Circumcision, Act 15, and Sola Scriptura

[Mary's Knight, La]

Brian,

my question still stand where is the historical marker then to say this is the end of apostles and prophets? and include at least the mimimum of documentation to prove it.

also I will need some reasoning/proof that the reasons miracles stopped was because there were no longer any apostles/prophets rather than that they were no longer necessary to establish credibility. Jesus alludes to this "but that you may know the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins..."

i also take issue with them doing it under their own "power". if it was a matter of their own power and choices. then paul (i think it was him) would have simple caused the doors to let him loose, instead he waits and an angel shows up to rescue him. I think in the bible it is quite clear that the apostles' choices in regards to the miracles was quite clearly a matter of yes i'll cooperate or no i wont. rather than choosing who to heal.

Edited November 15, 2004 by Mary's Knight, La

[Quietfire]

[quote]You see God revealed certain things to these special few only. Once revealed the only logical thing was for these things to be written down, and so they were. It is humanly impossible to pass spoken things down from people to people as what is said will be changed by the unreliableness and corruptness of man. No, God revealed it and they wrote it down. When the Bible was put together they examined that which was written and decided, through prayer and Holy Spirit guidance what revelations (things that were revealed) needed to be included.[/quote]

This part specifically woke me up....
[quote]You see God revealed certain things to these special few only.[/quote]
[quote]When the Bible was put together they examined that which was written and decided, through prayer and Holy Spirit guidance what revelations (things that were revealed) needed to be included.[/quote]
[quote]Holy Spirit guidance[/quote]


Ok, from the time that these things were written down to when they were canonized and put into what Catholics now have as the NT is several hundred years.
Your claim is that these original men (Apostles) were the "special few".
Yet then you claim that the "Holy Spirit guidance" allowed the later Christian fathers the ability to put together the NT.

Isnt that a contradiction?
If the Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit and no others, then how could the Early Church Fathers be able to distinguish which books were to be in the NT?
The Holy Spirit, right. So that would mean that for several hundred years the Holy Spirit was still with these pious men.

So then suddenly the Holy Spirit left them one day. What day was that?
Or is it the job of the Holy Spirit is now done since the Bible is now complete?
So then the only job of the early Christian Church was to eventually compile the books needed to make the New Testament and afterward were no longer needed?
Even though for all those years many things were taught that werent in Scripture because they were handed down orally, but that means nothing now?

See, when I read Scripture and it states that Christ made it plain that He would be with us always, even unto the end of the world, and that He would send us the Holy Spirit (going back to your remark about the Early Church Fathers)....I understood that He was speaking specifically to the Apostles and all those that they would pass those teachings down to. (I know right now you are thinking "Yeah, to me!"or "to my faith")
But wait, you are not in the Church that Christ was specifically speaking of. He made it clear that some among us would pervert the truth (Luther, among others) but not to fear.

I couldnt read any farther than a few posts past this, all I read was BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.

Pax.
Sorry, my rant.

[Brother Adam]

Brian,

You certianly don't have to respond to all of those verses. That post was for Buzzard, not yourself. I'm trying to show with that post that we can take the Bible to mean anything we want it to say when we "verse sling". The whole point is that they can be taken out of context.

I certianly know that there are arguments which you would use from scripture to show that the papacy is false and heretical, and there are strong arguments for it on our side. As always, all debates will always end up a debate on authority. You and I could both argue until we are blue in the face on the biblical exegesis of verses surrounding faith vs. faith alone, but I will eventually fall back on the churches authority to interpret and you will eventually fall back on your own authority to interpret. It always seems to go in this direction.

I'm working on my conversion story right now, I'm done with about 20 pages and I find the biggest thing for me was always to know in my heart there was something deeply wrong with denominationalism. I knew this before I even became a Baptist from the Lutheran faith. I saw throughout the history I read the body of Christ being torn apart, and knew it was wrong. I just never knew the answer. When interpretation is left up to each person and laymen themselves, we get as many different theological slants as we do people. And every view can't be correct. You and I both know that. That means that the Holy Spirit does not guide everyone into truth no matter what. And we are all sincere in our presuit of truth. Everyone of us here . That is after all our ultimate goal, to know Truth, apply it to our own lives. To conform to be like Christ, to eventually be with our Lord in Heaven.

So if even with the best intentions to interpret the Bible in all sincerety and totally open to the truth, how do we know we ourselves will arrive at the correct conclusion with hundreds of thousands of people throughout the Protestant Reformation all have come to different conclusions, even on matters so fundamental as salvation?

Ironically, it left this Fundamentalist back at the Bible with the Word of God, which of course said, the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. We can argue context on even that, but it does leave a remarkable impression when everyone else is drawing to different conclusions all the time.

Blessings,
Bro. Adam

[Briguy]

Hi all, to the question of revelation Paul shows us in 1 corith. 14 that what he is writing is more significant then others.

[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
[36] What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
[37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
[38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Paul clearly uses his authority here to claim that his writings are the very commandments of the Lord, and remember he never knew Jesus when Jesus was in the flesh. The point I guess is just to say that Scripture and true revelation was given to a "select few" only and I believe they knew who they were. The Apostles had special powers, given as gifts, but to use at their own will, as spiritual gifts are used to this very day. A precher doesn't have to ask God for power to speak week to week he can because he has a gift that was given him. A gift by nature is somethng fully passed from one person to another. If I give you a shirt and then tell you when you can where it, it is not much of a gift, No, out gifts from God belong to us and he puts the burden of using the gifts properly on us.

Holy Spirit guidence is with every Christian. At the time of conversion we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, given gifts and are directed by the Holy Spirit from that point on (not that we always heed the direction). This id different then the Holy Spirit completing a work, like writing scripture and putting it together, that would be a simple miracle of God.

more to come----- Thanks for the great posts and the many challanges you have presented. Thess. I owe you and answer from the page before. It was one of your best posts and has me kind of at a loss how best to respond ( I hate when that happens - at least I am honest!)

God's blessings to all,
Brian

[thessalonian]

God bless you Brian.

[Briguy]

Above I meant "wear" not "where". I really do know the difference. I really made myself look bad with that one.

-Brian

[Buzzard]

[quote name='Mary's Knight' date=' La,Nov 13 2004, 02:14 PM']

if the real need for the apostles past their writings was clarification then it would seem  [color=red]that if the people who can claim a direct line of teaching from the first apostles are wrong[/color] then nobody has any hope of being right. assuming nobody has the truth the apostles thought then any attempt to justify anything using the bible may be vulnerable to a misunderstanding of what the bible teaches. [/quote]
[list][color=red]that if the people who can claim a direct line of teaching from the first apostles are wrong[/color]


[/list]That just might be the Problem with
"[i]Just accepting anything[/i]" that was taught by the 1st Day Church,
Too many of the Students of the Apostles;
either just didn't get it right, or they Apostized [quote]~{1John 2:18}~
18   Little children, it is the last time:
and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
[b][color=red]even now[/color][/b] are there [b][color=red]many antichrists[/color][/b];
whereby we know that it is the last time.
19   They went out from us,
but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,
they would no doubt have continued with us:
but they went out, that they might be made manifest that
they were not all of us.
[list]But they still went forth claiming Apostolic Authority


[/list]~{2Cor.11:13}~
13   For such are false apostles, deceitful workers,
[color=red]transforming themselves[/color] into the apostles of Christ.
14   And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15   Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also
be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;


.[/quote]That John claims these Apostate Students were Anti-Christ,
and Paul says they transformed themselves into Apostles
and were accepted as ministers or teachers of Righteousness is just
one more reason for the Standard of the Written word,
as Luke saith[list]~{Luke 1:1-4}~
[i][font="Times"]to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed[/font][/i]
[/list].

Its plain that not all the 1st day church got everthing right,
and their understanding left something to be desired[list]~{John 21:23}~
[i][font="Times"]Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,
that that disciple should not die:
yet Jesus said not unto him,
He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee[/font][/i]?
[/list]Just one more reason for the written word[list][i][font="Times"]It seemed good to me also,
having had [b][color=green]perfect understanding[/color][/b] of all things from the very first,
[b][color=green]to write unto thee[/color][/b][/font][/i]
[/list]Oral Teachings and Traditions leave a lot to be desired,
unless they are backed up in writting from those chosen to write scripture for us
other wise we are left at the mercy of our teachers[list]~{Acts 15:1}~
[i][font="Times"]And certain men which came down from Judaea [b][color=red]taught the brethren[/color][/b], and said,
Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

---------------------------------

------ [b][u]James Speaking[/u][/b] -------
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them,
which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we [b][color=red]write unto them[/color][/b],[/font][/i]

and

[i][font="Times"]25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord,
to send [b][color=green]chosen men unto you[/color][/b] with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,[/font][/i]
[/list]Just one more reason for the written word,
that men, over the years have twisted and rejected it for something else
"[i] and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon[/i]"
is not the fault of the Scriptures[list]~{1Cor.10:11}~
[i][font="Times"]Now all these things happened unto them for examples:
and they [b][color=green]are written[/color][/b] for our admonition,
upon whom the ends of the world are come.[/font][/i]
[/list]Just on more reason for
That which is Written as the final authority

.
.

Edited November 17, 2004 by Buzzard

[Briguy]

Hi Thess. As I said your post from the end of page two was very good. As I ponder this whole issue I guess I find myself in a state of semi-understanding. There is no way for me to argue that orally God's Word had not been passed in the OT times and that it wasn't passed orally until the Bible was complete, because it certainly was. It also was written down and read out loud because sets of scripture were very rare. Pauls writings were rare as well as there were no copy machines to make multiple copies. I am with you on all of that. Where we part, I guess, is where final authority takes place. I put final authority, in this dispensation, in the Bible alone, because I don't trust men. If men are involved then corruption can exist. No Catholic will argue that there has not been corrupt men in every "position" in the Catholic church, even the position of Pope. If that is offending I aplogize as I just remember Catholics on the BB saying that there were a couple Popes anyway that did or said bad things (I have no details to speak of but I remember that it was said). Recent criminal things have exposed corrupt Priests as well as some above priests, though I can't remember if it was Cardinal or Bishop ("Law") that was in trouble. My point is that if a corrupt man is responsible for passing oral tradition, how do we know that the persons own opinions have not been mixed in. Perhaps God saw that coming and so had a "complete work of His Word" written down, so we would stay on the right track. I think that is a legitimate possibility. It does beg the question however, how do we know that what was written down and copied was not corrupted. Both thoughts require God's intervention to keep the WORD of GOD pure. At least with the Bible perspective of final authority the corruption possibilities ended some 1850 years sooner. well, at least I responded, admittedly off the cuff and with thoughts not well organized.

Thess. thanks again for the debate and your concern for me, as evidenced by the depth and charity of the post I just responded to.

Buzzard, you made some good points. I think had you showed respect to those here when you started on this topic you may have given more credibility to your posts. You have used good logic and scripture and made sense in what you said. I look forward to Adam or Thess. answering your last post.

In Christ, our Lord,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

Hi Briguy,

While "off the cuff" you have some really good ideas forming in that response. "If men are involved isn't it curroptable"? The basic answer for me would be, men were involved in the writing of scripture. All scripture was penned by men, and the entire scriptural canon was choosen by men. We agree on those two points. So if God, through his supernatural grace made sure that neither scripture nor the canon was curropted, could God have also made sure that the teaching authority of His Church (The Pillar and Foundation of Truth) was also, through His intervention, incurroptable on the basis of faith and morals.

As has been said before, yeah, there have been Popes to do unspeakably horrible things in the past. There is even a book out called "The Bad Popes". Even the Apostles had hangups. I find it ironic that God would choose the weakest link - Peter, who denied Jesus three times, to lead the flock in biblical times. How amazing did God's grace shine through the Apostles!

Also, while there are Catholic answers to Buzzards posts, I am still too weary of his intentions to answer anything else at this point (You've shown a willingness to learn from us while we learn from you, I'm not so sure that is his purpose here). Perhaps if Thess or someone else would like to they can answer his posts.

In His Service,
Bro. Adam

[thessalonian]

Brian,

Do we agree on these items:

1) Originally the Word of God was being passed on orally as well as in writing. Thus the Oral was authoritative as well as the written.
2) Therefore it would have been a contradiction for the Apostles to pass the WOG on orally but write or say that it was only passed on in writing.
3) Therefore it is a misuse of scripture to say that 2 Tim 2:16 and Acts 17 teach Bible alone.
4) Therefore Bible Alone could not be a doctrine that is taught in scripture.

By the way, quickly I will say that every man has a tendancy toward sin so you are correct that the Popes are all sinners. Some very much so. So are you and I as well so we cannot trust ourselves. Prov 3:5 -Trust not in you own understanding but rely on the Lord.

The Catholic position is not that Popes are always right but that there are certain times that you can know that they are. The Apostles were men as well, as Brother Adam pointed out. We know Peter kind of messed up in Galatia. Paul said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do". So if you logic is that we cannot ever trust anyone who has a sin nature and is prone to sin. It's not going to hold for the Apostles.

God bless

God bless

[Briguy]

Adam, the answer to your question is, "yes". God can do all things and so he could do what you asked. I am not sure I see the evidence that the Catholic faith represents the uncorruptble "body of Christ". This is because of the failures over the years. even if exaggerated some by history, there were some "dark ages" for the Catholic Church, that I don't think any Catholic would deny. Also, there is the issue with the changing postions of the Catholic Church. Since I am not sure if any sites on the web are accurate in this regard I will not qoute them. You guys could much better say some things that have changed, more so then I could. I am talking about things like priests marrying and that kind of thing. I know you may say that doctrine has not changed but practice has, but then we have the debate on what is doctrine. I'll let you respond to that before I go on with that thought.

Also, this just came to mind. If I can prove from scripture that a Catholic doctrinal teaching is wrong, would that then mean that the Catholic Church is not the final authority from God?

Please state the official Catholic doctrine on the Spiritual gift of tongues as I would like to see how it holds up to the Bible's actual teaching on that subject. I picked Tongues because I have studied alot on the issue. Thanks!!

Thess. Your argument in 1 through 4 is good but I am not fully convinced. Scripture often talks in the future or one thing is written to have multiple meanings and imagery. By the time 2 Tim was written and copied for a vast multitude to see, the Bible was complete, i.e. scripture was complete and authority may have been passed from written/oral to a "Completed Scripture". This is what I am pondering anyway. Your argument is good sound logic, and as you know I really like logical arguments. Thanks for the continued challange.

My best point above was in regards to there being less chance at corruption with the written word because the Bible was complete some 1850 years ago and oral tradidion would have 2000 years worth of potential corruption. Since it was really my only good point from my last post I would like your comments. Thanks.

Have a great day!! In Christ,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

"Also, this just came to mind. If I can prove from scripture that a Catholic doctrinal teaching is wrong, would that then mean that the Catholic Church is not the final authority from God?"

That's correct, and God be with you on that search because that is why I converted in a nutshell. I could not find anything anti-biblical. In fact the Catholic exegesis of the scriptures were far more in harmony with the scriptures than the Baptist view. Remember we aren't talking "unbiblical" that is, lacking direct evidience in so many words from the Bible, but actual anti-biblical doctrine. There was a lot about Catholic doctrine I didn't understand so I thought for absolute sure I had them backed into a corner, but alas, they slipped through my grasp as I studied more and listened to their position.

You're right discipline has changed not doctrine. The Trinity is doctrine. Whether or not priests marry in one culture to another is not. There are married Catholic priests today, even some in the Latin (Roman) rite.

I don't know much about tongues though, so you have me on that debate already!

Edited November 18, 2004 by Brother Adam

[thessalonian]

Briguy,
Just keeping this topic up because I have more to say. You are correct, your corruption theory is one of you better arguements. I will also say that th reason that the doctrine Sola Scriptura spread like wildfire is twofold. A part of it was the sinfulness of those who were entrusted with God's word. A second part of course is that we do know with certainty that the scriptures are God's word. The part you cannot forget however is that when SS became the rule of faith, Christianity divided like cancer. If that is harsh I am sorry. What makes SS "logical" is because scripture we can all agree is the WOG". But as to what scripture says we vary widely. Thus we have a problem with knowing the truth of the scriptures. That problem is resolved according to you by your own individual study of the scriptures. This I believe is quite unbiblical. Yes we must study but we also have to learn from others and you use a completely different and many times contradictory set of commentaries that I use. These commentaries contain a "Traditoin". An oral tradition that is of the history, understandings, culture, etc. of the people to whom the Bible was written. They help us to know why Peter said to Cornelius "get up, I am only a man" knowing that Cornelius was worshipping him, yet to know that when David bowed down before Bethsheeba he was not worshipping her and that bowing down is not always worship. Apparently in the culture of Cornelius it was. You are in my prayers and I value your prayers for me. More later.

God bless

Edited November 20, 2004 by thessalonian

[Briguy]

Hi Adam and Thess. I am thinking about your last posts and will respond more later.

I think that the argument of "church" authority over final interpretations of scripture is a fair, maybe even good sound argument. I also know that the Bible says to search the scriptures daily as well as other personal things in terms of learning God's word. Maybe I will present some of those scriptures and see what direction that takes us. Also I will go seek the Catholic doctrine of Tongues so I can see what it says and if it stands the Biblical test.

Take care, In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Nov 22 2004, 08:50 AM'] Hi Adam and Thess. I am thinking about your last posts and will respond more later.

I think that the argument of "church" authority over final interpretations of scripture is a fair, maybe even good sound argument. I also know that the Bible says to search the scriptures daily as well as other personal things in terms of learning God's word. Maybe I will present some of those scriptures and see what direction that takes us. Also I will go seek the Catholic doctrine of Tongues so I can see what it says and if it stands the Biblical test.

Take care, In Christ,
Brian [/quote]
Brian,

I have done some study on the Catholic view of tongues. In general I would say the teaching is that we not stiffle the holy spirit. Neither do we believe everybody who comes along speaking gibberish. More later. There are some other things you have asked that I have not got around to answering as well, such as changes in Church teaching. I will address this as time allows.

Blessings