makes you so sure the church you are putting faith in is delivering you the truth? Tradition? History? If they teach you something are you backing it up in the word or trusting the traditions that have been handed down or even though some are contradicting the Word?

Our Lord said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, that He would be with the Church "to the end of the age," and that the Spirit would lead the Apostles, the first bishops, "into all truth." I don't know of any traditions that "are contradicting the Word," although I'm sure that comes down to a difference in interpretation.

And I can see with my own eyes from the Word, how one is to behave. I take communion and so on. It's good to have fellowship, etc. But we are in charge of how we should study and how we receive the Word.

And what about where Christians are instructed not to forsake gathering together in Hebrews 10:25? Surely that's an important part of how one is to behave.

I've learned more (meat, not milk that most churches feed) on my own than I could ever learn sitting on a pew in a lifetime. The maturation happened because of what I did on my part through the Father/Son -not from a physical church.

I agree that most churches are only giving out milk. I felt that way too when I was Methodist - we'd get a lot of vague sermons or sermon series that were only tangentially related to the Scripture they referenced. I did have one pastor for a few years who was very good at explaining the original Greek, but he was an exception. I have not noticed that nearly as much since I started visiting Catholic and Orthodox churches, where the homily/sermon is supposed to be an exposition of the day's gospel reading.
Either way, we shouldn't expect all of our spiritual growth to happen sitting on a pew. We go to church on Sundays to worship God, not to get a comprehensive education. It's a house of worship, not a school.

I know this thread is about promoting the CC as the authority and one real church but I don't believe it. Christ states by their fruits we will know them. They might have had good intentions in the early days but there are just too many false doctrines, some of their books have blatant errors even after putting together the canon of the rest and the list goes on. They certainly have branched off in their own direction and are still making decisions to this day (blessing same sex couples-not individuals) that are contrary to God.

I know this probably doesn't make a difference, but I'm not Catholic. I'm still in the discernment process between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy after leaving Methodism and finding nothing but disappointment in other Protestant denominations. You do have a valid criticism of the idea of blessing same-sex couples - that has been a serious blow to Rome's credibility, but at least most of the bishops have either outright rejected that document or ignored it.

 

[Fidelibus]

Why don't you just stop with the riddles and tell us the answer Fid.

Riddles? What riddles are you speaking of? A riddle is a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game. With all respect, I do not consider the Word of God a game.

Keep in mind KIS144, the title of this thread is to ask Protestants such as yourself questions, and that is exactly what I did....... two questions to be exact.

"For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"

Maybe I should have asked that you to put more emphasis on the second question than the first. It is a yes or no question, if you were to answer 'yes' I would have asked you to please explain why, a 'no' answer would be asked the same.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[WilliamC]

Because He established the church (Matt. 16) and instructed the Apostles in how it was supposed to function (Matt. 18)

Hi Jas3. nice to meet you.
And where in the chapter do we see the instructions in how to function? Where are they instructed how to teach? Preach? Baptize?
its about( vss.15-20), a brother sinning against you. However, its not about passing judgement on any, as in power to forgive or not to forgive, as Jesus makes it clear that we must forgive every time. (vs. 35). Jesus also tells us that if the brother is not willing to repent, then we are to treat him as a publican or sinner. (As in ministering all over again to them. Jesus never turned anyone down but kept ministering). It doesn't mean kicking them to the curb.

. And the Church is called the Body of Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth.

We believers are ALL the church (ecclesia) filled with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:7) who teaches all truth ( Jn. 14:17,26; 16:13,14). John reminded believers that they were taught by the abiding in them, Holy Spirit, and did not need that any man teach them. (I Jn. 2:27)

. If it weren't divinely established, it would only be good for fellowship, which is nice, but not necessary. But since it was, we know that Jesus works through the Church he established.

The church is not a particular building. The kingdom of God is within us. (Lk. 17:21b) We don't go through the Church for Salvation, it is through Christ.

Jas3:
In general, yes. For one thing, I am not a native speaker of the languages the Bible was written in, so even to the extent that I know a little Greek, I don't understand the New Testament like the early Church Fathers did

They struggled too. (with their own interpretations.)

Jas3:

Spiritually, I am not nearly as righteous or conformed to the will of God as the great doctors of the Church were. I have no reason to believe that I alone, by studying a set of documents identified by the Church as divinely inspired and translated by men at least 1500 years removed from the original authors, can come to an understanding different from what they taught and be right.

They did a lot of twisting, forgery, antedating...so i wouldn't put all my eggs in a basket concerning them.

2 Tim. 2:15 doesn't contradict this - in the first place, "study" is just one possible translation of a word that can also mean "be diligent" or "make effort," so it's not clear that the verse even refers to textual study, but secondly, even if it does, it says nothing about preferring self study to church.

The scriptures say the Holy Spirit teaches all things concerning Jesus and what he said. We study to show ourselves approved. (II Tim.2:15)
And God tells us how to gain knowledge and understand doctrine in Is. 28:9-13. We search the Word of the Lord precept upon precept, line upon line ,here a little, there a little.

Sure, but I don't think that level of understanding is nearly as common as you think it is. We have multiple examples from the Bible of people failing to have that kind of understanding: the Ethiopian eunuch openly told Philip that he couldn't understand Isaiah unless someone explained the meaning to him, and Peter wrote that there are many confusing things in Paul's letters that people twist to their destruction. And history shows us no shortage of heretical sects that came up with strange ideas about God; this situation didn't end during the apostolic age.

Sure , the Ethiopian was not familiar with the Scriptures, he needed a quick synopsis. And Paul was ministering to Gentiles who did not know God's word either. But the Bereans tested all of what Paul preached by the Scriptures they obviously had.

Our Lord said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, that He would be with the Church "to the end of the age,"

Gates of hell? The gate of death (Ps.9:13) Sheol. Christ was assuring that even death could not prevail over Him. Those prisoners (saved dead) He would set free. (Ps. 102:20; Is. 42:7; 49:9; 61:1).

and that the Spirit would lead the Apostles, the first bishops, "into all truth."

All Christ's followers are lead and taught by the Holy Spirit. (I Jn. 2:20,27)

I don't know of any traditions that "are contradicting the Word," although I'm sure that comes down to a difference in interpretation.

The Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation, Eucharist, co-mediatrix, purgatory,....there is a long laundry list not Scriptural.

what about where Christians are instructed not to forsake gathering together in Hebrews 10:25? Surely that's an important part of how one is to behave.

We go to church all the time. I go several times a week.

I agree that most churches are only giving out milk. I felt that way too when I was Methodist - we'd get a lot of vague sermons or sermon series that were only tangentially related to the Scripture they referenced. I did have one pastor for a few years who was very good at explaining the original Greek, but he was an exception. I have not noticed that nearly as much since I started visiting Catholic and Orthodox churches, where the homily/sermon is supposed to be an exposition of the day's gospel reading.

I have been to many churches, and find the RCC seriously lacking in teaching Scriptural truths. Sorry.

Either way, we shouldn't expect all of our spiritual growth to happen sitting on a pew. We go to church on Sundays to worship God, not to get a comprehensive education. It's a house of worship, not a school.

The church can be an excellent place to learn more truth about Scriptures as well.

I know this probably doesn't make a difference, but I'm not Catholic.

Really? Sounds like your leaning towards it.

I'm still in the discernment process between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy after leaving Methodism and finding nothing but disappointment in other Protestant denominations.

Sounds like you have already made your mind up. The RCC is/was not the early church as she claims though. Their proof (the RCC) is that Peter was first bishop in Rome in 44/45 A.D., but the Scriptures do not agree with that assumption.. When Paul arrived in Rome (Acts 28) that after three days he called together the chief of the Jews,(17)but it was not Peter. The Jews had no understanding of the Scriptures about the kingdom of God, nor about the Christian church. (22,23). Peter has obviously never been the bishop over them.
And Paul, writing to the Gentile infant Church in Rome... told them that his goal, was that he wanted them to be established. (Rom. 1:11,13; 15:20)
So, no Peter.

You do have a valid criticism of the idea of blessing same-sex couples - that has been a serious blow to Rome's credibility, but at least most of the bishops have either outright rejected that document or ignored it.

ye shall know them by their fruits. Blessings!

 

[jas3]

However, its not about passing judgement on any, as in power to forgive or not to forgive, as Jesus makes it clear that we must forgive every time. (vs. 35). Jesus also tells us that if the brother is not willing to repent, then we are to treat him as a publican or sinner. (As in ministering all over again to them. Jesus never turned anyone down but kept ministering).

That is a novel interpretation, which is contradicted by Titus 3:10-11, where Paul says to "reject" or "shun" an unrepentant sinner after multiple warnings. Further, Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins (John 20:22-23). This power was used by Paul to excommunicate people (1 Cor. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:20). And Paul told the Corinthians in that same chapter not to associate with those who claim to be Christians but are notorious sinners (1 Cor. 5:9-13).

Christ was assuring that even death could not prevail over Him.

Christ is not the antecedent of "it" in Matt. 16:18.

Sounds like you have already made your mind up.

Not sure what would give you that impression.

 

[keepitsimple144]

Riddles? What riddles are you speaking of? A riddle is a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game. With all respect, I do not consider the Word of God a game.
Keep in mind KIS144, the title of this thread is to ask Protestants such as yourself questions, and that is exactly what I did....... two questions to be exact.
"For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"
Maybe I should have asked that you to put more emphasis on the second question than the first. It is a yes or no question, if you were to answer 'yes' I would have asked you to please explain why, a 'no' answer would be asked the same.
Have a Blessed Day!

The Bible indeed testifies of the truth but sadly some are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 3:7-8

1. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 8:32
2. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24
3. The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; John 14:17-19
4. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 1 John 2:20

 

[timothyu]

but sadly some are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

Well that would be the fault of any church not built upon God's truth as Jesus told the Apostles it would be while at the Gates of Hell.

 

[WilliamC]

That is a novel interpretation, which is contradicted by Titus 3:10-11, where Paul says to "reject" or "shun" an unrepentant sinner after multiple warnings.

Novel indeed. There is a big difference between heretic and a brother that trespasses against you. I dont believe dogma or going against revealed truth is the issue in( Matt. 18;15-17).

Further, Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins (John 20:22-23).

Matthew 9:6 "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins"..
This is a prerogative of God. Christ alone forgives sins, it is blasphemy to claim a prerogative of God (Mt. 9: 3; Mk. 2:5,7,10; Lk. 5:20,21,24). There are other renderings of blasphemy, but it is always in the same context.. one who places themselves in a role that only God can have hold.
Christ has the key of David, and no man shutteth, and no man openeth. (Rev. 3:7)
Christ is the surety, or guarantee of the New Covenant (Heb.7:22)
"In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins". (Col. 1:14) He reconciles (vs.20,21)
Who can forgive sins but God alone! Jesus would be guilty of blasphemy Himself if He placed the forgiveness of sins in mans hands.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.

This power was used by Paul to excommunicate people (1 Cor. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:20).

Doesn't speak of excommunication.

And Paul told the Corinthians in that same chapter not to associate with those who claim to be Christians but are notorious sinners (1 Cor. 5:9-13).

Not to company with fornicators. Those without God...put away. Hmm.

Christ is not the antecedent of "it" in Matt. 16:18.

Christ is the Rock, always has been. Ps. 78:35; Deut. 32:15; II Sam. 23:3; Ps. 42:9;Hab. 1:12; II Sam. 22:32; Ps. 78:35 etc....
The gates of hell? gates of death...Sheol (Ps. 9:13) to loose the prisoners appointed to death (Ps. 102:20) to bring out the prisoners in the prison house (Is. 42:7) as the covenant is Christ that he may say to the prisoners Go forth those in darkness. (Is. 49:8,9) Christ proclaims liberty to the captives of prison that are bound.
The gates of hell (those locked in death) will not prevail, because Christ is victorious on the cross, therefore setting those who are in Christ free!
Christ destroys the gates that kept the dead in Christ locked away. The cross set them free.

 

[jas3]

There is a big difference between heretic and a brother that trespasses against you. I dont believe dogma or going against revealed truth is the issue in( Matt. 18;15-17).

The verses I referenced aren't talking about heretics, they're referring to immoral people in general. They are not so easily separated from our Lord's instructions in Matt. 18.

Jesus would be guilty of blasphemy Himself if He placed the forgiveness of sins in mans hands.

Then how do you explain the verses I cited in John?

Doesn't speak of excommunication.

How does it not?

Christ is the Rock, always has been.

The rock in Matt. 16:18 is not the antecedent of "it" either.

 

[WilliamC]

The verses I referenced aren't talking about heretics, they're referring to immoral people in general. They are not so easily separated from our Lord's instructions in Matt. 18.

Titus 3:10-heretic.

Then how do you explain the verses I cited in John?

Blasphemy.

How does it not?

excommunication isnt mentioned.

The rock in Matt. 16:18 is not the antecedent of "it" either.

That is your interpretation.

 

[jas3]

Titus 3:10-heretic.

You're right, I should have been more clear, I was thinking of the other verses I referenced in that paragraph. The verse in Titus is referring to heretics, but 1 Cor. 5, for example, is about immoral people - Paul mentions "an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler."

Blasphemy.

Are you saying that what is written about Jesus in John's gospel is blasphemy?

excommunication isnt mentioned.

Paul talks about delivering people over to Satan and excluding them from the association of the church. That's excommunication.

That is your interpretation.

It is also the interpretation of most confessional Protestant denominations today, as well as the majority of Christian sources throughout history.

 

[keepitsimple144]

Well that would be the fault of any church not built upon God's truth as Jesus told the Apostles it would be while at the Gates of Hell.

You know the word that God sent to the people of Israel declaring peace through Jesus who is Lord of all [both Jews and Gentiles]. Acts 10:36
All the prophets testify about Him, ...and the Holy Spirit was poured upon those who heard/believed the word. Acts 10:43-44
For the kingdom of God...is peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.