A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

GingerBeer · Nov 30, 2018

redleghunter said:
But you told us to read the epistles to find out what he meant by the traditions taught.

That is correct but you mistakenly interpreted that to mean that you'd find the unwritten traditions (those given by mouth or letter where the letter was not preserved as a part of scripture) in the Thessalonian letters.

redleghunter · Nov 30, 2018

chilehed said:
The task is to prove, from Scripture alone, that the Epistle of James is Apostolic.

I did as James claims so in the first verse.

chilehed said:
The only way we know which documents are Apostolic is through the testimony of the Church.

That is a way but not the only way. In fact the humble patristics would not make such a claim. In fact they would say something like this:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. (St Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III.1)

www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Once again I will bring up the question which went unanswered at least two times. Did the church make what we have of the 27 NT books (the OT canon already established before the time of Christ's First Advent) authoritative? Or did they recognize the authoritative and Divine nature of the works themselves and as such added them to the canon?

For example, do we need the Louvre to inform us the Mona Lisa is art and by extension Leonardo de Vinci was an artistic master? Or if a 21st century committee of expert musicians got together to review the works of Beethoven and then concluded that "his music is of the highest order." Thank you very much but I have ears that hear too!

And well before any council met or controversy ensued, the very early writings of the very early post apostolic bishops and theologians were quoting and/or paraphrasing the NT books and calling them Scriptures. This was because they knew the writings were apostolic and were divinely inspired.

What about the rejected works? If you want we can go down the list and in the majority if not all the cases the works were deemed to be written in the 2nd century well after the apostles were dead and home with the Lord. These works were unknown universally (catholic), with few manuscripts and in most cases taught things contrary to apostolic teachings or added to or subtracted from such NT era teachings. With most of the efforts of the early church was debating the Antilegomena books which had attestation of certain regions of the church but disputed in others.

BobRyan · Nov 30, 2018

GingerBeer said:
That's a rash conclusion to reach. How did you manage it. It isn't implied by anything in the Thessalonian letters or in anything written in my messages.

PS: the reference you gave has to be a mistake. 1 Thessalonians 2:15 says "who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men"

I am sure you must have intended this:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Sola scriptura is not the same thing as "all tradition is evil". Rather it is the testing of tradition and doctrine against the Bible.

redleghunter · Nov 30, 2018

GingerBeer said:
That is correct but you mistakenly interpreted that to mean that you'd find the unwritten traditions (those given by mouth or letter where the letter was not preserved as a part of scripture) in the Thessalonian letters.

Yet you told us to read the epistles to find out.

redleghunter · Nov 30, 2018

BobRyan said:
Sola scriptura is not the same thing as "all tradition is evil". Rather it is the testing of tradition and doctrine against the Bible.

Yes the infallible rule of faith to test truth claims. It is telling when one takes the point of not wanting Holy Scriptures to shine light on their machinations.

GingerBeer · Nov 30, 2018

redleghunter said:
Yet you told us to read the epistles to find out.

Well, now you know, if you read the Thessalonian letters. No need to complain that the traditions are not listed there, they were, after all already known to the Thessalonians by word of mouth or letter.

GingerBeer · Nov 30, 2018

BobRyan said:
Sola scriptura is not the same thing as "all tradition is evil". Rather it is the testing of tradition and doctrine against the Bible.

That's your version of it. Even if you think of it that way it does not make the idea true. It's just one of many ideas that people have about the bible and authority.

chilehed · Nov 30, 2018

redleghunter said:
I did as James claims so in the first verse.

I suggest you do a Google search on the term "begging the question".

redleghunter · Nov 30, 2018

chilehed said:
I suggest you do a Google search on the term "begging the question".

No you asked for the Scripture alone evidence James wrote James. I gave it. It is incumbent upon those rejecting his penned claim that it is not from him. There is plenty out there with regards to textual criticism which may cast some skepticism, but that is not operating from the testimony of the epistle itself.

And you were answered based on your false premise to begin with.

PeaceByJesus · Nov 30, 2018

chilehed said:
The task is to prove, from Scripture alone, that the Epistle of James is Apostolic. Only Apostolic works can be in the canon of Scripture, so quoting James itself begs the question. Like it or not, sola scriptura demands that in order to accomplish the task, you must rely only on works that you've been able to prove, from scripture alone, are supposed to be a part of the canon.

As PeaceByJesus said earlier:

"Knowing books are though to be from Moses or apostles comes is part of historical knowledge, in which everything from parents to magisterial offices are instrumental in passing this knowledge of attribution on."

The only way we know which documents are Apostolic is through the testimony of the Church. But the testimony of the Church on that matter isn't Scripture, and since one of the controversies of religion is "what works are Apostolic", adherence to sola scriptura demands that one not rely on that testimony and go to the documents themselves.

As the Westminster Confession says:
"8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."

How can you still fail to see the absurd and contradictory nature of your argument? You impose your concept of SS as requiring to prove all things from Scripture alone, as per a clear statement as what as to what of God, which means there can be no reliance upon anything else, including church councils, and which would no only require a list of inspired books but a list of every man of God who is to be obeyed, as well as those who are censured. But some could argue, absolutism, since Scripture enjoins obedience to men, then it must produce a list of them, as it must produce a list of books. And if SS disallow dependence upon anything external to it, then it must also supply the very necessary ability to hear or read.

Yet in contrast to this absolutism, SS does not mean everything must be clearly spelled out or formally provided, including all writings and men that are of God, but provides for discernment, with the fact that men can deduce what and who these being clearly evidenced in Scripture, and the basis for that, and for the church settling controversies.

For Scripture teaching the judicial role of the church in judging controversies etc., falls under the description of Scripture providing "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith," as seen by the fact that, contrary to your handicapped polemically tailored false concept of SS, the very section you quote from Westminster states "in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."

Likewise concerning men it states,

Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offences, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant and the seals thereof to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.(c)

Of course according a popular view of SS, this is also contrary to SS since Scripture is "the only authority." However, it commands general obedience to even the civil powers that be, though as with extrascriptural tradition, the basis for the licit nature of such required obedience must rest upon conformity with the established word of God, and its means of validation.

Thus what such are doing with SS as per Westminster is the same thing Caths often do with Scripture, which is imposing meanings based on an isolationist wresting of such.

Finally, we do not need to surely ascertain if the apostle James wrote James in order to now it is inspired of God any more than this judgment requires determining the actual author of all OT writings, though that can narrows down the candidates.

Like men of God, writings of God essentially owe their establishment among a people free to choose to their unique enduring Divine qualities and attestation, even if your mountain ally asserts there is not discernible difference in quality btwn Scripture and other writings.

PeaceByJesus · Nov 30, 2018

GingerBeer said:
Now if Paul spelled exactly what traditions he meant then you'd likely say "see, right there! Paul wrote the traditions down in the bible!!" which would be helpful for you and not for me but Paul was more clever than that. He didn't write the traditions down and now you're all upset because you can't say that. He left them unwritten in his letter. Consequently we're left with traditions whose content is accessible only by means of sources outside of the bible.

I understand the Cath position, but the fact is that you clearly said "You could read the two letters to the Thessalonians if you want to know what Paul says" as to what exactly" are "the traditions that he passed on to the Thessalonians."

Why not just admit that instead of denying it and stating the Cath position i already know of, and which your "You could read the two letters to the Thessalonians if you want to know what Paul says" is contrary to?

PeaceByJesus · Nov 30, 2018

GingerBeer said:
I have no idea what Catholics are contending against. Do you?

Well yes after a multitude posts. Does GingerBeer want to deny this also?

chilehed · Nov 30, 2018

redleghunter said:
No you asked for the Scripture alone evidence James wrote James. I gave it. It is incumbent upon those rejecting his penned claim that it is not from him.

?? LOL!! That's absolute lunacy.

PeaceByJesus said:
How can you still fail to see the absurdity of your argument? You impose your concept of SS as requiring to prove all things from Scripture alone...

Forgive me for taking the Westminster Confession for meaning what it actually says.

Rave on as you wish.

BNR32FAN · Nov 30, 2018

Jason0047 said:
A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

Sola Scriptura is the position that you can trust Scripture and Scripture alone as your sole authority for your faith and life. That the revelation known as the Bible can be trusted as your final word of authority for knowing God, salvation, true love, right living, and truth. Now, while there may be other books, letters, or epistles mentioned in Scripture that we don't have currently, they are not a part of the cannon of God's Word today, for there is no other written texts or revelations that is needed besides the Bible for all spiritual matters. For the Bible is unlike any other book in human history. It is clearly a book that is divine in origin that is backed up by many evidences in Science and History.

Now, some might object and point out that you can't prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture because such a position wouldn't have existed until the close of Revelation because the apostles were still speaking and writing the Word of God. However, that is not Sola Scriptura, though. Sola Scriptura is putting your faith in the written Word of God and believing it is suffient for all matters concerning one's faith in God. But what about the spoken Word of God? Does that not conflict with Sola Scriptura? No. First, the spoken Word of God was confirmed by the written Word of God (Acts 17:11). Second, one truth (the Spoken Word of God) was not in conflict with another truth (i.e. the Written Word of God). They both breathed in harmony until one passed away. In other words, picture it in your mind that there are two branches or sticks. One branch represents the Spoken Word and the other branch represents the Written Word. Now imagine one of those branches starting to vanish away out of thin air until it is gone. Is the one branch that remains any different just because the other branch is gone? Yeah, but wouldn't Sola Scriptura only exist until after the close of Revelation with Revelation 22:18-19 because you can't add anymore words to God's Word? No. This is not an exclusive teaching within Scripture; For the Bible teaches elsewhere that we are not to add to the written Word of God, too (Deuteronomy 4:2) (Deuteronomy 12:32) (Proverbs 30:5-6).

Anyways, the purpose of this study is to provide passages to help the reader in possessing Scripture so that they can trust in one divinely inspired written revelation or book (i.e. the Bible) for all spiritual matters in regards to having love, faith, and salvation in Him.

Also, before we examine this study, it is important to note that there are 3 major Words spoken about within Scripture that are connected to one another. There is the:

(1) Living Word of God (Jesus),
(2) Spoken Word of God (Either from God or His people),
(3) Written Word of God (Scripture).

All three are perfect and will endure for forever.
All three are tied together and are always connected.

The Biblical Case for Sola Scriptura:

I. All Scripture is Profitable for Doctrine, Correction, Righteous Teaching.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

A. All Scripture is profitable:

(a) for doctrine, (because)
~ (1) Scripture is sufficient for eternal life (1 John 5:13).
(b) for correction (and)
(c) for instruction in righteousness,
(It is sufficient in righteous training because):
~ (1) Scripture brings about hope (faith). (Romans 15:4).
~ (2) Scripture can be hid within one's heart so as not to sin against God. (Psalm 119:11)

All Scripture is profitable so that the man of God:
(d) May be perfect.
(e) Completely furnished unto all good works.
~ (1) For speaking Scripture provides spiritual nutrition or life (Matthew 4:4)
~ (2) For Scripture brings about joy (1 John 1:4)
(In fact, one of the fruits of the Spirit is joy) (Galatians 5:22)
All Scripture is profitable so that the man of God may be perfect and complete unto all good works. For Scripture is profitable in (1) doctrine, (2) correction, and (3) training in righteousness. All three of these things are essential to a person's faith in God and will lead the man of God to beperfect and completeunto all good works. Not some good works. But all good works. No oral Words of God alone were ever mentioned to do such a thing for us currently or during the time the "Written Word of God" came into being. No "Spoken Word of God" was ever mentioned to make the man of God perfect and complete unto all good works in addition to Scripture. This shows us that Scripture and Scripture alone is sufficient in and of itself because it will lead the man of God unto perfection and being fully furnished unto every good work.

For man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of his mouth that is from God. This is to live spiritually. For it is how one's faith even begins. So we gain faith and a life with God. We gain spiritual nutrients from speaking God's Word, whereby we can grow spiritually so as to conform to the image of Christ in being perfect and to allow Christ to do every good work within us. For you are what you eat. For the seed of the Word took root within your heart when you first believed and it grows within you to bring forth much fruit. However, how can you believe or grow if there is no "Written Word of God" which is nailed down in written form for all to agree?

II. Do Not Add or Take Away or Go Beyond What is Written:

A. Do Not Add or Take Away From God's Word:

Revelation 22:18-19
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Before you say it, yes, I am aware that Revelation 22:18-19 is speaking in context of the book of Revelation. However, we have to think about this logically, though. If you can't add any words to the book of Revelation, then you can't add any words to the Bible, too. Why? Well, the book of Revelation is the end of the Bible. It is the close of the whole book known as the Bible. It is the end. This is why I believe Revelation 22:18-19 is prophetic in the fact that it has a secondary fulfillment of speaking about "this book" in reference to "Revelation" in being a part of the book known as the Bible. How so? Well, there are several passages that have a double fulfillment to them. Here is one them:

Hosea 11:1
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."

First Fulfillment (That was in the Past):
Reference to the exodus of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.

Secondary Fulfillment (That was in the Future):
Reference to the Love of God calling his Son back to the comparative safety in Egypt so that he might die for his people. Matthew 2:15 - "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."
Also, in Revelation 2 and Revelation 3, Jesus gives His assessment of various churches. In these chapters, Jesus spoke of real churches that existed at the time when John written the book of Revelation, but also to the spiritual state of churches thru out time and today, too. For one of the churches is told to repent or they will go thru the tribulation. For obviously there has been Luke warm churches thru out history and today like the Laodician church.

Besides, there are hundreds of double fulfillment passages in the Bible. How so? Well, the "Typifications of Christ" in the Old Testament are essentially double fulfillment type passages (See this forum thread here to check them out). In fact, Jesus said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39). In other words, the OT Scriptures are a double fulfilment. For the Old Testament Scriptures spoke of the events of it's time and they also spoke about Jesus Christ, too; For Jesus said so Himself.

Also, consider the prophecy in the book of Daniel which was to seal up vision and prophecy versus the prophecy of the book of Revelation which is not sealed.
~ Daniel's End Times prophecy speaks of the events in Revelation. These prophecies of the End Times (that were in a book, i.e. scroll) were to be sealed up and closed (Daniel 12:4) because they were a far way off because Jesus still needed to come to save His people from their sins.

Revelation 22:10 mentions the spirit of prophecy that the book is open.
~ Now, the book is open whereby the things within Revelation (That Daniel also talks about) is exposed so that it will be fulfilled in bringing in the End with Christ's return.
For the entire book of Revelation is about the End Times leading up to Christ's return.
For the end of Revelation closes with Jesus saying,
"Surely I come quickly." (Revelation 22:20).

This means that we should be looking to Jesus return and not some new Revelation.
Paul said if we or an angel from heaven preach to you another gospel, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8). It is strange that both the Mormon and the Muslim religion are founded on a revelation that comes from angels. Yet the Bible warns against this very thing.

In fact, Jesus Christ commanded that we as believers were to preach this gospel unto all the world (or all nations) until Christ's return.

Matthew 24:14
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

This is also what we see in Revelation. For this same gospel message was still going out to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people (That is still an ongoing process today).

Revelation 14:6
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,"

In other words, God knew that the book of Revelation was going to be a part of the Bible. For surely God does not want us accepting new revelations or additional written works to add to the Bible like with the book of Mormon, the Koran, the added oral traditions of the RCC (Roman Catholic Church), and or the added writings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For it is not a coincidence that this warning in Revelation 22 is at the close of our Bibles. In other words, the new reader (Who is unaware that the Bible is made up of 66 books) would understand that you are not to add or subtract from the book (i.e. the Bible) that they were reading. For God obviously intended Scripture to be compiled into one book known as the Bible. For Christians today do regard the Bible as one book, for it is published as one book and it is not generally published into 66 individual books or a 66 book volume set. There are no 66 individual old manuscripts in their original form anymore; And God does not exist in the past abiding with these old manuscripts. These manuscripts are dead and gone. For they were written in a language that is dead. All these things are in the past. However, our God is not a God who just exists in the past. Our God is present and ever active with His people today. For our God is not the God of the dead but of the living. He works with His people who are alive with the written Revelation known as the Bible. Adding any new words to that revelation would be adding to God's Holy written Word as it currently exists with His people who live today.

B. Warning Against Altering God's Word is Confirmed in Old Testament:

Forbidding in altering God's Word in Revelation 22:18-19 can also be seen in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 12:32 which says not to add or take away from the words of God's commands. This was the written Word. The Law. God did not want His words being changed or altered in any way by adding or taking away from His words. In fact, if somebody were to try and destroy God's Word, we see that God would protect or preserve His Word. We see an example of this in Jeremiah 36:22-32 where king Jehoiakim burns the scroll in a fire (i.e. to eliminate God's Word) and then later God has Jeremiah re-create another roll that says the same thing. In other words, the written Word could not be destroyed by fire, just as the Living Word cannot be destroyed by fire. For the fourth who was in the fiery furnace with Daniel's friends was the Son of God (Daniel 3:25). For even when Moses had broken or shattered the tablets of stone that had the direct hand written Word of God (i.e. the Ten Commandments) on it (Exodus 32:19), the Lord our God had hand written them down on tablets of stone again (Exodus 34:1). For the Word of God cannot be broken (John 10:35). For Jesus said, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). Meaning, that Christ's words would be memorialized by being written down where they would not pass away (or be deleted by men).

C. Do Not Go Above What is Written on how we think about men:

The Bible says we are not to go above that which is written (concerning our thoughts of men). Granted, this verse is not all inclusive to the fact that we are not to go above Scripture on other matters, but what this passage does is show us a pattern that Scripture and Scripture alone is our sole authority on the faith and spiritual matters. It confirms that we are not to add or take away from God's Word.

1 Corinthians 4:6
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."

I’m more prone to believe in scriptura suprema than sola scriptura. Scriptura suprema means that the Bible is the supreme authority not the only authority. The church is also deemed worthy of expressing the messages and interpretations of the Bible in the scriptures. I think one example would be Acts 15 where the church met together to determine whether or not the circumcision of Gentile is necessary for salvation. They didn’t have scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision. They did know that there would be changes from the old covenant to the new covenant but they were not specifically detailed in the scriptures. In my personal opinion the scriptures give us all the knowledge we need to determine what is necessary for salvation and to serve and honor God. I think the church has gone into a lot of specifics in both doctrine and traditions that aren’t really necessary for serving God and receiving salvation but I also believe in most cases they are meant with good intentions to further honoring God beyond what is mentioned in the scriptures. I can’t say that about all church doctrines and traditions but I think the majority are.

PeaceByJesus · Nov 30, 2018

chilehed said:
??
Forgive me for taking the Westminster Confession for meaning what it actually says.
Rave on as you wish.

Which as shown, is actually contrary to what you impose in vainly "raving" on in order to defend your church.

PeaceByJesus · Nov 30, 2018

BNR32FAN said:
I’m more prone to believe in scriptura suprema than sola scriptura. Scriptura suprema means that the Bible is the supreme authority not the only authority..

See above, SS simply does not mean it is the "only authority," any more than it means Scripture provides every single thing needed for salvation and faith, in contrast to being the only infallible authority and providing all the counsel of God in the formal and material senses, including what may be deduced by the use of ordinary means, and the church settling controversies according the rules of the Word.

The church is also deemed worthy of expressing the messages and interpretations of the Bible in the scriptures. I think one example would be Acts 15 where the church met together to determine whether or not the circumcision of Gentile is necessary for salvation. They didn’t have scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision. They did know that there would be changes from the old covenant to the new covenant but they were not specifically detailed in the scriptures.

Wrong. They did have scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision. This inclusion of the Gentiles was prophesied, as was the New Covenant, and it was Scripture that provided the basic universal laws enjoined on them at the start, as well as the principal of growth in grace, and thus James invoked Scripture in providing the conclusive judgment, confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and his testimony and that of Paul and Barnabas.

In my personal opinion the scriptures give us all the knowledge we need to determine what is necessary for salvation and to serve and honor God.

That partly pertains to the material sense, such as discernment of spirits.

I think the church has gone into a lot of specifics in both doctrine and traditions that aren’t really necessary for serving God and receiving salvation but I also believe in most cases they are meant with good intentions to further honoring God beyond what is mentioned in the scriptures. I can’t say that about all church doctrines and traditions but I think the majority are

I concur, though some traditions not only lack Scriptural warrant but are contrary to Scripture.

BNR32FAN · Nov 30, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
See above, SS simply does not mean it is the "only authority," any more than it means Scripture provides every single thing needed for salvation and faith, in contrast to being the only infallible authority and providing all the counsel of God in the formal and material senses, including what may be deduced by the use of ordinary means, and the church settling controversies according the rules of the Word.

Wrong. They didn’t have scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision. This inclusion of the Gentiles was prophesied, as was the New Covenant, and it was Scripture that provided the basic universal laws enjoined on them at the start, as well as the principal of growth in grace, and thus James invoked Scripture in providing the conclusive judgment, confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and his testimony and that of Paul and Barnabas.

That partly pertains to the material sense, such as discernment of spirits.

I concur, though some traditions not only lack Scriptural warrant but are contrary to Scripture.

In the end James said it is my judgement because the scriptures did not specifically indicate that circumcision was not necessary for Gentiles.

BNR32FAN · Nov 30, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
I concur, though some traditions not only lack Scriptural warrant but are contrary to Scripture.

I agree with you there my friend.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 30, 2018

BNR32FAN said:
I’m more prone to believe in scriptura suprema than sola scriptura. Scriptura suprema means that the Bible is the supreme authority not the only authority. The church is also deemed worthy of expressing the messages and interpretations of the Bible in the scriptures. I think one example would be Acts 15 where the church met together to determine whether or not the circumcision of Gentile is necessary for salvation. They didn’t have scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision. They did know that there would be changes from the old covenant to the new covenant but they were not specifically detailed in the scriptures. In my personal opinion the scriptures give us all the knowledge we need to determine what is necessary for salvation and to serve and honor God. I think the church has gone into a lot of specifics in both doctrine and traditions that aren’t really necessary for serving God and receiving salvation but I also believe in most cases they are meant with good intentions to further honoring God beyond what is mentioned in the scriptures. I can’t say that about all church doctrines and traditions but I think the majority are.

But how do you know the church has authority on certain things? Is it just a hunch? No. You know this by reading about it and by your quoting that Scripture. Jesus gives us authority to declare openly to a person that their sins are retained or remitted based upon our witness of whether or not that person accepts or rejects the gospel. We have the keys to heaven to bind and loose is expressed in a similar way. It is an expression of judicially binding or loosing a person from guilt that can include our continued obedience to the teachings or commands of Jesus Christ and His followers under the New Testament (or New Covenant). For example: If a brother in a particular fellowship in a particular region had decided to justify that they can watch inappropriate content and promote that sin, and still be saved, the church body (fellowship gathering of believers) can bind this person by saying that their sin of justifying inappropriate content is not forgiven and they can no longer have fellowship with him. Now, later down the road, if this person is convicted by the Spirit to repent (seek the Lord Jesus Christ's forgiveness over justifying this sin) with them putting away this sin, then the church body can loose (release them from his guilt) and declare he is forgiven if they know that he confessed his sins to the Lord and he was truly sorry and grieved over doing this; And he can be restored back to fellowship. His guilt has been loosed. He is no longer bound from having fellowship with the church and he is no longer bound from having salvation in God's Kingdom. Our authority is not higher than the authority of Scripture (Mark 7:1-16). The men in Acts were basing their decision based upon the fulfillment of OT Scripture (of which you can read the quote of this OT passage in: Acts of the Apostles 15:15-18).

Side Note:

While I recently came to discover and understand what Jesus meant about how we can retain or remit sin (By meditating on the passage on my own with GOD), I would like to thank "@PeaceByJesus" for helping me to understand binding and loosing (Which is similar). Truly iron sharpens iron. Thank you "Peace By Jesus."

May God bless you.

PeaceByJesus · Nov 30, 2018

BNR32FAN said:
In the end James said it is my judgement because the scriptures did not specifically indicate that circumcision was not necessary for Gentiles.

That is a false, either/or fallacy, for James making his judgment simply does not mean that they "didn't have any scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision," for the judgement of James was based on Scripture manifestly being fulfilled, and the restrictions were also Scriptural.

A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Thank You Jesus!

Junior Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Veteran

Thank You Jesus!

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Veteran

He’s a Way of life

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Similar threads