"Bible alone," Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Fi_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately,many will argue that all the Apostles received the keys? 🤷
JL: True, but the burden of proof is on them they have no scrpture to stand on. They have only a tradition of men. The scriptures are clear Christ was speaking to Peter singularly in the presents of the other apostels.
 
There are some Christians out there who are “Bible alone” Christians. These Christians are Christians that believe in the Trinity and they believe in the Bible alone. They take a literal interpretation of the Bible and do not attend any Church service. There are certain Christians out there who believe in the Bible alone. Does any one know how much these “Bible alone,” Christians number?

And do these Bible alone Christians follow a certain leader or pastor or preacher? Like Benny Hinn, is Benny Hinn a Bible-alone Christian?

Thank you.
I believe that only the word of god is infallible, so that makes me a “bible only” Christian. i Personally have attended various churches of many different denominations. i dont know of any Christians that just read the bible and do not attend church. fellowship is our resonsibilty as christians. over 2 billion Christians on earth I’ve heard, so i have no idea how many fit your mold.
 
I believe that only the word of god is infallible, so that makes me a “bible only” Christian. i Personally have attended various churches of many different denominations. i dont know of any Christians that just read the bible and do not attend church. fellowship is our resonsibilty as christians. over 2 billion Christians on earth I’ve heard, so i have no idea how many fit your mold.
What about Jesus words,“on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” -Matt 16? Doesn’t that show He founded an infallible teaching institution (The Church)?

BTW, you know where the Bible came from, right? From the Church. So, why follow a book, but not the Church that gave it to you?
 
What about Jesus words,“on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” -Matt 16? Doesn’t that show He founded an infallible teaching institution (The Church)?

BTW, you know where the Bible came from, right? From the Church. So, why follow a book, but not the Church that gave it to you?
In my View i see the CC as an institution/church body of man. I look at its history and just dont see it as having any special authority. I dont believe in Apostolic Succesion as Catholics Do. Even if you have a line tracing back to Peter i still dont see the infallible authority claim of the CC as being valid. I see many CC doctrines as questionable, You as a Catholic believe in your Church authority so you accept the interpretation. I cannot accept it.i see no evidence that the Apostles passed down any special authority via apostolic succesion. I believe the apostles were the foundation and not the start of a succesion of special authority given to a church body. I believe in the bible because God is all powerful and can assure that is word his preserved.
 
In my View i see the CC as an institution/church body of man. I look at its history and just dont see it as having any special authority. I dont believe in Apostolic Succesion as Catholics Do. Even if you have a line tracing back to Peter i still dont see the infallible authority claim of the CC as being valid. I see many CC doctrines as questionable, You as a Catholic believe in your Church authority so you accept the interpretation. I cannot accept it.i see no evidence that the Apostles passed down any special authority via apostolic succesion. I believe the apostles were the foundation and not the start of a succesion of special authority given to a church body. I believe in the bible because God is all powerful and can assure that is word his preserved.
How can you say “I believe in the Bible” and negate the church Jesus founded with authority? Do you honestly believe Jesus founded a loose-knit church or to each his own? Read your NT again.
 
In my View i see the CC as an institution/church body of man. I look at its history and just dont see it as having any special authority. I dont believe in Apostolic Succesion as Catholics Do. Even if you have a line tracing back to Peter i still dont see the infallible authority claim of the CC as being valid. I see many CC doctrines as questionable, You as a Catholic believe in your Church authority so you accept the interpretation. I cannot accept it.i see no evidence that the Apostles passed down any special authority via apostolic succesion. I believe the apostles were the foundation and not the start of a succesion of special authority given to a church body. I believe in the bible because God is all powerful and can assure that is word his preserved.
First, from Luke…Luke 10:16 (Douay Rheims)
16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Then, Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch… (d. 107 AD) wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.41

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:
Code:
But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10
**
So, let me ask you…do you think Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus were dreaming something up when they wrote these words above?

Especially Irenaeus, he was writing against the Gnostics…do you think he made up the following below:**

St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
 
How can you say “I believe in the Bible” and negate the church Jesus founded with authority? Do you honestly believe Jesus founded a loose-knit church or to each his own? Read your NT again.
its the church YOU believe he founded. you think of a church as a name i see the church as a body of believers. i don’t see ANY reason to believe that the apostles passed down special authority to the CC. i see no scriptural evidence to suggest that the CC has special authority in Christendom.
 
I believe that only the word of god is infallible, so that makes me a “bible only” Christian. i Personally have attended various churches of many different denominations. i dont know of any Christians that just read the bible and do not attend church. fellowship is our resonsibilty as christians. over 2 billion Christians on earth I’ve heard, so i have no idea how many fit your mold.
And why do you believe the word of God is infallible? Who told you it is infallible?

Where is this in the Bible? Can you provide the chapter and verse?

Let me ask you an question…why do you believe Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark? Where is the chapter and verse in the Bible where Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark?

And when you find this chapter and verse, why do you now believe the Gospel should be Scripture? Should be included in the Bible?
 
First, from Luke…Luke 10:16 (Douay Rheims)
16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Then, Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch… (d. 107 AD) wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.41

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:
Code:
But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10
**
So, let me ask you…do you think Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus were dreaming something up when they wrote these words above?

Especially Irenaeus, he was writing against the Gnostics…do you think he made up the following below:**

St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:
Code:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
thanks for the reply. so you say that this apostolic sucession gives the CC authority to interepet scipture as they have?
 
its the church YOU believe he founded. you think of a church as a name i see the church as a body of believers. i don’t see ANY reason to believe that the apostles passed down special authority to the CC. i see no scriptural evidence to suggest that the CC has special authority in Christendom.
Maybe you forgot to read Acts 13…Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Now look at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Look at verse 3 and see what the Antioch Church elders do…“they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”
Before Paul and Barnabas went on their first missionary journey, he submits himself to Church authority and are ordained by laying of hands. Then they are sent out to their mission. Paul, by the laying of hands, first becomes an Apostle, he gains apostolic authority, thereby, the Churches he founds have apostolic succession.
 
And why do you believe the word of God is infallible? Who told you it is infallible?

Where is this in the Bible? Can you provide the chapter and verse?

Let me ask you an question…why do you believe Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark? Where is the chapter and verse in the Bible where Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark?

And when you find this chapter and verse, why do you now believe the Gospel should be Scripture? Should be included in the Bible?
well i would say that who the men were that recorded the word is not the main point. the bulk of the NT was accepted by christians by 100 AD. Jesus Christ tells you that Gods commands are infallible. He tells you not to add or take away from his word or you will fall victim to plagues. God is all powerful and is capable of having his will recorded. our whole history claims that the word of god is truth and not questionable. I know Catholics may feel that it is of their doing in cannonizing the bible but God is the author of the bible not the apostles or the CC.
 
Maybe you forgot to read Acts 13…Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Now look at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Look at verse 3 and see what the Antioch Church elders do…“they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”
Before Paul and Barnabas went on their first missionary journey, he submits himself to Church authority and are ordained by laying of hands. Then they are sent out to their mission. Paul, by the laying of hands, first becomes an Apostle, he gains apostolic authority, thereby, the Churches he founds have apostolic succession.
But how do these verses give the CC special authority?
 
reformedman1 - let’s ask it another way: How does scripture give you “special authority” to claim there are multiple bodies of Christ?
depends on your defintion of a body of christ. i would guess that we have different definitions.
 
Jesus Christ defined when he said that the messenger would come to write the faith into the hearts of men.
In other words, you have no authority to back up any of your claims, and there’s no reason for anyone to accept your interpretation of scripture.
 
In other words, you have no authority to back up any of your claims, and there’s no reason for anyone to accept your interpretation of scripture.
Jesus Christ is the authority in this matter as i pointed out. IS salvation an act of God or Man?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top