Confused

[Dorothy Mae]

First study the actual history of the bible. Then let us talk You are way off base.

Marcions really was the first canon. Study it. And that Rome outlawed it. Read Irenaus. Why so if any canon will do? Early groups of books also include Shepard of Hermas. Others dont. Some the prooevangelium. It really was the church fathers who took the decisions of which were canonical! A decision not taken for centuries

And constantine had nothign to do with it. Other than to bring christianity out of hiding.

If you really want to learn about christianity in constantines time read "life of anthony" anasthasius, also study anasthasius writings. Which are catholic. WHich also shows nothing changed under constantine. Anasthasius (and council) also dismissed arianism, all at the time of the Creed. How so without authority?


Sola scriptura is an invention of reformationists.
Scripture without the right meaning attached is not the word of God.
So how is the meaning carried? Which is all about authority.

Every time the gospels and epistles were copied and cherished and taken elsewhere and believed to be inspired, they were canonized. It took centuries before anyone cared about what the Christians treasured as inspired. By that time, it was a done deal. I’ve read some of the extra pieces and they are not inspired, same as believers did through the centuries. They didn’t need a council to tell them what the Holy Spirit was already doing loud and clear. Christianity is a faith where we each have direct access to God and don’t need priests.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your understanding of the history of the canon is wrong.
Study it. It is fascinating.

Indeed the history of how the faith was passed on.
Indeed the very idea of sola scriptura is without historical foundation.

Not least because it would be almost two millenia before most could read and own a bible. Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" he said "do this" and "teach this"

Every time the gospels and epistles were copied and cherished and taken elsewhere and believed to be inspired, they were canonized. It took centuries before anyone cared about what the Christians treasured as inspired. By that time, it was a done deal. I’ve read some of the extra pieces and they are not inspired, same as believers did through the centuries. They didn’t need a council to tell them what the Holy Spirit was already doing loud and clear. Christianity is a faith where we each have direct access to God and don’t need priests.

 

[Major1]

Every time the gospels and epistles were copied and cherished and taken elsewhere and believed to be inspired, they were canonized. It took centuries before anyone cared about what the Christians treasured as inspired. By that time, it was a done deal. I’ve read some of the extra pieces and they are not inspired, same as believers did through the centuries. They didn’t need a council to tell them what the Holy Spirit was already doing loud and clear. Christianity is a faith where we each have direct access to God and don’t need priests.

Ephesians 2:18...…….
"For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father."

In fact we are priests ourselves!!!

1 Peter 2:5...…..
“You come to him as living stones, a spiritual house that is being built into a holy priesthood”.

 

[ExTiff]

Your understanding of the history of the canon is wrong.
Study it. It is fascinating.

Indeed the history of how the faith was passed on.
Indeed the very idea of sola scriptura is without historical foundation.

Not least because it would be almost two millenia before most could read and own a bible. Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" he said "do this" and "teach this"

Nevertheless, Jesus knew the scriptures well and backed up his doctrine by quoting them. He also added to them and reinterpreted them, so the New Testament is no less important when establishing doctrine than is the Old Testament.

Sola scriptura is a first class way of establishing basic Christian doctrine, though perhaps not the only way of discerning God's truth. It is nevertheless the most reliable. 2 Tim.3:16.

 

[Mountainmike]

We arrive at the usual issues.
1/ Scripture is ambiguous. Using and quoting exactly the same scriptures arrives at a myriad of protestant interpretations on every aspect of doctrine, baptism, eucharist, salvation, remarriage, end times. It is why they schism with monotony. So scripture is not enough

2/ The early christians were certainly not sola scriptura. Faith was handed down" paradosis" by word of mouth and letter, The word now translated as tradition which gives a wrong connotation. Study that tradition and you see the meaning of scripture.

3/ Finally there is authority. Clearly there in the bible which is the power to "bind and loose". Give definitive interpretation of matters of law and doctrine. It is by that power the church identified heresies, created the creed and selected the canon. It is why scripture says "the foundation of truth is the church" Which is the physical church "household of God"

So 4/ Sola scriptura is easily defeated by simple logic, history and even scripture refutes it, by identifiying authority outside of itself.

Like a table with three legs. If you lose authority and tradition, the table falls over. Scripture is not enough by itself. It is also fascinating, that many churches repudiate tradition , then create "articles or confessions" which are ...you guessed it, their version of tradition. Difference is these were man made at the reformation!

Nevertheless, Jesus knew the scriptures well and backed up his doctrine by quoting them. He also added to them and reinterpreted them, so the New Testament is no less important when establishing doctrine than is the Old Testament.

Sola scriptura is a first class way of establishing basic Christian doctrine, though perhaps not the only way of discerning God's truth. It is nevertheless the most reliable. 2 Tim.3:16.

 

[ExTiff]

We arrive at the usual issues.
1/ Scripture is ambiguous. Using and quoting exactly the same scriptures arrives at a myriad of protestant interpretations on every aspect of doctrine, baptism, eucharist, salvation, remarriage, end times. It is why they schism with monotony. So scripture is not enough

Schism results from 'unity of the Spirit' not being kept 'in the bond of peace'. We will inevitably have disagreements while we struggle to discern the truth, (nobody knows all truth), but should not let our individual quests for truth cause division among the spiritual family. There is no schism in the Devil's camp, because nobody there seeks the truth. Rom.16:17; 1 Cor.1:10; 1 Cor.3:3; 1 Cor.11:17-19. Matt.12:25-26. A mere lack of schism is not necessarily a sign of an uncorrupt church. In Satan's case it is a sign of a united and profound opposition to the truth.

2/ The early christians were certainly not sola scriptura. Faith was handed down" paradosis" by word of mouth and letter, The word now translated as tradition which gives a wrong connotation. Study that tradition and you see the meaning of scripture.

Traditions can be wrong too, particularly when the tradition conflicts with the Word. Matt.15:2-6. Here was a clear case of 'tradition' trying to overrule the written word of God, and therefore, that particular tradition, being condemned by Christ. So not all tradition is trustworthy.

3/ Finally there is authority. Clearly there in the bible which is the power to "bind and loose". Give definitive interpretation of matters of law and doctrine. It is by that power the church identified heresies, created the creed and selected the canon. It is why scripture says "the foundation of truth is the church" Which is the physical church "household of God"

It is certainly true that The Church produced the New Testament. The New Testament did not produce The Church, it shaped it, informed it, provided reliable written doctrine for it but it did not 'produce it'. Neither does it today, but it is a reliable guide to the church's conduct, when properly understood and taught under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.

So 4/ Sola scriptura is easily defeated by simple logic, history and even scripture refutes it, by identifiying authority outside of itself.

The most stable three legged stool is comprised of "Scripture", "Church Tradition" and "Common Sense". If any of the three are missing instability results.

Like a table with three legs. If you lose authority and tradition, the table falls over. Scripture is not enough by itself. It is also fascinating, that many churches repudiate tradition , then create "articles or confessions" which are ...you guessed it, their version of tradition. Difference is these were man made at the reformation!

The Reformation was an essential return to almost first principles concerning 'The Faith'. It probably did not go far enough, since The visible Church is still as yet 'wrinckled', 'spotted' and 'blemished'. Eph.5:27. Recent events are ample evidence that there is darnel in the wheatfield and some of the church resembles currently a 'pathetic, raddled old harlot', more than the future 'Bride of Christ' and I am not limiting my observation to just the Roman Catholic 'church' either.
.

 

[paul becke]

When I played rugby I trained relentlessly all day . when I drank and chases women I was a determined fellow. Do we not owe God our all . perhaps some people don't take anything very seriously. I do

Rugby can be beautiful at the higher levels, but it is a very brutal game. I would not want a son of mine, if I had one, to play rugby, but would not have many qualms about boxing, if he had any aptitude.

You must have been quite a fair player, practising so hard. I noticed that the soccer 'galacticos' all trained and trained and trained.

 

[Major1]

Rugby can be beautiful at the higher levels, but it is a very brutal game. I would not want a son of mine, if I had one, to play rugby, but would not have many qualms about boxing, if he had any aptitude.

You must have been quite a fair player, practising so hard. I noticed that the soccer 'galacticos' all trained and trained and trained.

Boxing is OK but rugby is too violent. Really????

 

[Major1]

Schism results from 'unity of the Spirit' not being kept 'in the bond of peace'. We will inevitably have disagreements while we struggle to discern the truth, (nobody knows all truth), but should not let our individual quests for truth cause division among the spiritual family. There is no schism in the Devil's camp, because nobody there seeks the truth. Rom.16:17; 1 Cor.1:10; 1 Cor.3:3; 1 Cor.11:17-19. Matt.12:25-26. A mere lack of schism is not necessarily a sign of an uncorrupt church. In Satan's case it is a sign of a united and profound opposition to the truth.


Traditions can be wrong too, particularly when the tradition conflicts with the Word. Matt.15:2-6. Here was a clear case of 'tradition' trying to overrule the written word of God, and therefore, that particular tradition, being condemned by Christ. So not all tradition is trustworthy.


It is certainly true that The Church produced the New Testament. The New Testament did not produce The Church, it shaped it, informed it, provided reliable written doctrine for it but it did not 'produce it'. Neither does it today, but it is a reliable guide to the church's conduct, when properly understood and taught under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.


The most stable three legged stool is comprised of "Scripture", "Church Tradition" and "Common Sense". If any of the three are missing instability results.


The Reformation was an essential return to almost first principles concerning 'The Faith'. It probably did not go far enough, since The visible Church is still as yet 'wrinckled', 'spotted' and 'blemished'. Eph.5:27. Recent events are ample evidence that there is darnel in the wheatfield and some of the church resembles currently a 'pathetic, raddled old harlot', more than the future 'Bride of Christ' and I am not limiting my observation to just the Roman Catholic 'church' either.
.

I think that the 3 legged thing was a concept attributed to Anglican theologian.
Richard Hooker ((1554-1600), was it not?

Personally I would change his opinion a little by saying...……….

#1) there is the gospel story, the overarching grand narrative found in the Scriptures. The Bible tells us about God’s creation of a good world which was subjected to futility because of human sin. God gave the Law to reveal his holiness and our need for a perfect sacrifice, which is provided by the death of Jesus Christ. This same Jesus will one day return to this earth to judge the living and the dead and thus renew all things. The gospel story is the Scriptural narrative that takes us from creation to new creation, climaxing with the death and resurrection of Jesus at the center.

#2). The second leg of the stool is the gospel announcement, namely that God – in the person of Jesus Christ – lived a perfect life in our place, bore the penalty for our sin through his death on the cross, was raised from the dead to launch God’s new creation, and is now exalted as Lord of the world. The announcement centers upon Jesus and what he has done to reconcile us to God. Our response to this announcement is to repent of our sins and put our complete trust in the work he has accomplished on our behalf.

#3). The third leg of the stool is the gospel community. Our response to the gospel announcement (repentance and faith) is not a one-time event, but a lifelong expression of gratitude that wells up from the bottom of our hearts and overflows into love for God and his beloved community. We are shaped by the gospel into the kind of people who herald the grace of God and spread the news of Jesus Christ. God has commissioned the church to be the community that embodies the message of the gospel. Through our corporate life together, we “obey the gospel” by living according to the truth of the message that Jesus Christ is our Savior and the Lord of the world.

 

[ExTiff]

I think that the 3 legged thing was a concept attributed to Anglican theologian.
Richard Hooker ((1554-1600), was it not?

Personally I would change his opinion a little by saying...……….

#1) there is the gospel story, the overarching grand narrative found in the Scriptures. The Bible tells us about God’s creation of a good world which was subjected to futility because of human sin. God gave the Law to reveal his holiness and our need for a perfect sacrifice, which is provided by the death of Jesus Christ. This same Jesus will one day return to this earth to judge the living and the dead and thus renew all things. The gospel story is the Scriptural narrative that takes us from creation to new creation, climaxing with the death and resurrection of Jesus at the center.

#2). The second leg of the stool is the gospel announcement, namely that God – in the person of Jesus Christ – lived a perfect life in our place, bore the penalty for our sin through his death on the cross, was raised from the dead to launch God’s new creation, and is now exalted as Lord of the world. The announcement centers upon Jesus and what he has done to reconcile us to God. Our response to this announcement is to repent of our sins and put our complete trust in the work he has accomplished on our behalf.

#3). The third leg of the stool is the gospel community. Our response to the gospel announcement (repentance and faith) is not a one-time event, but a lifelong expression of gratitude that wells up from the bottom of our hearts and overflows into love for God and his beloved community. We are shaped by the gospel into the kind of people who herald the grace of God and spread the news of Jesus Christ. God has commissioned the church to be the community that embodies the message of the gospel. Through our corporate life together, we “obey the gospel” by living according to the truth of the message that Jesus Christ is our Savior and the Lord of the world.

Far be it from me to gainsay anothers hard won revealed truth. Particularly another brother in Christ. As with all truth though it is merely a 'facet' of the whole multi-faceted gem of the TRUTH which is embodied in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is truly the crux about which the whole of human history revolves. All those who were being saved by the gospel in the 2000 years lead up to that pivotal event on Calvary's tree were being saved by believing in that coming sacrificial death of God's Son, their Promised Messiah. All those who are being saved or have been saved since that pivotal event in history, have and are being saved by God's Grace and faith in God's faithfulness in keeping His promises, as recorded in scripture and as witnessed to by His church, the church of His Son Jesus Christ.

Thus all, from Abraham to the Second coming of Christ are saved when they sincerely believe in God's Grace and are committed to aligning their life to Christ's teaching, (which is the spirit of the law, not the letter of it), purely out of gratitude to Him, for what He has done for them.
.

 

[Major1]

Far be it from me to gainsay anothers hard won revealed truth. Particularly another brother in Christ. As with all truth though it is merely a 'facet' of the whole multi-faceted gem of the TRUTH which is embodied in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is truly the crux about which the whole of human history revolves. All those who were being saved by the gospel in the 2000 years lead up to that pivotal event on Calvary's tree were being saved by believing in that coming sacrificial death of God's Son, their Promised Messiah. All those who are being saved or have been saved since that pivotal event in history, have and are being saved by God's Grace and faith in God's faithfulness in keeping His promises, as recorded in scripture and as witnessed to by His church, the church of His Son Jesus Christ.

Thus all, from Abraham to the Second coming of Christ are saved when they sincerely believe in God's Grace and are committed to aligning their life to Christ's teaching, (which is the spirit of the law, not the letter of it), purely out of gratitude to Him, for what He has done for them.
.

You are close.

Old testament saints were saved on CREDIT, looking forward to the coming of the Messiah.

New Testament saints are also saved on CREDIT looking backwards at the coming of the Messiah.

BOTH of those are rooted in FAITH. The only difference is that we know His name to be Jesus the Christ.

 

[ExTiff]

You are close.

Old testament saints were saved on CREDIT, looking forward to the coming of the Messiah.

New Testament saints are also saved on CREDIT looking backwards at the coming of the Messiah.

BOTH of those are rooted in FAITH. The only difference is that we know His name to be Jesus the Christ.

If we have faith, it must be of the same kind as was Abraham's 'faith'. That is faith in God's promises. Not just an intellectual acceptance that God or Christ exists, but a willing obedience to God's directives.
.

 

[Major1]

If we have faith, it must be of the same kind as was Abraham's 'faith'. That is faith in God's promises. Not just an intellectual acceptance that God or Christ exists, but a willing obedience to God's directives.
.

No argument from me.

Because we have accepted Christ as our Saviour and allowed Him to live through us, we then should have the desire to obey Him and do good works for Him.

Obedience and works are the by product of real salvation but they are not part of being saved or staying saved.

 

[ExTiff]

No argument from me.

Because we have accepted Christ as our Saviour and allowed Him to live through us, we then should have the desire to obey Him and do good works for Him.

Obedience and works are the by product of real salvation but they are not part of being saved or staying saved.

I confess to being a little less 'Armianist' than this. And just a little more 'Calvinist', without pitching my salvation tent completely in either camp. I guess that makes me a bit of a 'maverick believer'.

We don't 'accept Christ as our Saviour', we are given to Christ by His Father John 6:37, and He accepts us as His disciples and does not 'cast us out'. We are chosen by God, just as God in Christ chose and called His disciples. Luke 6:13; John 15:16; John 15:19; 2 Thess.2:13; John 13:18; Acts.9:15; Eph.1:4; 1 Pet.2:9; Revelation 17:14. In our natural state we are all incapable of 'choosing or accepting' Christ. It is by God's grace alone that we are enabled to repent and believe.

The righteous deeds of the Saints are indeed their own deeds but their righteousness is Christ's alone, Revelation 19:8, Gal.3:27, for without the Holy Spirit we are incapable to doing good for purely right reasons. We are being saved by the righteousness of faith. Rom.4:13; Gal.5:5; When our righteousness is obviously lacking or even completely absent, it is evidence of a missing or lacking faith, and without faith, Heb.11:6; we are in danger of losing sanctification. Heb.2:3. John 17:19; Acts 26:18. And without effort in striving for peace with others and holiness of life, none will see God. Heb.12:14.

Ash Wednesday started the season of Lent. A perfect time to reflect on our walk with God and allow Him to search and know us, then reveal to us our secret faults. Faults that are often even secrets from ourselves but are sometimes pradoxically quite obvious to others.
.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Catholic church post Vatican 2 has embraces Darwinian evolution thus not biblical .

There's nothing unbiblical about accepting scientific facts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mountainmike]

Nevertheless, Jesus knew the scriptures well and backed up his doctrine by quoting them. He also added to them and reinterpreted them, so the New Testament is no less important when establishing doctrine than is the Old Testament.

Sola scriptura is a first class way of establishing basic Christian doctrine, though perhaps not the only way of discerning God's truth. It is nevertheless the most reliable. 2 Tim.3:16.

Sola scriptura is a complete non starter. It is neither logical, historical nor scriptural.
Those that adhere to it should study history.
Worse - allowing all to decide their own doctrine has resulted in endless protestant division.

 

[ExTiff]

Sola scriptura is a complete non starter. It is neither logical, historical nor scriptural.
Those that adhere to it should study history.
Worse - allowing all to decide their own doctrine has resulted in endless protestant division.

Is Satan divided against himself? No? So is that evidence of righteousness and sound doctrine? No! The quest for truth is never ending and inevitably results in division wherever corruption exists. Matt.10:34-40.

The quest to preseve unity in a control freak, power hungry, materially wealthy church which places reputation above reform and repentance, is similar to Satan's desire for unified and undivided opposition to God. He thinks it to be more effective in achieving his objective and enforcing his will on others.
.

 

[Major1]

If we have faith, it must be of the same kind as was Abraham's 'faith'. That is faith in God's promises. Not just an intellectual acceptance that God or Christ exists, but a willing obedience to God's directives.
.

Of course that is true. We must have SAVING Faith in order to be saved.

When we then truly come to Christ by faith and accept Him as our Lord, THEN we should have the desire to do the works He directs us to.

Those are not works to be saved but are works out of LOVE because we are allowing Him to live through us.

 

[Major1]

There's nothing unbiblical about accepting scientific facts.

-CryptoLutheran

Isn't the bottom life truth that e simple reality of life is that all of us, irrespective of our views about God, base our lives on beliefs - on things that we cannot prove to be true, but believe to be trustworthy and reliable.

 

[Major1]

I confess to being a little less 'Armianist' than this. And just a little more 'Calvinist', without pitching my salvation tent completely in either camp. I guess that makes me a bit of a 'maverick believer'.

We don't 'accept Christ as our Saviour', we are given to Christ by His Father John 6:37, and He accepts us as His disciples and does not 'cast us out'. We are chosen by God, just as God in Christ chose and called His disciples. Luke 6:13; John 15:16; John 15:19; 2 Thess.2:13; John 13:18; Acts.9:15; Eph.1:4; 1 Pet.2:9; Revelation 17:14. In our natural state we are all incapable of 'choosing or accepting' Christ. It is by God's grace alone that we are enabled to repent and believe.

The righteous deeds of the Saints are indeed their own deeds but their righteousness is Christ's alone, Revelation 19:8, Gal.3:27, for without the Holy Spirit we are incapable to doing good for purely right reasons. We are being saved by the righteousness of faith. Rom.4:13; Gal.5:5; When our righteousness is obviously lacking or even completely absent, it is evidence of a missing or lacking faith, and without faith, Heb.11:6; we are in danger of losing sanctification. Heb.2:3. John 17:19; Acts 26:18. And without effort in striving for peace with others and holiness of life, none will see God. Heb.12:14.

Ash Wednesday started the season of Lent. A perfect time to reflect on our walk with God and allow Him to search and know us, then reveal to us our secret faults. Faults that are often even secrets from ourselves but are sometimes pradoxically quite obvious to others.
.

Christ was given to humanity, God knows who will accept Christ but that does not take away from our Freedom of Choice.

You can not LOSE Sanctification brother. Sanctification is a PROCESS. It is us learning and growing and being set aside for God's use. So then we are actually allowing Christ to Live through us which beomce the good works so many think are necessary.