Sound Doctrine

[Koey]

I think we are dancing around the obvious. The Bible is the only book that contains direct quotes of the founder of Christianity, Christ. I don't care when the books of the Bible were canonized. That is irrelevent, because it is Jesus we follow, not a canonization. Before his crucifixion, Jesus told his disciples to teach what he commanded. We can only find that in the Bible, not in the traditions of men.

 

[Rick Otto]

Is it?
"Oye vey... I give up. Go ahead and believe the bible came before Christ even."

Well, even YOU have to admit, the first half of it did.

 

[2cents]

I think we are dancing around the obvious. The Bible is the only book that contains direct quotes of the founder of Christianity, Christ. I don't care when the books of the Bible were canonized. That is irrelevent, because it is Jesus we follow, not a canonization. Before his crucifixion, Jesus told his disciples to teach what he commanded. We can only find that in the Bible, not in the traditions of men.

How about the Jesus Sutras? Gospel of Thomas? The Didache? All contain teachings of Jesus.

I would say that following the "Bible" only is also a tradition of man.

 

[2cents]

"This is a fact of history that no intellectually honest person can deny."

I honestly don't think it is a "fact of history".
I think it is a distortion of the facts of history, or at least a poor misstatement of them.


I have a bumper sticker that says:
"Ask me why I think the church gave us the bible is a distortion of historical fact."
(Ok, I made that last part up.)

Please explain the "facts of history" as you see them.

 

[Rick Otto]

would be that the first half of the bible, the Torah, was given to us by the Jews.
The NT was "cannonized", or collected, reviewed, and what was then decided as apocryphal was "edited" out by a council that was sponsored and motivated by a secular politician with secular interests invested in this growing religion.
If that hadn't been done then, we would probably have some bible versions that include the apocrypha & some denomonations that emphasize them.
Not realy much different that what we have now.

I am unfamiliar with the reason they did not include the book of Enoch. It's pretty good, have you looked at it?
It was qouted from and referenced a few times in the NT.

 

[Koey]

How about the Jesus Sutras? Gospel of Thomas? The Didache? All contain teachings of Jesus.

I would say that following the "Bible" only is also a tradition of man.

I agree with the counsel of the Church that the Gospels that we have are the reliable and authoritative ones. I'm awful glad that the Didache did not make it into the Bible. The writer sounds like a very legalistic and pedantic pastor.

I agree that "the Bible only" is a tradition of men. I hope that the words of Jesus, recorded in that Bible, are looked upon by us all as the most important doctrines (teachings) of the Church.

 

[2cents]

would be that the first half of the bible, the Torah, was given to us by the Jews.
The NT was "cannonized", or collected, reviewed, and what was then decided as apocryphal was "edited" out by a council that was sponsored and motivated by a secular politician with secular interests invested in this growing religion.
If that hadn't been done then, we would probably have some bible versions that include the apocrypha & some denomonations that emphasize them.
Not realy much different that what we have now.

I am unfamiliar with the reason they did not include the book of Enoch. It's pretty good, have you looked at it?
It was qouted from and referenced a few times in the NT.

Well my friend, our views seem to be similar. The book of Enoch is very interesting, and as you point out was quoted in the book of Jude. I am currently into the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs which relies upon Enoch/ Jewish/Christian teachings.

 

[2cents]

I agree with the counsel of the Church that the Gospels that we have are the reliable and authoritative ones. I'm awful glad that the Didache did not make it into the Bible. The writer sounds like a very legalistic and pedantic pastor.

I agree that "the Bible only" is a tradition of men. I hope that the words of Jesus, recorded in that Bible, are looked upon by us all as the most important doctrines (teachings) of the Church.

Thats very nice that you agree with the early Roman Catholics and the Emperor of Rome as to what should or should not be "scripture".

As to the Didache, which portion do you take as legalism? Most of it is either taken from the Bible or in principle agrees with the Bible. The Didache is also known as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. This document is believed by some (me included) to be the outcome of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, these are specific instructions to the Gentile Church as to their practice and Church organization. Read up a little and you will find that this document is as old as any found in the New Testament, these are the teachings of the earliest Church, regarding practical matters. You will note that there is absolutely no theology in the Didache, as the earliest followers of The Way were much more interested in living the life of Christ than speculating on it,IMO.

 

[Koey]

Your tone sounded as if you were talking down to me. I did not appreciate being written to that way. I have read the Didache, and am quite familiar with the theories that it may have been written as early as 70 AD, but probably a little later. The tone of it is certainly legalistic to me and I do not wish to enter into a tit for tat debate as to why.

I am glad that the then universal or catholic (small c) Church, east AND west did not include it in the Bible. I believe that God led the then united Christian Church to include in the Bible the books that we have today. As for the half dozen or so different canons, I do not see the various collections of Deuterocanonical books as a problem that should divide us, after all, the early church used a number of books which did not make it into the canon, and I do not see a problem with even them being uses today. Books such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas have their historical, contextual value, even if they are not for doctrine or reproof as are the Holy Scriptures.

 

[IamAdopted]

The only sound doctrine that we have is the scriptures.. The Gospel of truth.. This is the only truth that changes lives.. The word of God is active... It produces fruit in a believers life and it changes the course of a sinful man.

A simple message isn't it, but it's absolutely thrilling. I don't claim to understand it all. But this book should be the truth of God. It should be alive and powerful and dynamic for the changing of fallen, sinful, hell-deserving lives. It should continue to develop and produce the beauty of the character of God within the heart of the one who feeds upon it. That goes beyond my comprehension. But it is true. There is far more about my God that I don't understand. I am a puny, finite, created being. He is the infinite, eternal God. But He has spoken, and by His grace I understand what He has said. He has spoken with the intention that we understand it, believe it and live it. All that God does in the context of salvation and sanctification in the world occurs in the context of His word. What a travesty that the church gives less and less place to the word of God in its business. The church is to be "...the pillar and support of the truth," 1 Timothy 3:15 says. What are we about as a church? We are about the truth. What should be the outstanding characteristic of this church? The truth. What should be the outstanding characteristic of my life?

 

[Koey]

Yes, I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God, God breathed. I don't care for doctrines which come from a tangent other than direct Scripture. I also believe that the Bible's canonization by a once united church of God was a God thing.

I also believe that just as the Jews were not satisfied with the OT, but added the Talmud, so too many Christians are not satisfied with the Bible, but add their many traditions, writings, etc. Some even ignore the Bible almost altogether, prefering a word for today, rather than what they consider to be an outdated word.

This concerns me. I read the Fathers, don't get me wrong. Many of the ancient Christian writings are actually excellent commentaries on the Bible. However, where any writings, ancient or modern veer away from Scripture as their basis, but look to either ancient tradition or modern Christian fads, I am wary.

 

[2cents]

Your tone sounded as if you were talking down to me. I did not appreciate being written to that way. I have read the Didache, and am quite familiar with the theories that it may have been written as early as 70 AD, but probably a little later. The tone of it is certainly legalistic to me and I do not wish to enter into a tit for tat debate as to why.

Koey, You did make the statement that the Didache was legalistic, I simply asked for a reason why. You said you were awful glad that it didn't make it into the Bible. If you did not want to debate as to why the Didache is legalistic perhaps you should not have said that it was. Offences work both ways.

The Church "fathers" as they are referred to did sell out the Church to the Roman State, that is a historical fact. Why do you value their judgement as to what should or should not be "scripture"? And isn't saying "this is scripture and that isn't" just another form of "legalism"?

 

[IamAdopted]

Narrow mindedness and legalistic are two different things.. I am narrow minded in the fact that if any church strays from the written word of God I flee.. Legalistic is you either believe what my church says it says or you will be excommunicated.. Such as you cannot wear pants to the woman.. The men cannot have facial hair.. Ect ect.. This is legalistic.. Scripture is narrow Minded and truth.. Anyone whom strays from the truth of Gods Written word is in err.. Therefore whom Will I follow? The scriptures.. Gods Word..

 

[Koey]

Koey, You did make the statement that the Didache was legalistic, I simply asked for a reason why. You said you were awful glad that it didn't make it into the Bible. If you did not want to debate as to why the Didache is legalistic perhaps you should not have said that it was. Offences work both ways.

The Church "fathers" as they are referred to did sell out the Church to the Roman State, that is a historical fact. Why do you value their judgement as to what should or should not be "scripture"? And isn't saying "this is scripture and that isn't" just another form of "legalism"?

So I am not allowed to pass an opinion without wanting to debate it? Is that yet another forum rule? And as far as the Fathers are concerned, I admire many of them and their examples. So which ones sold out to Rome? Those before Constantine when they were being murdered for their faith or those after? They are not all legalistic, though I would agree that some are, but many are defenders of the Bible and the Christian faith. Rather than read some modern Christian magazines, which are light on truth and heavy on urban legend, I would rather read something that has stood the test of time.

 

[2cents]

Well, I thought maybe when someone makes a blanket statement, maybe they should be prepared to back up that statement with a reason as to why they believe the way they do. This is not the case though so I'll check out of this thread now. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[Koey]

Well, I thought maybe when someone makes a blanket statement, maybe they should be prepared to back up that statement with a reason as to why they believe the way they do. This is not the case though so I'll check out of this thread now. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I dream of a time when such bigotry as claiming that the church "sold out" to Rome no longer exists. It simply doesn't match history, but rather is the stuff of such simplistic and poorly researched fiction like the Davinci Code.