It seemed that there is just an attack constantly by belittling others when they post something challenging. I fgound it on another thread and I got caught up in it. . I am easily lead down that path it seems. Oh well more to work on.
Very well. On this point, it seems we stand on even ground with respect to the temptation to pride.
- Is the entireity of the word of God contained in the Bible. Yes and No. I do not believe phrophescy is a gift for today as it was in the OT. ie. Heb 1:1 " in the past our Father spoke to us through the Prophets" Matt 11:13. " …Prophesized until John…" 2 Pet 3:2. “…spoken in the past through the prophets” Luke 16:16 as well. So no I don’t believe it to be a gift for today but one that will return as spoken about in Rev. Now as for the spoken word. I have a belief that this is a personal experience and always in line with scripture. That said Ther end of Rev was the closing of Scriptures. I believe that is what God left for us for now.
I’m not necessarily speaking of prophecy (and on that point, I tend to agree with you - no revelation can be made today that is binding on the conscience of Christians). It’s nice to have a bit of an agreement upon which to build
However, your answer is not completely supported by scripture:
John 21:25 - But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
Further, note what the apostle Paul says about tradition:
2 Thess 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Whether by word of mouth (that is, on the basis of direct apostolic authority) or by epistle (those things the apostles committed to writing).
2 Thess 3:6 - And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
They were charged with making sure that they not follow people who avoided following the tradition they received - not those who were guilty of violating the scriptures.
Thus, you have the word of God handed down, as evidenced in scripture, by means of scripture and apostolic succession - the Sacred Tradition.
Scripture is rather clear on the entity that safeguards the truths of Christ’s revelation:
1 Timothy 3:15 - But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Church - not the Bible - is the ‘pillar and ground of the truth.’
And further, the word of God, when it appears in scripture, isn’t necessarily synonymous with scripture:
John 1:1, 14 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Thus, not everything that Jesus did was committed to writing, and indeed, scripture is not the only Word of God.
- Who decided the Word of God contained in the Bible. God did. Inspired without error by the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit lead to the decisioon and process and Holy Spirit maintained. God created His word, and is able to maintain his word. The most recent archelological studues and digs have produced over 20,000 people places and things spoken about in the Bible and can display them as evidence of the authenticity of the Word of God as an accurate historical document not just literature. It is alive and convicting.
The claim that the catholic church compiled it is incorrect. It was compiled by the early church fathers but we cannot claim them to be the catholic church. This the cath church did by retro fitting history with the name of the catholic church upon our early church fathers.
Your answer is historically inaccurate. If the Early Church Fathers who presided over the Synod of Rome and the Councils of Chalcedon and Hippo (some of the earliest councils that addressed the canon of scripture) weren’t Catholic, then what were they?
Further, I suspect that your church uses a Bible without the 7 Deuterocanonical books, which were affirmed as inspired scripture by the aforementioned councils. If you accept the canon of the New Testament from these (very Catholic - look into history, and not the kind filtered through a fundamentalist set of lenses) Early Church Fathers, why do you reject their decisions regarding the Old Testament?
- Too long to quote. Yes I believe they passed on the teachings to the early churchs forming in communities but they had to to grow the Christian faith right. Just as the early council in Jerusalem did to clai\rify issues for jews and gentiles, works and faith etc. But this until the NT was in place. Then historically the elders and so called ministers within each church (which were more typically home based churches) lead their flocks.
What does it mean that “they had to grow the Christian faith right?” And where is your evidence that they were “typically home based churches?”
Who ensured that the leaders led their flocks in a manner that didn’t contradict the faith as it was passed onto each of these churches by the apostles?
2 Cor. 11:4 - For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with him.
Who settled disputes when churches had differing opinions on how to apply the teachings of the apostles (noting that in the early church, there was no New Testament, save for letters from the apostles themselves, which were addressed to situations that arose in particular local churches after the gospel was *preached *to them, not from the Bible alone, but on the basis of what these apostles had learned directly from Our Lord)?
The Pentecostals did this same error by hanging their hat on the event of Pentecost. An event crucial to the development of the church but not an event repeating again and again. The things that took place that day were astonshing. Does that mean we are to expect those same things today. I do not believe so. Is not His word sufficient? If we do believe the Bible is Gods word then why would we ever place any emphasis on mans words to be even equal to that of Gods? Yet the cath church does just that. I believe that is very dangerous.
I hope I answered what you asked. If I offended you I apologize now for that. It is not my intention.
I’m not sure how to address the material on Pentecostalism, since I have such little exposure to it, so I’ll go onto your last point. You’re exactly correct that one should not place the mere words of man on par with (or, heaven forbid, above) the word of God. But as I demonstrated earlier, the word of God is not just the Bible.
