Hocus Pocus ????

[WarEagle]

You mean the Bible, which is composed utterly of men's testimonies? I'm afraid you've got yourself a catch-22 here.

No, I've got a Roman Catholic who doesn't know that the Bible is the word of God, given by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Eek, there's that nasty catch-22 again.

No, there's no catch-22. The Bible is authoritative and objective. Men's testimonies are subjective.

Sure, but confining Christianity to the Bible is lazy theology.

Sorry you feel that way but I'm afraid I'm going to have to take God's word over yours.

 

[Trento]

As you well know, I didn't say that the Bible is the only authority, but the final authority, the authoritative authority.





Actually, the Bible tells us constantly to use scripture to determine such things as what is sound doctrine, whether a teacher, preacher, or prophet is from God, whether our actions are permissible before God, whether or not we're "in the faith", whether or not somebody has sinned, etc.



That's right. It is other than what is written in the Bible. However, it is not contradictory to what is written in the Bible and it is still subject to the objective standard of the Bible to determine whether or not it's true.

The Bible says the ultimate authority is the Church on earth Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. The Church was purchased with His blood- Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Jesus made the Church the head over all things.---Eph 1:22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, 1 Timothy, chapter 3

the Church pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Timothy, chapter 3




The Chief builder prayed for unity.

Christian Unity and the Role of Authority:

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by Trento
With Bible alone Christianity No one will come to the same conclusion because they use scripture to satisfy their individual purpose.

Then they're wrong and should be corrected.

Just out of curiosity, whom would have the authority to do this correcting?

 

[Dannager]

No, I've got a Roman Catholic who doesn't know that the Bible is the word of God, given by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

To men, who wrote it down. Which is, in fact, the very definition of testimony.

No, there's no catch-22. The Bible is authoritative and objective. Men's testimonies are subjective.

Again, catch-22. The Bible is composed of the testimonies of men. The Bible cannot be authoritative and objective in all things if it is made up of subjective testimonies.

Sorry you feel that way but I'm afraid I'm going to have to take God's word over yours.

Wow, I've never met a fundamentalist honest enough to admit that their Christianity is confined to the Bible. Props to you. Most of them try in vain to deny that until the run out of breath.

 

[WarEagle]

41844853]The Bible says the ultimate authority is the Church on earth Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. The Church was purchased with His blood- Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Jesus made the Church the head over all things.---Eph 1:22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, 1 Timothy, chapter 3

[/COLOR]

The verses you're citing deal with church discipline, not the authority of the church over the word of God.

 

[WarEagle]

To men, who wrote it down. Which is, in fact, the very definition of testimony.

No, that isn't what a testimony is. A testimony is a subjective account of an experience. The Bible was written as the Holy Spirit inspired men to take down the word of God.

Again, catch-22. The Bible is composed of the testimonies of men. The Bible cannot be authoritative and objective in all things if it is made up of subjective testimonies.

It isn't made up of subjective testimonies.

Wow, I've never met a fundamentalist honest enough to admit that their Christianity is confined to the Bible. Props to you. Most of them try in vain to deny that until the run out of breath.

Really? I've never heard a fundamentalist say that Christianity was informed by anything but the word of God.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Roman Catholics. I've yet to meet one who accepts the authority of the word of God over that of the word of men.

 

[WarEagle]

Originally Posted by Trento
With Bible alone Christianity No one will come to the same conclusion because they use scripture to satisfy their individual purpose.



Just out of curiosity, whom would have the authority to do this correcting?

It depends on what it is that we're correcting.

There are instances where the Bible tells us to correct one another. There are other instances where the Bible tells us that it's up to the church to correct them.

 

[narnia59]

It depends on what it is that we're correcting.

There are instances where the Bible tells us to correct one another. There are other instances where the Bible tells us that it's up to the church to correct them.

The first obvious question is if the Bible is the sole authority, why doesn't it correct?

Second, how can we correct one another if we can't even agree on the correct interpretation?

And which church would that be that should correct someone's false interpretation?

In other words, which of the 9000+ Protestant denominations should I turn to in order to be corrected correctly? Or of the other 20000 or so independents? Surely you don't think I will find the same answer regardless?

So, which one should I turn to? And don't say 'A Bible-based one', because there are many who claim this yet still interpret key Christian doctrines differently.

 

[PaladinValer]

No reply?

I assume that means you cannot rebut?

 

[Dannager]

No, that isn't what a testimony is. A testimony is a subjective account of an experience. The Bible was written as the Holy Spirit inspired men to take down the word of God.

Ah, yes, and in the process decided to write it as though it were the man in question dictating it. In fact, the holy spirit clearly completed the illusion by injecting contradiction in some of the accounts! That must be it!

It isn't made up of subjective testimonies.

Right. It was written by the holy spirit and just doctored into appearing to be subjective. That's much more parsimonious.

Really? I've never heard a fundamentalist say that Christianity was informed by anything but the word of God.

That's because you don't watch what happens when their beliefs get backed into the corner.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Roman Catholics. I've yet to meet one who accepts the authority of the word of God over that of the word of men.

We believe in reasonable balance. It drastically reduces the amount of mental gymnastics we need to engage in.

 

[WarEagle]

The first obvious question is if the Bible is the sole authority, why doesn't it correct?

The Bible is the standard. It is still up to the individual whether or not they want to conform to the standard.

Second, how can we correct one another if we can't even agree on the correct interpretation?

I wouldn't know. I can't speak for Roman Catholics, but we do agree so we're able to correct one another based on the authority of the word of God.

And which church would that be that should correct someone's false interpretation?

The Christian church.

In other words, which of the 9000+ Protestant denominations should I turn to in order to be corrected correctly?

You're a Roman Catholic so I wouldn't think you'd be interested in what Christians think, anyway.

Surely you don't think I will find the same answer regardless?

On the essentials, yes.

So, which one should I turn to? And don't say 'A Bible-based one', because there are many who claim this yet still interpret key Christian doctrines differently.

Really? Name them. Name any two Bible believing churches who differ on any of the doctrines the Bible defines as essential.

You can't do it.

I give this challenge to Roman Catholics all the time and all they can ever do is to either name a disagreement over a peripheral issue or matter of adiapheron or name a church that isn't even a Christian church.

 

[WarEagle]

Ah, yes, and in the process decided to write it as though it were the man in question dictating it.

Really? Name one.

In fact, the holy spirit clearly completed the illusion by injecting contradiction in some of the accounts! That must be it!

There are no contradictions in the Bible.

Right. It was written by the holy spirit and just doctored into appearing to be subjective. That's much more parsimonious.

It isn't subjective at all.

That's because you don't watch what happens when their beliefs get backed into the corner.

I hate to break this to you, but one of the defining tenets of fundamentalism is a belief that the word of God is the final authority on which matters of doctrine and practice are based. So if someone claims to believe otherwise, he either isn't a fundamentalist or is, at best, very confused about what a fundamentalist is.

We believe in reasonable balance. It drastically reduces the amount of mental gymnastics we need to engage in.

I wouldn't be so sure. I see Roman Catholics having to twist the word of God and torture logic and reason to make them fit their beliefs constantly.

 

[narnia59]

Quote:
So, which one should I turn to? And don't say 'A Bible-based one', because there are many who claim this yet still interpret key Christian doctrines differently.

Really? Name them. Name any two Bible believing churches who differ on any of the doctrines the Bible defines as essential.

You can't do it.

I give this challenge to Roman Catholics all the time and all they can ever do is to either name a disagreement over a peripheral issue or matter of adiapheron or name a church that isn't even a Christian church.

Let's start with the Missouri Synod Lutherans.

From their statement of faith:
Grace alone
God loves the people of the world, even though they are sinful, rebel against Him and do not deserve His love. He sent Jesus, His Son, to love the unlovable and save the ungodly.
Faith alone
By His suffering and death as the substitute for all people of all time, Jesus purchased and won forgiveness and eternal life for them. Those who hear this Good News and believe it have the eternal life that it offers. God creates faith in Christ and gives people forgiveness through Him.
Scripture alone
The Bible is God's inerrant and infallible Word, in which He reveals His Law and His Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the sole rule and norm for Christian doctrine.

Sound familiar? So they make the claim to be a grace alone, faith alone, scripture alone church.

Do your doctrines agree with all of theirs?

 

[Dannager]

I hate to break this to you, but one of the defining tenets of fundamentalism is a belief that the word of God is the final authority on which matters of doctrine and practice are based.

Not quite. Fundamentalism does hold that scripture is inerrant, but they usually claim that God is their final authority, not scripture. Of course, as you've already explained, the honest thing to do is to admit that scripture is the entirety of their Christianity. Many, however, still cling to the belief that God is the final authority for fundamentalists.

 

[narnia59]

Now here's a minister who runs an "evangelical outreach" association and claims that:
THE BIBLE is the inspired and inerrant Word of the Living God which contains everything we need to know regarding salvation (2 Tim. 3:15) and how to behave in order to please God (1 Thess. 4:1-8). It is final authority and is completely sufficient in itself for all matters dealing with doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:16,17). His Word is forever standing (Matt. 24:35). All correction and teaching must, therefore, be backed by the Bible to be valid.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/doctrine.htm

And guess what? He teache that OSAS is an unbiblical doctrine.

However, I bet if I go read the Southern Baptist site, they will refute that, yet also claim that the Bible is the sole authority in these matters.

 

[Dannager]

Now here's a minister who runs an "evangelical outreach" association and claims that:
THE BIBLE is the inspired and inerrant Word of the Living God which contains everything we need to know regarding salvation (2 Tim. 3:15) and how to behave in order to please God (1 Thess. 4:1-8). It is final authority and is completely sufficient in itself for all matters dealing with doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:16,17). His Word is forever standing (Matt. 24:35). All correction and teaching must, therefore, be backed by the Bible to be valid.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/doctrine.htm

And guess what? He teache that OSAS is an unbiblical doctrine.

However, I bet if I go read the Southern Baptist site, they will refute that, yet also claim that the Bible is the sole authority in these matters.

The flaming hoops of mental gymnastics.

 

[narnia59]

And the Churches of Christ:
Authority: The Churches of Christ claim the Bible as their sole authority. Their byword is "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent."

However,they also reject OSAS, and teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[narnia59]

And then there's the Presbyterians.

The Scripture is their sole source of authority.

However, they believe that baptism actually results in regeneration and therefore baptize infants (gasp).

 

[narnia59]

The United Churches of Christ are fun.

They, too believe that:
The Scripture is their source of authority.

However, they also state that:
But members are free to follow their own perception of God's will.


At least they're honest about that.

 

[sunlover1]

False; they are alive. To say they are dead is to embrace soul death, which isn't orthodox.

Souls cannot die, being life itself.

So who are these that are called "dead" ?