Is the bible all we need 1

[E.E.N.S]

kaycee:

Certainly Christ’s body, His Church will never be overcome! To exclusively limit the church to the visible institution is short sighted…

I don’t limit it to a visible institution! Nor does the Church. That thought is just your misunderstanding.

kaycee:

Are all those in the mystical body of Christ Saved? YES! .

Only if they persevere to the end in that Body.

kaycee:

Are all those in the institutional Catholic Church Saved? .

Same as above…perseverence.

Joh 10:27 - My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me. Is this only for those who are RCC no matter what their personal belief is?.

The Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth, though Christ did say, “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold” (John 10:16)
A person that is baptised in the trinitarian method is part of the Catholic Church, whether they are within its visible institution or not.

kaycee:

Harvard institution was founded as a Christian college for evangelising. **It bears the same name **but it is a bastion of liberal secular humanism…

So what? I know plenty of Catholics/protestants/atheists who would fit into the same type of category.

I can stand with Augustine affirming that the Rock was the Peter’s confession of Christ as the Mesiah.

But do you stand with St. Augustine in his view of the Catholic Church’s authority? Or his view on the Eaucharist? Or any of his obviously Catholic beliefs?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I can stand with Augustine affirming that the Rock was the Peter’s confession of Christ as the Mesiah.

How do you feel about these quotes from Augustine [dealing with Peter]?

"Peter bore the person of the church.” *Augustine, Sermon 149:7 (inter A.D. 391-430). *

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” *Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393). *

 

[Church_Militant]

kaycee:

I am not denying that many fathers thought Peter was the rock. Many also thought the rock was the confession of Christ as the Mesiah by Peter. Many who thought Peter was the rock did not translate Matt 16:18 as the present day RCC does today.

My point is that the early church was certainly not unanimous in the meaning of this foundational verse and did not see the entire church being subject to the Roman Pontif.

Where’s your proof of this…and further, It must not have been much of a problem for them since they submitted to the popes of their respective days and remained in the Catholic Church. Even Augustine summed the whole matter up in this, with:

“I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.”
-St. Augustine (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6).

 

[kaycee]

E.E.N.S.:

You want to hear what the Early Church Fathers say about Peter being “the rock?”

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

Let’s see how Tertullian explains what he means when he says that Peter is the rock on which the Church would be built:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).

When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins. In the words just preceding this quote Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter and therefore he does not in any way see a Petrine primacy in this verse with successors in the bishops of Rome. The patristic scholar, Karlfried Froehlich, states that even though Tertullian teaches that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in the same sense as the Roman Catholic Church:

‘Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18–19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members.’ (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, pp. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989)

 

[kaycee]

E.E.N.S.:

You want to hear what the Early Church Fathers say about Peter being “the rock?”

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” *Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. *232).

In Origen’s mind Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is. This is the view expressed in the following comments:

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, **we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock ** which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

 

[kaycee]

E.E.N.S.:

You want to hear what the Early Church Fathers say about Peter being “the rock?”

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” *Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251). *

“…folly of Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” *Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256). *

And now the rest of the story… Cyprian tells us what he means when allowed.

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity. He is representative of the Church as a whole. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ is himself the true Rock. The bishops of Rome are not endowed with divine authority to rule the Church. All of the bishops together constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co–equals. If Cyprian meant to say that the Church was built upon Peter and he who resists the bishop of Rome resists the Church (cutting himself off from the Church), then he completely contradicts himself, for, he opposed Stephen, the bishop of Rome in his interpretation of Matthew 16 as well as on theological and jurisdictional issues. His actions prove that his comments about Peter could not coincide with the Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. To do so is a distortion of his true meaning.

 

[EA_Man]

And now the rest of the story… Cyprian tells us what he means when allowed.

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity. He is representative of the Church as a whole. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ is himself the true Rock. The bishops of Rome are not endowed with divine authority to rule the Church. All of the bishops together constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co–equals. If Cyprian meant to say that the Church was built upon Peter and he who resists the bishop of Rome resists the Church (cutting himself off from the Church), then he completely contradicts himself, for, he opposed Stephen, the bishop of Rome in his interpretation of Matthew 16 as well as on theological and jurisdictional issues. His actions prove that his comments about Peter could not coincide with the Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. To do so is a distortion of his true meaning.

Well said.

God bless

 

[kaycee]

E.E.N.S.:

You want to hear what the Early Church Fathers say about Peter being “the rock?”

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

Again, when allowed Eusebius very clearly expressed his views on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:

‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)…By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘**Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ **These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).

Eusebius unambiguously teaches that the rock is Christ. He correlates this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 10:4 and 3:11. He goes on to say that there is a subsidiary foundation, from Ephesians 2:20, of the apostles and prophets, the Church also built upon them, but the cornerstone is Christ. However he interprets this to mean that the Church is to be built upon the words or teachings of the apostles and prophets as opposed to their persons. It is in this sense that it can be said that the Church is built upon Peter and the other apostles. It is clear that Christ alone is the true foundation and rock of the Church and that Eusebius sees no peculiar Petrine primacy associated with Christ’s statements in Matthew 16. Peter is simply one of a number of the apostles who is a foundation of the Church. This has nothing to do with his person, but everything to do with his words—his confession. This helps us to properly understand other references of Eusebius to Peter. For example, when he says: ‘But Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one epistle undisputed,’ (Ecclesiastical History II.XXV (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), p. 246), he does not mean that Christ established a papal office in Peter and that the Church is built upon him in a personal sense and through him upon his supposed successors. The Church is built upon Peter by being built upon his confession of faith. In light of his comments from his Commentary on the Psalms we can conclude that Eusebius did not interpret Matthew 16:18 in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. It is Christ and Christ alone that fills Eusebius’ vision from this passage.

 

[kaycee]

Church Militant:

Where’s your proof of this…and further, It must not have been much of a problem for them since they submitted to the popes of their respective days and remained in the Catholic Church. Even Augustine summed the whole matter up in this, with:

“I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.”
-St. Augustine (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6).

At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, **very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ. ** The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him.** But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable ** (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter. This became his consistent position. He does leave the interpretation open for individual readers to decide which was the more probable interpretation but it is clear what he has concluded the interpretation should be and that **he believes the view that the rock is Christ is the correct one. The fact that he would even suggest that individual readers could take a different position is evidence of the fact that after four hundred years of church history there was no official authoritative Church interpretation of this passage as Vatican One has stated. Can the reader imagine a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church today suggesting that it would be appropriate for individuals to use private interpretation and come to their own conclusion as to the proper meaning of the rock of Matthew 16? But that is precisely what Augustine does, **although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes. And his view was not a novel interpretation, come to at the end of his life, but his consistent teaching throughout his ministry. Nor was it an interpretation that ran counter to the prevailing opinion of his day. The following quotation is representative of the overall view espoused by this great teacher and theologian:

And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; **but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…**Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

Augustine could not be clearer in his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16. In his view, Peter is representative of the whole Church. The rock is not the person of Peter but Christ himself. In fact, in the above statements, in exegeting Matthew 16, he explicitly says that Christ did not build his Church on a man, referring specifically to Peter. If Christ did not build his Church on a man then he did not establish a papal office with successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome

 

[E.E.N.S]

What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, … If Christ did not build his Church on a man then he did not establish a papal office with successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome

kaycee, perhaps I should clear something up for you…it’s not Peter’s confession, nor is it Peter the man himself - it’s BOTH!

We all know that Catholics believe that it was Peter himself who was the rock (which the Church teaches and history plainly shows), but the Catholic Church teaches ALSO that is was on Peter’s confession,
[catechism 424: Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9
"To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ"10 ]

So you see, we have no problem with the fact that it was also on Peter’s confession, but you cannot ignore the fact that it was on Peter himself (hence the name change from Simon to Peter (rock).
History plainly shows this kaycee.

 

[Mickey]

E.E.N.S.:

kaycee, perhaps I should clear something up for you…it’s not Peter’s confession, nor is it Peter the man himself - it’s BOTH!

We all know that Catholics believe that it was Peter himself who was the rock (which the Church teaches and history plainly shows), but the Catholic Church teaches ALSO that is was on Peter’s confession,
[catechism 424: Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9
"To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ"10 ]

So you see, we have no problem with the fact that it was also on Peter’s confession, but you cannot ignore the fact that it was on Peter himself (hence the name change from Simon to Peter (rock).
History plainly shows this kaycee.

Yes. It is not either/or–it is both/and.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I would really like EA_Man and kaycee to explain to me how my argument is against a straw man. The way I see it, I merely took the definition of sola scriptura kaycee gave me and applied it.

kaycee’s definition: "The whole counsel of God, concerning **all things necessary **for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture . . . "

My argument:

In order to have sola scriptura, it is **necessary **to have scripture.

In order to have scripture, it is **necessary **to know what scripture is.

In order to know what scripture is, it is **necessary **to have some way of determining what scripture is.

It is therefore **necessary **to appeal to an authority outside scripture.

An authority outside scripture is therefore necessary.

**All things necessary **means **all things necessary. **Yet there is something **necessary **that is not expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture. That thing is an authority to tell us what scripture is.

EA_Man said, “This argument is based upon oversimplication.”
Well, that should make it overly simple to refute, but I don’t see anybody doing that.

 

[adventistnomore]

kaycee,

I appreciate the thought and zeal you placd into your presentations of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, and Augustine’s interpretations of Matt.16:18.

A few thoughts:

1. Tertullian. You failed in you reply to note the period in Tertullian’s life during which he wrote this treatise. “On Modesty” was written c. 212, and against the Catholic Church AFTER Tertullian had embraced the Montanist heresy. Throughout the treatise he categorically attacks the Church’s system of absolution/penance because ** he did not believe that repentance could be offered to a backslid Christian as the Church claimed. ** Hence, his position must force him to reject another collary doctrine: the tranfer of the authority to bind and to loose in the apostolic succession. His testimony fits better in a study of variant views of Christian repentance/absolution; that it also rejects Peterine succession is expected.
2. You are correct when addressing Origen and Eusebius’ views. Personally, I disagree with the exegesis of both, (only one of many differences between myself and Origen), but good work.
3. Cyprain’s views on the episcopal succession were NOT Roman Catholic, and I agree that care must be taken so not to misconstrue his words.
4. Noting Augustine’s later retaction is also commendable. Again, even as a Protestant, my exegesis of Matt 16:18 ld me to maintain that Christ undeniably established Peter as the “Rock” of the Church. As I enter into the Catholic Church, I do so because I also accept that the same primacy is still active within the Church. Nonetheless, I appreciate your corrections.

• Hugo

 

[LSK]

faith

has saved you; go in peace.

Acts 2:21 - And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ac 16:31 - And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

Joh 3:15 - that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Joh 3:18 - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Joh 5:24 - Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Joh 8:24 - I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins

Tit 3:5 - he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Ac 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, **that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. **

Ro 3:22 - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:

Ro 3:26 - It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Ro 3:28 - For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Ro 3:30 - **since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. **

Ro 5:1 - Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ro 10:9 - because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Ro 10:17 - So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ

Ga 2:16 - **yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. **

Ga 3:11 - Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for The righteous shall live by faith.

Ga 3:26 - for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

1Co 1:21 - For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, **it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. **

1Ti 1:16 - But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

2Ti 3:15 - and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Joh 20:31 - but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1Jo 5:13 - I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

Funny, I dont see works to get salvation just for post salvation.

**Joh 11:26 - “and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” **

Indeed, do you believe this?

of course - do you believe this?
1 Cor 11:2 (hold fast to traditions I handed on to you)
2 Thess 2:15 Hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thes 3:6 shun those acting not according to tradition
John 21:21 not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture

Do you believe this?

James 2:24 a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

James 2:26 faith without works is dead

Galatians 5:6 only thing that counts is faith working in love

1 Cor 13:2 faith without love is NOTHING

 

[LSK]

oh, and how about believing THIS:

Matthew 7:21 - not everyone saying “Lord, Lord” will inherit.

1 Cor 10:11 - 12 those thinking they are secure, may fall

Gal 5:4 - separated from Christ, you’ve fallen from grace

2 Tim 2:11 - 13 must hold out to end to reign with Christ

and of course:
Hebrews, 10:26-27 (if you sin after receiving truth, judgement remains).

Hmms…looks like it is going to take more than faith to save me. In fact, now that I think about it, Satan acknowleges Jesus as the King of Heaven, and faith is not enough to save him…yup, I better combine my faith with good works and good behavior or…

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

I would really like EA_Man and kaycee to explain to me how my argument is against a straw man. The way I see it, I merely took the definition of sola scriptura kaycee gave me and applied it.

kaycee’s definition: "The whole counsel of God, concerning **all things necessary **for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture . . . "

My argument:

In order to have sola scriptura, it is **necessary **to have scripture.

In order to have scripture, it is **necessary **to know what scripture is.

In order to know what scripture is, it is **necessary **to have some way of determining what scripture is.

It is therefore **necessary **to appeal to an authority outside scripture.

An authority outside scripture is therefore necessary.

**All things necessary **means **all things necessary. **Yet there is something **necessary **that is not expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture. That thing is an authority to tell us what scripture is.

EA_Man said, “This argument is based upon oversimplication.”
Well, that should make it overly simple to refute, but I don’t see anybody doing that.

This article might help you understand.

Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition
What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.

It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not “become divine” through human agreement with it.

Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: “…having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever… And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you” (I Peter 1:23-25).

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God’s revealed word which, as such, always has been the church’s canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case.

reformed.org/bible/bahnsen_canon.html

 

[E.E.N.S]

kaycee:

This article might help you understand.

Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition
What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.

It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not “become divine” through human agreement with it.

Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: “…having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever… And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you” (I Peter 1:23-25).

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God’s revealed word which, as such, always has been the church’s canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case.

reformed.org/bible/bahnsen_canon.html

kaycee, you misunderstand WHO the Church is.

~I am outta here for the day my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, have a blessed day!~

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

This article might help you understand.

Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition
What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.

It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not “become divine” through human agreement with it.

If so, how could one defend Luther’s decision to remove seven books from the Old Testament? What is one to do with someone who declares that The Gospel of Thomas is inspired and therefore authoritative? Somewhere along the line there has to be human acceptance and recognition of the canon or else you have chaos as to what the canon is.

Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church.
The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: “…having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever… And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you” (I Peter 1:23-25).

What makes the author think the word of God is limited to scripture? It says “the word of good news which was **preached **unto you” not “written down for you.”

And somebody must define what the word of God is, or how else are we to know 1 Peter is scripture?

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon.

Except, of course, that there were actual councils that decided certain works were scripture.

The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God’s revealed word which, as such, always has been the church’s canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case.

reformed.org/bible/bahnsen_canon.html

Where does scripture say that “authority is inherent in those writings from the outset and the church simply confesses this to be the case”?

I can’t help wondering how the church can receive writings as God’s revealed word without having some criterea by which to judge that they are God’s revealed word. Scripture gives us no such criterea.

I asked you to discuss how my argument was against a straw man, but I don’t see you doing that here.

 

[mercygate]

kaycee:

This article might help you understand.

Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition
What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.

It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not “become divine” through human agreement with it.

Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: “…having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever… And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you” (I Peter 1:23-25).

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God’s revealed word which, as such, always has been the church’s canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case.

reformed.org/bible/bahnsen_canon.html

Does the Bible exist for its own sake? No. Did we find it written on golden plates in a cornfield? No. Scripture exists for the people of God – to convey the story of God’s relationship with his people throughout history, to confirm us in faith, to guide us to Heaven. This article squirms all over the place trying to dissociate Scripture from the people of God. If the Holy Spirit could confirm a decision in Acts 15, can he not confirm the descendents of those apostles in their decision on the canon? This article, taken to its logical conclusion would mean that we have no way at all of knowing what the canon is. No sale.

 

[Bry]

Paul is telling Timothy that the scriptures are “profitable” but nowhere does he say that they are “sufficient.” Also, tell your friend to read what Paul says to Timothy about adhering to the things he was taught by word of mouth. These are things which are not written. Nowhere does the bible teach that ALL revelation is on paper. Consider, also, what Paul says to the Phillipians near the end of the book: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if ther is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”(Phil 4:8-9).