I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[JonNC]

=jericho777;8448633]Jon definitely not thinking anyone should rely on their own wisdom. I do think that scriptural doctrines are knowable to the average person though. The Holy Spirit is available to all to know the truth. Obviously Luther had a different interpretation of scripture than the cc. wasn’t he alone at first in his interpretation of scripture? I think hermeneutics can be correctly be practiced by all.

I think not, when it comes to doctrine. The Holy Spirit guides us to grace by faith. He also put into place the Church to teach and guide us. Sola scriptura teaches that what the Church teaches is accountable to scripture

I am no scholar but am amazed the more I read scripture the more I see the doctrines appear there.

Would you say that what you perceive in scripture is influenced by what your communion, whichever that is, teaches?

Not sure how I feel about the councils because the council of Trent called you and me anathema.

I was speaking of the 7 ancient councils. Trent, in my view, was not a truly ecumenical council.

I don’t follow any human blindly and in the words of Ronald Reagan “Trust but verify.” No one should be above this.

I don’t have any problem with this. Everyday I make an effort to verify that what my communion teaches is in compliance with scripture and the Lutheran confessions.

Jon

 

[gerhardc]

I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents:

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!

Thanks…

At the risk of sounding like an authority on the matter, which I am not, it’s probably not a right to form a new church, but an instruction instead: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.” (1 Corinthians 5:11). Across the spectrum of *those *and *that *which calls itself “church” there are thousands of examples of such behavior published in the media. What’s worse is the cover-ups by those in supposed authority which accompany these misdeeds. How then can such authority be trusted?

More importantly, why then be disobedient to instruction from the Bible?

 

[jericho777]

I think not, when it comes to doctrine. The Holy Spirit guides us to grace by faith. He also put into place the Church to teach and guide us. Sola scriptura teaches that what the Church teaches is accountable to scripture

Would you say that what you perceive in scripture is influenced by what your communion, whichever that is, teaches?

I was speaking of the 7 ancient councils. Trent, in my view, was not a truly ecumenical council.

I don’t have any problem with this. Everyday I make an effort to verify that what my communion teaches is in compliance with scripture and the Lutheran confessions.

Jon

Hi Jon I certainly believe all the body of Christ including leadership is accountable to scripture. I have been able to see and understand doctrines from scripture. Why is that so shocking?

I was born Roman Catholic before I became a Christian but after reading scripture it lead me to where I am now. I am constantly reading and learning as much from scripture as I can.

Never studied those councils so I can’t speak to what they had to say. Catholics take Trent seriously.

 

[regression]

I was born Roman Catholic before I became a Christian

Does this mean you believe Catholics are not Christians?

 

[jericho777]

Does this mean you believe Catholics are not Christians?

Just a different kind.

 

[jmcrae]

At the risk of sounding like an authority on the matter, which I am not, it’s probably not a right to form a new church, but an instruction instead: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.” (1 Corinthians 5:11). Across the spectrum of *those *and *that *which calls itself “church” there are thousands of examples of such behavior published in the media. What’s worse is the cover-ups by those in supposed authority which accompany these misdeeds. How then can such authority be trusted?

You are right; we are not to keep company with such - which is why they are considered to be separated from the Church when they do this, and have to go to Confession to be restored again.

More importantly, why then be disobedient to instruction from the Bible?

You’re right. Indeed, fornicators (people living together without the benefit of marriage) and adulterers (people married to a second spouse after divorcing or leaving a first spouse) are treated as if they were upstanding citizens, in many Protestant congregations.

 

[gerhardc]

You are right; we are not to keep company with such - which is why they are considered to be separated from the Church when they do this, and have to go to Confession to be restored again.

You’re right. Indeed, fornicators (people living together without the benefit of marriage) and adulterers (people married to a second spouse after divorcing or leaving a first spouse) are treated as if they were upstanding citizens, in many Protestant congregations.

That’s the problem - people in authority in the “church” actually committing the acts spoken about in 1 Corinthians 5:11. Their religious system is not relevant - Catholic or Protestant or anything in between (we are not talking about the Protestants or the Catholic Church alone here). The question goes towards those in religious authority and whether or not one should keep company with them if they have made themselves and their superiors guilty of atrocious sin. How many times have leaders made themselves guilty of these actions? And how many times have these actions been covered up by those in higher authority? Does that speak of godliness? Then, how can a follower of Christ continue to be led and taught by such a person? Are they *really *an authority if this is what they do?

You have said correctly, one should remove such a person unless they confess and repent. But, where there is a cover-up there is no confession (to the victim or otherwise) and where there is no repentance, there is no choice but to leave. And where those who covered up misdeeds themselves have not confessed and repented of their cover-up, how can they be restored? And how then can they remain an *authority *in the church?

It appears as if the way to follow Scriptural instruction is to follow what is written here: “I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.”. And, don’t keep company with those who cover up their deeds either for they are complicit therein.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s the problem - people in authority in the “church” actually committing the acts spoken about in 1 Corinthians 5:11.

The Church never told them to do this. They became separated from the Church when they did it. They had to go to Confession (at the very least) in order to be restored to the Church. They also had to attend counseling, and be tried in a court of law. Those found guilty are now in jail.

We do not break bread with those individuals.

What they did has no power to destroy Christ’s Church. They have separated themselves from it, in doing what they did.

And how then can they remain an *authority *in the church?

They can’t. They don’t, and they never did.

But keep in mind, an accusation is not proof of guilt. There are also many people who trade on rumours and make their living off of lies and calumny. It has to be proven in a court of law that they are guilty, before they can be taken away to jail.

Those who were found guilty are now in jail.

 

[gerhardc]

The Church never told them to do this.

Thank goodness for that!

They became separated from the Church when they did it. They had to go to Confession (at the very least) in order to be restored to the Church. They also had to attend counseling, and be tried in a court of law. Those found guilty are now in jail.

We do not break bread with those individuals.

What they did has no power to destroy Christ’s Church. They have separated themselves from it, in doing what they did.

They can’t. They don’t, and they never did.

But keep in mind, an accusation is not proof of guilt. There are also many people who trade on rumours and make their living off of lies and calumny. It has to be proven in a court of law that they are guilty, before they can be taken away to jail.

Those who were found guilty are now in jail.

No doubt that some have personal agenda’s in trading rumors. But that does not mean that all accusations are untrue, which means that there are leaders out there of whom it is known that they are living in sin.

Not far from where I live one Christian leader (their affiliation is not important for the purpose of this discussion) accused another Christian leader (both really high up in the hierarchy) of having sexually abused him when he was a boy. The second Christian leader denies the accusation (of course). This is despite the first Christian leader also having accused another Christian leader of having sexually abused him, and was found guilty - this Christian leader (who was indeed found guilty) is not sitting in jail but has been pardoned.

The point is: either the second Christian leader is guilty of sexual abuse in which case all the people under his authority should not keep company with him until he confesses and repents, or the first Christian leader is persisting in his lie about having suffered sexual abuse in which case he is acting contrary to any person in a position of authority in the church. You might (not) be surprised that both are still serving as ‘authorities’ in their respective circles.

Some or other flock is being deceived about the character of their leader. Some or other flock are better off in another congregation or in another church.

 

[joe370]

gerhardc;8452286]At the risk of sounding like an authority on the matter, which I am not, it’s probably not a right to form a new church, but an instruction instead…

Could you elaborate???

 

[gerhardc]

Could you elaborate???

I thought I’ve done that in the posts that followed?

If someone - whether they are a ‘normal member’ of a congregation or a leader of a congregation - has made themselves guilty or is making themselves guilty of the sins spoken about in 1 Corinthians 5:11, then St. Paul says “keep no company with them”, which means that if they are a leader in the church and they are ‘protected’ or refuse to step down, you have no choice but to leave.

“But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.”

Where the person is being protected by authorities higher up, all those in authority have made themselves complicit to the sin of the one that is being protected, which means that if 1 Corinthians 5:11 is adhered to, one has little choice but to disregard the supposed authority of the church in question.

If they confess and repent and persist from such actions then that is another story, of course.

 

[joe370]

I thought I’ve done that in the posts that followed?

If someone - whether they are a ‘normal member’ of a congregation or a leader of a congregation - has made themselves guilty or is making themselves guilty of the sins spoken about in 1 Corinthians 5:11, then St. Paul says “keep no company with them”, which means that if they are a leader in the church and they are ‘protected’ or refuse to step down, you have no choice but to leave.

“But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.”

Where the person is being protected by authorities higher up, all those in authority have made themselves complicit to the sin of the one that is being protected, which means that if 1 Corinthians 5:11 is adhered to, one has little choice but to disregard the supposed authority of the church in question.

If they confess and repent and persist from such actions then that is another story, of course.

But it’s not a good idea for someone to form a new church. Got it.

 

[gerhardc]

But it’s not a good idea for someone to form a new church. Got it.

Well, if there is nothing else: *“let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” *(Hebrews 10:24-25)

 

[CopticChristian]

The word was just as true before Paul’s conversion as afterward so you need to ask yourself where discernment comes from in the first place. It is only from the Holy Spirit. Reading or hearing the word itself doesn’t bring understanding. It doesn’t matter how smart or uneducated a person is only the Holy Spirit can give that understanding.

No Paul never told anyone to just read and discern but he did imply reading the word and testing doctrines against the word as the Bereans did. Teachers are ordained by God but understanding comes by the Spirit.

And while the Bereans listened to the Oral Teaching of Paul they found that he was doing OK and many others that had heard the teaching of Paul were not following his teachings or properly following teachings in general. The letter to the Romans is an example of where Paul did not teach and many were reading and listening and not getting it from others. It is why he wrote about the “obedience of Faith” to the Judaizing Christians in Rome because they read and did not get it. He had to correct their wrong thinking as many who read need correction by others. Did Paul wait for the Holy Spirit to send his reproof?

 

[jericho777]

And while the Bereans listened to the Oral Teaching of Paul they found that he was doing OK and many others that had heard the teaching of Paul were not following his teachings or properly following teachings in general. The letter to the Romans is an example of where Paul did not teach and many were reading and listening and not getting it from others. It is why he wrote about the “obedience of Faith” to the Judaizing Christians in Rome because they read and did not get it. He had to correct their wrong thinking as many who read need correction by others. Did Paul wait for the Holy Spirit to send his reproof?

Romans has plenty of teaching in it. Galatians is referring to Judaizers and Corinthians is more of a correctional letter. In Rom 1:2 Paul is reaffirming his adherence to the written word “the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.” Rom 1:5 is telling us that faith brings obedience. Why wouldn’t Paul correct an issue after all he even corrected Peter when he was wrong.

 

[JonNC]

=jericho777;8452546]Hi Jon I certainly believe all the body of Christ including leadership is accountable to scripture. I have been able to see and understand doctrines from scripture. Why is that so shocking?

It isn’t shocking, per se. I read scripture and find the doctrines of the ancient Church - Trinity, Real Presence, Baptism there. I didn’t develop the doctrines myself, but I certainly find them there.

I was born Roman Catholic before I became a [non-Catholic] Christian but after reading scripture it lead me to where I am now. I am constantly reading and learning as much from scripture as I can.

Hope you don’t mind my addition to your post. I just don’t want others to misinterpret, thinking you believe Catholics are not Christian, since you said its just another word.

Never studied those councils so I can’t speak to what they had to say. Catholics take Trent seriously.

May I encourage you to take a look at them? Wiki is Wiki, as they say, but maybe a start.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

Jon

 

[jericho777]

It isn’t shocking, per se. I read scripture and find the doctrines of the ancient Church - Trinity, Real Presence, Baptism there. I didn’t develop the doctrines myself, but I certainly find them there.

Hope you don’t mind my addition to your post. I just don’t want others to misinterpret, thinking you believe Catholics are not Christian, since you said its just another word.

May I encourage you to take a look at them? Wiki is Wiki, as they say, but maybe a start.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

Jon

That’s my point it’s not shocking that by reading scripture you can see these doctrines apart from someone telling you so.

I’m anathema so I might as well play it for all it’s worth.

Read the wiki article wasn’t very long. Thanks

 

[joe370]

That’s my point it’s not shocking that by reading scripture you can see these doctrines apart from someone telling you so.

I’m anathema so I might as well play it for all it’s worth.

Read the wiki article wasn’t very long. Thanks

The camp of Arius denied that Jesus was of the same substance as God, believing instead that Jesus was only the highest of created beings, and they, like you, based their believes on scripture alone. If the Trinitarian formula is so clearly spelled out in scripture then why don’t they agree with you and I?

And, if scripture alone, as opposed to the church, is the Christians final authority then how can you and I be certain that Arius was in fact wrong? Would you be willing to admit that perhaps Arius got it right and the catholic church got it wrong?

Did the CC have the right to declare Arianism a heresy?

Where does scripture clearly claim that the father and the holy spirit, or the son and the holy spirit are one, just as scripture clearly says that the father and the son are one?

The following words in red are a gloss and are found nowhere in in any of the Greek manuscripts.

"This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

This is what it actually says and what is found, rightfully so, in most bibles:

“This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s my point it’s not shocking that by reading scripture you can see these doctrines apart from someone telling you so.

I’m anathema so I might as well play it for all it’s worth.

Read the wiki article wasn’t very long. Thanks

Joe is correct and with Scripture alone we have Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Oneness Pentacostals denying the Trinity. Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone is responsible for this.

 

[CopticChristian]

Romans has plenty of teaching in it. Galatians is referring to Judaizers and Corinthians is more of a correctional letter. In Rom 1:2 Paul is reaffirming his adherence to the written word “the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.” Rom 1:5 is telling us that faith brings obedience. Why wouldn’t Paul correct an issue after all he even corrected Peter when he was wrong.

1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

The gospel was so clear that many Jews tried to kill Paul wherever he went. It was so clear that Roman Judaizing Christians were trying to impose the Old Covenant. The gospel was so clear that Judaizing Christians thought they were descendants of Abraham and Paul corrected them to understand that they were descendants of Adam. The gospel was so clear that Judaizing Christians had to be told that they too were under the power of sin and the Gentiles without Circumsion were outside the covenant but of The Covenant and that God was God of all Jew, Gentile and Barbarian. Pretty clear in reading what you get.