Bible alone?

Markwsmith2020

Well-Known Member
Oct 8, 2017
471
76
63
dallas
✟9,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
How can you say the Bible alone is the only rule of faith?
The Bible came from the church and teaching authority Jesus Christ founded!
Mt 16:18 mt 28:19
And this teaching authority canonized the Bible, said which books are the inspired word of God, and which are not!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: football5680

Winken

Heimat
Supporter
Sep 24, 2010
5,709
3,505
✟168,847.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Whoa! Mark ........ you are straining at gnats, here! The Bible is the Word of God, penned long before the Jewish assemblies and the earthly message from Jesus declaring Grace through Faith! Yes, the books were canonized --- that doesn't change the Spiritual reality of the awesome message, especially after the Cross!!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Winken

Heimat
Supporter
Sep 24, 2010
5,709
3,505
✟168,847.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm sorry I meant the new testament!
Mark, Matthew was written entirely to a Jewish audience. It isn't until the calling of the Apostle Paul that we receive a message for both Jew and Gentile.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Markwsmith2020

Well-Known Member
Oct 8, 2017
471
76
63
dallas
✟9,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Reply to number 4
Really? My name is not James so the book of James in not addressed to me?
My name is not Hebrew either, or I'm not from Corinth, or Rome or the others so they are not for me either, no all scripture is inspired and for all,
Lk 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Mt 28 go into the whole world, Jn 3:16 world, all universal
 
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I like to think that those who created the canon of books were eliminating those that they were sure were NOT the work of God. There were a lot of fakeries back then too ;) Like modern day perversions that removed "Son of God" so the moslems wouldn't be offended?

The books that we have as "God's Word" do not contradict themselves in any way (though in English they might appear to, such a limited language!)
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I like to think that those who created the canon of books were eliminating those that they were sure were NOT the work of God. There were a lot of fakeries back then too ;) Like modern day perversions that removed "Son of God" so the moslems wouldn't be offended?

The books that we have as "God's Word" do not contradict themselves in any way (though in English they might appear to, such a limited language!)

One that has puzzled me is the letter to the Laodiceans. There is little doubt concerning its authorship by Paul. The primary reason for not including it was the fact that it so closely mirrors his letter to the Colossians where it, in fact, is mentioned.
 
Upvote 0

Winken

Heimat
Supporter
Sep 24, 2010
5,709
3,505
✟168,847.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One that has puzzled me is the letter to the Laodiceans. There is little doubt concerning its authorship by Paul. The primary reason for not including it was the fact that it so closely mirrors his letter to the Colossians where it, in fact, is mentioned.
I'm a little puzzled by that, as well. It reads well. I'm pleased that it references Colossians and is not in disagreement with it or the epistles of the Apostle Paul.
 
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,273
4,517
✟313,070.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
True. And we know that King James had influence into some of the 1611 version as well (the renaming of Jacob) though that could have been his common or "nick name?" and of course changed to please the King.

HOWEVER I believe that time has borne out that the Bible as we have it today truly keeps to the SPIRIT of God's WORD and shows people the way to Him. (I do not believe it "contains" the Word of God though--I believe it IS the Word of God, that He has maintained it for us, in spite of the differences in English lol)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1watchman

Overseer
Supporter
Oct 9, 2010
6,039
1,226
Washington State
✟358,358.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the Holy Bible is just that ---THE WORD OF GOD, so we need to see Christianity expressed as Bible-only without the innovations and deletions of men. I much value the venerable KJV as having been studied over 300-400 years by scholars and with only very minor changes to a few errors by works of faithful men. One might see a helpful understanding in the Scofield Reference Edition of the KJV for sound commentaries; though I am thankful for all faithful ref. to God's holy Word.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How can you say the Bible alone is the only rule of faith?
The Bible came from the church and teaching authority Jesus Christ founded!
Mt 16:18 mt 28:19
And this teaching authority canonized the Bible, said which books are the inspired word of God, and which are not!

The Bible DID NOT come from the church!!!!

The Bible came from God and was authorized by God and the canon of Scripture was ordained by God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The Bible DID NOT come from the church!!!!

Would you agree though that the church preceded the Bible, even if we were to disagree about which church that is?


The Bible came from God and was authorized by God and the canon of Scripture was ordained by God.

Could you please show where in Scripture God explicitly revealed what books are the inspired books of the Bible, and those that were not?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Would you agree though that the church preceded the Bible, even if we were to disagree about which church that is?




Could you please show where in Scripture God explicitly revealed what books are the inspired books of the Bible, and those that were not?

IMO, biblical history can be divided into two periods, roughly following the division of Old and New Testaments: the Age of the Law and the Church Age.

The Church was a "Mystery" in the Old Test. and was not known until it was given by God to Paul, so then the Church was in existence before the Bible. The Church Age is the period of time from Pentecost to the Rapture. It is called the Church Age because it covers the period in which the Church is on earth. It corresponds with the dispensation of Grace. Jesus has kept His promise, and His Church has now been growing for almost 2,000 years.

I understand why this is important to you as the Catholic Church claims to be a continuation of the original church. It does not admit to have begun any other time or place. But remember that the Bible predicts that there would be apostasy from the original church.

So YOU need to consider IMO is whether the Catholic church is the original church or an apostasy from it. To do this let us consider what the Catholic Church itself says about its authority and its organization.

The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, 110th Edition, p. 73................
"We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith ... because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation".

A Catechism for Adults, William Cogan, 1975 Edition, pp. 9,10..........................
"Do we get from the Bible alone all our knowledge and certainty about what God has told us? No, there is also Sacred Tradition ... Do you have to believe in Tradition? Yes, ... we are obliged to accept all the truths contained in the Bible and Tradition...".

The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, p. 82.................
"In early times, the Bible was read freely by the lay people ... No prohibitions were issued against the popular reading of the Bible. New dangers came in during the middle ages ... To meet these evils, the Councils of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV. required the bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial".


So, the point here is that the Catholic church contradicts Bible teaching about authority:

(1) It denies that the Bible can be understood by the average person.
(2) It denies that the Bible is a complete revelation of God's will for man.
(3) It teaches that people must follow tradition as well as the Bible.
(4) It has at times forbidden average people from studying the Bible.

The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, p176.................
The Church "may be defined as 'the society of the faithful ... who are under one head in heaven, viz. Christ, one head on earth, viz. the Pope...'".

A Catechism for Adults, William Cogan, 1975 Edition, pp. 55,56.....................
"The Pope, who is the bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ ... is the visible head of the whole Catholic Church" -

- A Catechism for Adults, William Cogan, 1975 Edition, p. 56.
"Does Jesus require us to follow the Pope in matters of religion? Yes, because obedience and loyalty to the Pope are among the chief requirements of Our Lord's plan for unity".

Canon Law," Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. IX, p61); http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm (7/2011).
"At the end of the fifth century the Roman Church was completely organized".

So the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible regarding headship:

(1) It teaches that obedience to the Pope is required.
(2) It teaches that the Pope is also head of the church, and the church has two heads.

Remember also that the Catholic Church forbids priests to marry and commands people to abstain from meats at certain holy days. This directly fulfills the prediction of apostasy in 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

These points, and many others that could be examined, show that the Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church, but fulfills the Bible predictions of apostasy. If the Catholic Church has different headship and follows different authority than did Jesus' original church, it cannot be Jesus' original church.

Because this apostasy was a gradual development, it is hard to name an exact date when the Catholic Church began to exist as a separate entity. However, since they claim the church was fully organized by the end of the fifth century AD, it is fair to conclude that the Catholic Church was fully formed as a separate church from the original church by the fifth century.

Now as for where in the Bible is a list of the books included in the Bible. I am pretty sure that everyone knows that is a trick question so as to allow you as a Catholic to tell all of us that it was the Catholic Church which did that.

However, the books of the Bible were always found in the mind of God as we see in 2 Tinothy 3:16.......
"ALL Scripture is given by the INSPIRATION of GOD.............".

What we have in the Bible is exactly what God always knew He would have produced.
It would be impossible to explain the origin of the Bible by any other means than to note that it claims to be a supernatural book guided by the Holy Spirit and supports its claim by the facts presented. Though human authors were used and the Bible has clear evidence of their human involvement in writing the Bible, they were so guided by the Holy Spirit that what they wrote was the truth as God wanted it to be said, and they were kept from the error of including anything that was extraneous or unnecessary.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Doug Melven
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
IMO, biblical history can be divided into two periods, roughly following the division of Old and New Testaments: the Age of the Law and the Church Age.

I can appreciate your personal opinions, Maj1, but I must also keep in mind, that's exactly what they are, 'personal opinions' and subject to error.... right? Now, as far as your "division of Old and New Testaments" theory, would you agree that God gave us first the nation of Israel, and only it through the Old Testament? And that God first gives us the Church, only through the New Testament?

For example, let's take a look at 1 Cor.1:1-2 shall we:


"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours."

Would you agree Maj1 that Paul is addressing his letter to the church at Corinth? If so,would you also agree there was … a church at Corinth? So once again, let's forget, for the time being, whether that church was the Catholic Church or some other church, okay. We wouldn't need to dispute that point at this time. The important point is that there was some church around, because Paul comes right out and says that is his audience, correct?

So, Maj1, the point I am trying to make is....at the time Paul was addressing this to the church at Corinth, there couldn't have been a book of "1 Corinthians" at the time? For if there were, it would be odd that Paul was writing 1 Cor., right? If one was to look at it in reason, logic could only agree that there was a church, but there was no completed New Testament.

My studies show the chronology of 1 Corinthians is at 57 a.d. and the very first book of the N.T. (James) was written around 50 A.D. Would you agree?

Maj1, I couldn't help but noticed how you ventured off topic on how the Catholic Church
contradicts this, and that and forbids priests to marry. (1 Tim. 4:1-3) I know it's off topic, but your fallacy/anti-Catholic myth must be addressed. I'll let Catholic Answers staff refute your fallacy on celibacy.

"There's a problem with your assertion. No Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests do so voluntarily with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is not an option for priests.

Rather than being forbidden to marry, Catholic priests freely sacrifice the option of marriage in favor of serving God more single-mindedly as chaste, There's another problem with your assertion. No Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests do so voluntarily with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is not an option for priests.

Rather than being forbidden to marry, Catholic priests freely sacrifice the option of marriage in favor of serving God more single-mindedly as chaste, celibate disciples. (Married men in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church are allowed to be ordained.) Also, have you forgotten the many Protestant pastors that converted to Catholicism, became Catholic priests and remained married? How come you never bring them up? I think we all know why.

Although marriage is lawful for all Christians, it's not mandatory. It's in harmony with the Gospel to abstain from marriage for the sake of serving Christ. Jesus tells us that some "have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom. Whoever can accept this [a life of celibacy] ought to accept it" (Mt 19:12).

Paul, himself a celibate priest, explains in 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 that "everything is lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is lawful for me but I will not let myself be dominated by anything." Here Paul warns against sexual immorality and exhorts Christians to "glorify God in their bodies" (1 Cor 6:20).

In the next chapter he encourages celibacy by explaining its eminent role in a life of chastity:

Now, in regard to the matters about which you wrote, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman, but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband. . .

Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am [celibate], but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another...Now to the unmarried and to widows I say, it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry because it is better to marry than to remain on fire. (1 Cor 7:1-2, 7-10) 1 Timothy 4:3, far from impugning the Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy, condemns those heresies (like the Manichaeans and Albigensians) which said marriage is evil because the body is evil. Paul wasn't warning Timothy about the Cathohlic discipline--after all, Paul himself followed it!"


Now as for where in the Bible is a list of the books included in the Bible. I am pretty sure that everyone knows that is a trick question so as to allow you as a Catholic to tell all of us that it was the Catholic Church which did that.

No trick question, just a question I have yet seen an adherent of the sola scriptura doctrine to answer. Don't you beleive that all we need to know as a sole rule of faith can be found in the bible? Seems to me, knowing what books God explicitly revealed to be inspired books of the Bible, and those that are not, should have been a very big in Scripture if one is to beleive in the Bible alone, right? So why can't you show a book, chapter or verse that reveals it? Would that mean some other authority other than the Bible comes into play?


However, the books of the Bible were always found in the mind of God as we see in 2 Tinothy 3:16.......
"ALL Scripture is given by the INSPIRATION of GOD.............".


Ah yes...... The classic proof text for sola Scriptura........ 2 Tim. 3.16 which says, ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.’

This is a great verse and Catholics would agree on the inspiration and usefulness of Scripture; but the verse itself doesn’t actually say the only authority is Scripture now does it? . So what is the foundational authority for our knowledge of the Truth? The N. T. actually points to the Church as that universal authority. You say the Bible is the Christian’s final authority and court of appeal? Well, Scripture and St. Paul says in Eph. 3.10 that ‘through the Church the manifold wisdom of God will be made known,’ and in I Tim. 3.15 he says it is the Church which is ‘the pillar and foundation of the Truth.’
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I can appreciate your personal opinions, Maj1, but I must also keep in mind, that's exactly what they are, 'personal opinions' and subject to error.... right? Now, as far as your "division of Old and New Testaments" theory, would you agree that God gave us first the nation of Israel, and only it through the Old Testament? And that God first gives us the Church, only through the New Testament?

For example, let's take a look at 1 Cor.1:1-2 shall we:


"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours."

Would you agree Maj1 that Paul is addressing his letter to the church at Corinth? If so,would you also agree there was … a church at Corinth? So once again, let's forget, for the time being, whether that church was the Catholic Church or some other church, okay. We wouldn't need to dispute that point at this time. The important point is that there was some church around, because Paul comes right out and says that is his audience, correct?

So, Maj1, the point I am trying to make is....at the time Paul was addressing this to the church at Corinth, there couldn't have been a book of "1 Corinthians" at the time? For if there were, it would be odd that Paul was writing 1 Cor., right? If one was to look at it in reason, logic could only agree that there was a church, but there was no completed New Testament.

My studies show the chronology of 1 Corinthians is at 57 a.d. and the very first book of the N.T. (James) was written around 50 A.D. Would you agree?

Maj1, I couldn't help but noticed how you ventured off topic on how the Catholic Church
contradicts this, and that and forbids priests to marry. (1 Tim. 4:1-3) I know it's off topic, but your fallacy/anti-Catholic myth must be addressed. I'll let Catholic Answers staff refute your fallacy on celibacy.

"There's a problem with your assertion. No Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests do so voluntarily with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is not an option for priests.

Rather than being forbidden to marry, Catholic priests freely sacrifice the option of marriage in favor of serving God more single-mindedly as chaste, There's another problem with your assertion. No Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests do so voluntarily with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is not an option for priests.

Rather than being forbidden to marry, Catholic priests freely sacrifice the option of marriage in favor of serving God more single-mindedly as chaste, celibate disciples. (Married men in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church are allowed to be ordained.) Also, have you forgotten the many Protestant pastors that converted to Catholicism, became Catholic priests and remained married? How come you never bring them up? I think we all know why.

Although marriage is lawful for all Christians, it's not mandatory. It's in harmony with the Gospel to abstain from marriage for the sake of serving Christ. Jesus tells us that some "have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom. Whoever can accept this [a life of celibacy] ought to accept it" (Mt 19:12).

Paul, himself a celibate priest, explains in 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 that "everything is lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is lawful for me but I will not let myself be dominated by anything." Here Paul warns against sexual immorality and exhorts Christians to "glorify God in their bodies" (1 Cor 6:20).

In the next chapter he encourages celibacy by explaining its eminent role in a life of chastity:

Now, in regard to the matters about which you wrote, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman, but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband. . .

Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am [celibate], but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another...Now to the unmarried and to widows I say, it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry because it is better to marry than to remain on fire. (1 Cor 7:1-2, 7-10) 1 Timothy 4:3, far from impugning the Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy, condemns those heresies (like the Manichaeans and Albigensians) which said marriage is evil because the body is evil. Paul wasn't warning Timothy about the Cathohlic discipline--after all, Paul himself followed it!"




No trick question, just a question I have yet seen an adherent of the sola scriptura doctrine to answer. Don't you beleive that all we need to know as a sole rule of faith can be found in the bible? Seems to me, knowing what books God explicitly revealed to be inspired books of the Bible, and those that are not, should have been a very big in Scripture if one is to beleive in the Bible alone, right? So why can't you show a book, chapter or verse that reveals it? Would that mean some other authority other than the Bible comes into play?





Ah yes...... The classic proof text for sola Scriptura........ 2 Tim. 3.16 which says, ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.’

This is a great verse and Catholics would agree on the inspiration and usefulness of Scripture; but the verse itself doesn’t actually say the only authority is Scripture now does it? . So what is the foundational authority for our knowledge of the Truth? The N. T. actually points to the Church as that universal authority. You say the Bible is the Christian’s final authority and court of appeal? Well, Scripture and St. Paul says in Eph. 3.10 that ‘through the Church the manifold wisdom of God will be made known,’ and in I Tim. 3.15 he says it is the Church which is ‘the pillar and foundation of the Truth.’

What I will confirm is in Acts 1:10-12...............
The first Christian church was located in Jerusalem. It began immediately after Jesus returned to heaven.

"And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They . . . said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.

You then said.............
"No Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests do so voluntarily with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is not an option for priests."

You can of course can devise any response and ex-plination you want to but the Bible says in 1 Tim. 3:1-2..............
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

You said..............
"but the verse itself doesn’t actually say the only authority is Scripture now does it? .'

YES it does!. GOD breathed says it all.

100. "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pp. 37-38)

My dear friend, can you please tell all of us where does the Lord mention that the Holy Spirit will come to guide only the Magisterium to all truth? This is another of those RCC teachings that did not originate with God, but was created within the dark chambers of men who were intent on power.

This peculiar arrogance of church hierarchies to proclaim that only they are able to accurately interpret God's Word to the masses seems not to conform to the Scriptural teaching concerning His role in the lives of believers.

In John 7:37-39, Christ speaks of the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit that will be imparted to all who believe on Him. No mention there of baptism, nor is there a mention of limiting that power to the benefit of only those within a particular assembly. In fact, it should be borne in mind that there was NO Christian church when Jesus made this statement.

In John 14:16,17, Messiah promises that the Father will send the Holy Spirit to indwell those who believe. Again, He makes no mention that only those who believe and are members of a Magisterium are to be hosts for the indwelling Spirit.

Is the message here that, while it is true that the Holy Spirit instructs believers and guides them "into all truth," He guides the members of the Magisterium into more or better truth?

Would you not agree that flies in the face of Acts 10:34.........
"And Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons".

Webster's Bible Translation.......
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons"

Weymouth New Testament. .........
"Then Peter began to speak, and said that God is no respecter of persons".

The membership of the Magisterium is comprised of men, fallible men, SINNERS. How is it that Catholic faithful can be seduced into rejecting the idea that fallible men can, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discover God's truth in the Scriptures, yet blindly accept that other fallible men can? A clear example of the blind leading the blind.

Again, I cannot comprehend the reasoning that leads some to argue that ordinary believers, indwelled with the Holy Spirit, are unable to properly understand the Word of God, while turning to other ordinary men for their interpretation of Scripture. Like the Pharisees, I reckon, they believe that only an elite few are empowered to fully understand what God has revealed to us in His Word.

Do you not wonder how many Pharisees are walking the streets of Heaven?
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You can of course can devise any response and ex-plination you want to but the Bible says in 1 Tim. 3:1-2..............
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

I'm guessing that your argument in using this passage, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders, and that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church, and unmarried man is not, correct? If this is so, your argument has many errors.

For example, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify. Also, by using your argument, that would mean a bishop whose wife or children died, had just become unqualified for ministry. Surly you'd agree such excessive literalism must be rejected.

You said..............
"but the verse itself doesn’t actually say the only authority is Scripture now does it? .'

YES it does!. GOD breathed says it all.

Say's who?


My dear friend, can you please tell all of us where does the Lord mention that the Holy Spirit will come to guide only the Magisterium to all truth?

Matthew 18:15-18.

Jesus guarantees that the Church’s definitive decisions would be backed up by the authority of heaven itself. So radical is this authority that he would also say of his Church, “If they receive you they receive me; if they reject you, they reject me” (Matt. 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; 4:11-15, etc.). This does not mean just some kind of authority, but an infallible authority, i.e., the authority of Christ himself.

Or do you prefure the Protestant idea that Jesus did not give us an infallible Church—that, instead, you are to get your Bibles out and argue verses and then be your own little popes, start your own churches if you cannot agree—as has been the practice of Protestantism for 500 years with no end in sight? Out of respect to the OP Major1, and If you'd like to discuss Priestly Celebacy or the Magisterium futher, by all means, start a new thread, for I'd be more than happy too.


Now getting back on topic, you said:

What I will confirm is in Acts 1:10-12...............
The first Christian church was located in Jerusalem.

But the question remains, which do you beleive came first, the Bible or the Church? The chronology of the N.T. shows that the book of Acts wasen't written until the year 64.

It began immediately after Jesus returned to heaven.

And would you agree that this Church is the pillar & bulwark of the truth as it say's in 1 Tim.3:15?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm guessing that your argument in using this passage, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders, and that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church, and unmarried man is not, correct? If this is so, your argument has many errors.

For example, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify. Also, by using your argument, that would mean a bishop whose wife or children died, had just become unqualified for ministry. Surly you'd agree such excessive literalism must be rejected.



Say's who?




Matthew 18:15-18.

Jesus guarantees that the Church’s definitive decisions would be backed up by the authority of heaven itself. So radical is this authority that he would also say of his Church, “If they receive you they receive me; if they reject you, they reject me” (Matt. 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; 4:11-15, etc.). This does not mean just some kind of authority, but an infallible authority, i.e., the authority of Christ himself.

Or do you prefure the Protestant idea that Jesus did not give us an infallible Church—that, instead, you are to get your Bibles out and argue verses and then be your own little popes, start your own churches if you cannot agree—as has been the practice of Protestantism for 500 years with no end in sight? Out of respect to the OP Major1, and If you'd like to discuss Priestly Celebacy or the Magisterium futher, by all means, start a new thread, for I'd be more than happy too.


Now getting back on topic, you said:



But the question remains, which do you beleive came first, the Bible or the Church? The chronology of the N.T. shows that the book of Acts wasen't written until the year 64.



And would you agree that this Church is the pillar & bulwark of the truth as it say's in 1 Tim.3:15?

My dear friend. You it seems are just a little confused here.

"I" personally do not have an argument at all. You are implying that I have a rule or I have a position when in fact that is not the case at all.

Please understand that all I am saying is that God said in His word that for a man to be a Bishop/Pastor/Overseer in His church a man had to be married.

1 Timothy 3:1-5.............
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?

You said to me............
"and that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church, and unmarried man is not, correct? If this is so, your argument has many errors."

Now we can clearly see that what YOU said is not true in any way. MY NAME is not on the letter Paul wrote to Timothy. NO MATTER what the circumstances were, NO MATTER what the interpretations are you choose to accept the literal words from GOD are............
'THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE".

Please understand that God has His own reasons and as of today He has not told me.
All I know is that He said it and He asks us to believe and accept it.

You asked me...........
"And would you agree that this Church is the pillar & bulwark of the truth as it say's in 1 Tim.3:15?"

NO!!!!

The Church, ALL churches are made up of sinners! EVERY church, Every man, EVERY Pope and yes MARY herself are sinners. There is no such thing as an INFALLIBE Church my dear friend.

Romans 3:23.........
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Romans 3:10..........
"As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one."

Psalms 14:3..........
"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one".

Do we just throw away those verses because they do not fit your theology???

Now for the authority of the Church compared to the Bible which you addressed.

MAN will always fail man! Man, All men are sinners and are all fallible. Churches are made up of those kinds of individuals.
However, The Bible is God’s Book and it is the Christian’s final court of appeal. It will never lead me into error in matters essential to Christian living or my salvation.

First, biblical interpretation poses the challenge to ‘know thyself’. I need to approach the enterprise with humility because I am apt to read the Bible through lenses coloured by my own personality type, my particular experiences, and a Western culture that doesn’t naturally understand the biblical world so that reads it world-view into the Bible.

Secondly, more positively – and this is most important – I can be confident that the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scripture and was promised in order to lead the Church ‘into all truth’ will do just that.

So then the answer is obvious. Which came first, the church or the Holy Spirit????
Do the Old Testament Scriptures qualify as Biblical?
Did the same God who inspired the Old Testament Scriptures do the same thing for the New Test. Scriptures?

What you are trying to do is what every other Catholic believer has tried to do since the Reformation my dear friend.

You as a Catholic by asking which came 1st, the church or the Bible are contending that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible. Now we can spend the rest of the year debating back and forth over something that we will never be able to reconcile between us.

I will tell you what I believe and that is in in reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever.

2 Tim. 3:16..........
"All scripture is inspired of God..."

2 Peter 1:21..........
"...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Matt. 24:35............
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

1 Peter 24:25.........
"The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever."

All I can say to you is that the Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Doug Melven
Upvote 0

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,576
59
Wyoming
✟75,708.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This looks like a double post to me.
Do you believe the Bible alone?
Other forums I have been a member of, do not allow double posting.

I am a firm believer that God had the power and used it to keep His Word intact.
He used people to do just that, just like He used people to write the Old and New Testaments.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You said to me............
"and that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church, and unmarried man is not, correct? If this is so, your argument has many errors."Now we can clearly see that what YOU said is not true in any way. MY NAME is not on the letter Paul wrote to Timothy.


Never said it was, but YOU did use that passage (1Tim.3:1-2) in your argument against Priestly Celebacy.

NO MATTER what the circumstances were, NO MATTER what the interpretations are you choose to accept the literal words from GOD are............'THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE".

Oh.... you mean the literal words from God like: Matt. 19:12 "Some are incapable of marriage ... some have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom." and 1 Cor. 4:14-16 "I became your father in Christ Jesus ... be imitators of me." and in 1 Cor. 7:7-8 where Paul encourages Corinthians to stay celibate as he is? Are these the the literal words from God you're talking about? Not to mention Jeremiah 16:1-4 where Jeremiah told not to take a wife and have children.1 Cor. 7:32-35 where St. Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers. 1 Tim. 5:9-12 pledge of celibacy taken by older widows, and1 Samuel 21:4-5, Isaiah 52:11.


Really? So you are saying that 1 Tim.3:15 is in error? Wow!

The Church, ALL churches are made up of sinners!

"God has only us sinful, rebellious humans to work with. Many bishops and priests have been lax in their duty, but they will stand accountable before God. The Bible says, "Let not many of you become teachers" (Jas. 3:1).

One can never judge a communion by the views of its members, or by polls and sociological surveys. If this is the proper method, then there is no Church on the earth. One always will find heterodoxy (as internally or externally defined) among the masses, or the people in the pews, in every Christian group.

Jesus assumed this would be the case, and spoke of it frequently (cf. Matt. 3:12; 13:24–30, 47–50; 22:1–14; 24:1–13; 25:14–30). Paul concurs (cf. Acts 20:30; 2 Tim. 2:15–20). As usual, the biblical writers anticipate what would be a stumbling block throughout Church history.

Sinners (and dissenters) are in the true Church. Even Judas was regarded as a true apostle (cf. Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; John 6:70–71; Acts 1:17). Even though dissent and corruption are troubling and scandalous of their own accord, the attainment of moral purity is irrelevant with regard to the determination of which Church is divinely established by Christ." (Catholicanswers)


EVERY Pope and yes MARY herself are sinners.

So your saying with no exceptions, including babies who do not have the use of reason, that obviously cannot sin. Or the Old Testament prophets who followed the Mosaic Law but hadn't heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. The mentaly challenged, and those very first Christians who didn't have a known Old and New Testament canon of Scriptures until 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome?


Romans 3:23........."for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Okay, then let me ask you this....Do you seek for God?

Do we just throw away those verses because they do not fit your theology???

Oh...... you mean like you did with 1 Tim.3:15?

MAN will always fail man! Man, All men are sinners and are all fallible. Churches are made up of those kinds of individuals.

Yep.....However God must be behind the Catholic Church, otherwise it would have died off hundreds of years ago.

However, The Bible is God’s Book and it is the Christian’s final court of appeal. It will never lead me into error in matters essential to Christian living or my salvation.

But your interpretation of it (the bible) could be in error, correct? That is unless you consider them infallible.

Secondly, more positively – and this is most important – I can be confident that the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scripture and was promised in order to lead the Church ‘into all truth’ will do just that.

And what church would that be... the infallible church of Major1? What if some other church disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible? Who's in error, yours or theirs?

Did the same God who inspired the Old Testament Scriptures do the same thing for the New Test. Scriptures?

Sure He did! But the question remains.... What came first....the Bible as we know it today (Old and New Testament) or the Church? When was it compiled? (year) And who compiled it? The Protestants, after the Reformation?

What you are trying to do is what every other Catholic believer has tried to do since the Reformation my dear friend.You as a Catholic by asking which came 1st, the church or the Bible are contending that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible.

Contending nothing....it's the truth! And we will continure to do so. As you well know, history is not a friend of Protestantism as it is with Catholicism. Let's take your non-denom church for example. When was it founded (year) and by whom?

I'll finish this post later, gotta go, have a tee- time to keep. :)





p.s. Ever consider using the quote feature on your posts? It would sure make it easier to read, and you wouldn't have to keep typing...."you said...I said" ect.
 
Upvote 0