It's NOT in the Bible

[Luvtosew]

I’ve been following and I’m on neither side of the issue, but I don’t believe thats a case against SS in that

John 5:36-39 But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect; the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. [37] And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. [38] And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. [39] Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.

I believe the meaning in the above verses Jesus is telling the Jews that they think the Scriptures have eternal life but they obviously have not studied them well (the OT) because if they had they would of been following the words and commandments in them and known the Father more intimately,

but also they would of known a Messiah was coming and they should of reconized Jesus as the Messiah as it was foretold in the OT, so he is telling them to study the sciptures and they would know he is the Messiah. Jesus said they don’t have the scriptures written in their hearts even tho they believe they are the words of eternal life.

Like I said I’m not on either side of the issue, but even with the last verse of John saying Jesus did more things that couldn’t be written

we should not assume what they are, as God in his wisdom and the early Church Fathers knew what we would need when they compiled the Bible, we can assume that all important inspired writings they put in the Bible were true and they held nothing back from it. So we have all the inspired words God wanted us to have thanks to the early CC(early church fathers)

 

[fred_conty]

The Church did exist before the bible was fully written, but the Holy Spirit had a much more active role in those days, as the bible clearly states, to help everyone out. We don’t have the same spiritual gifts in the same quantity as the first century Christians did back then and I feel the reason was because they didn’t have the new testament to rely on.

We know they were temporary gifts.

I’m not going to use this post to argue for or against sola scriptura, but to simply say that Church tradition must always be harmonious with the written word. I don’t believe Catholics reject that notion that they should be in agreement. So I do take issue when a tradition is entirely unbiblical. Not to say that it’s outright sinful, but that it has no basis in scriptural authority.

The pharisees has a lot of traditions and rituals they used that weren’t necessarily sinful. Jesus called them on their hypocrisy, not their use of rituals necessarily. But the traditions they used didn’t profit them anything either since it was never mandated. At least that is my understand of the matter.

You are saying “it will be done away with” interpreting that the gifts will be done away with when “the perfect comes” meaning the new testament.

But the gifts are still with us and have not been done away with, even if the gifts in your view are not as strong as they were in the early church. The saints of the catholic church demonstrate this, as well as many protestant people testifying to them.

Secondly, “when the perfect comes” is pointing to I Cor 13;12 proclaiming “then we shall be seeing face to face” which means heaven, which is perfect. So the gifts will no longer be needed in heaven and “will be done away with”.

Just a thought and best wishes.

 

[fred_conty]

I’ve been following and I’m on neither side of the issue, but I don’t believe thats a case against SS in that

John 5:36-39 But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect; the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. [37] And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. [38] And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. [39] Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.

I believe the meaning in the above verses Jesus is telling the Jews that they think the Scriptures have eternal life but they obviously have not studied them well (the OT) because if they had they would of been following the words and commandments in them and known the Father more intimately,

but also they would of known a Messiah was coming and they should of reconized Jesus as the Messiah as it was foretold in the OT, so he is telling them to study the sciptures and they would know he is the Messiah. Jesus said they don’t have the scriptures written in their hearts even tho they believe they are the words of eternal life.

Like I said I’m not on either side of the issue, but even with the last verse of John saying Jesus did more things that couldn’t be written

we should not assume what they are, as God in his wisdom and the early Church Fathers knew what we would need when they compiled the Bible, we can assume that all important inspired writings they put in the Bible were true and they held nothing back from it. So we have all the inspired words God wanted us to have thanks to the early CC(early church fathers)

Here is what one early Father said about the Bible.

“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should. . . With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me. . . No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion. . . For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

St. Augustine

 

[PastorVW]

Yes. How can many believe only the Bible is infallible and Christ Church be fallible? Did not Christ promise to guide His Church into all Truth? Jesus made no reference to the Bible,but the Church. Likewise, scripture also states the church is the pillar of truth, not the Bible.

I have been too busy to put much time into this thread lately - but it looks like this good discussion continues!

I think that the idea that an inspired and infallible Bible requires an infallible Church to authenticate it just doesn’t stand up to logical examination.

Why? Well, I could answer that someone witnessing to what someone in authority has written simply does not need to have the same authority, but let me explain further:

Let us suppose that I go to a notary to have my will witnessed. I present identification so the notary knows who I am. He than watches me sign and affixes his or her seal. The notary validates my will - but he or she has no authority over my affairs at all. The notary is simply an authoritative witness. That is exactly what the early church is: A knowledgeable and authoritative witness.

Let’s look a little deeper.

First, what is the traditional Protestant view of inspiration? It is that the Scriptures are inspired and infallible as they came off the pens of the original authors. In regards to the New Testament, we believe that in order to qualify for inclusion a document must have been written by an Apostle or under the direct supervision of an Apostle. Thus authorship of the documents is of critical importance.

No one was in a better position to authenticate the authorship of than the local churches that first received them often times the person delivering the document both knew the author and was known to the local church. In other cases the author had actually served as pastor of the church receiving the document, so not only was their theology known to that church, their handwriting may have been as well (yes, we know they used scribes - but we know Paul wrote some portions in his own hand). We also know that very early on they were reading Epistles written to other churches. In this case the church that originally received the letter would testify to the authenticity of the letter - as might the Apostle who wrote it. In the case of the Gospels, they would have been authenticated by the authors or the Apostle under who they worked. The bottom line is that the early church knew what documents were written under Apostolic authority.

Of course, the early church also had the direct teaching of the Apostles - and this provided yet another way they could validate the New Testament documents. If someone produced a document supposedly written by an Apostle, and the doctrine in it conflicted with what they knew to be Apostolic teaching, they knew it was false.

In addition, once the first Apostles died, any “new” documents would fall under great suspicion. We know that the Church Fathers began to quote the New Testament documents very soon after the last Apostle died. These men were much closer in time to the origin of the documents then we are and their quotations indicate what documents the early Church held to be authoritative. Thus were have a strong and early witness to the New Testament “cannon”.

Now, let’s remember the definition of inspiration and infallibility. It is the original documents that we hold to be infallible - not the subsequent copies. The hold that the text we have today is reliable, not perfect. I *think *this is the Catholic view as well, since some Catholic theologians are involved in the science of textual criticism. We continue to compare early manuscripts in order to produce more accurate Greek texts.

So, if the early church (and the church today) is to be considered infallible, why did they not preserve the New Testament text perfectly? It is obvious that this did not happen, so it seems to me that if you argue that an infallible Bible requires an infallible Church you have a problem at this point.

Furthermore, our definition of Biblical infallibility only applies to the original documents. *Reliable *transmission simply does not require a *infallible *Church.

So, that’s what I believe and I look forward to your responses!

 

[PastorVW]

There is a great DVD called: Common Ground, What Catholics and Protestants Can Learn From Each Other. A priest and an Evangelical pastor discuss the differences between us. They have a wonderful open and kind relationship and have each spoken at the other’s church.

ninevehscrossing.com/CommonGround/CGOrder.php

Quite the eye opener. One of the points the priest makes is that if a Protestant wants to leave their church for any other church why that is just fine but, if they are becoming Catholic that is a whole other story.

A really enlightening video. I have watched this several times.

Looks very interesting. I read a book along the very same lines abut 2 years ago. I have forgotten who the authors were and my daughter in law has the book so I can’t look.

Thanks for letting me know about it!

 

[Nicea325]

]

Greetings pastor and God Bless. Unfortunately, I beg to differ that not having an infallible church is not only illogical,but also contrary what Christ taught.

Yes,but your analogy is not a good example or comparison. Your analogy involves two persons as oppose to a knowledgeable and authoritative body (church) and not merely a witness.

PastorVW:
Let’s look a little deeper.

First, what is the traditional Protestant view of inspiration? It is that the Scriptures are inspired and infallible as they came off the pens of the original authors. In regards to the New Testament, we believe that in order to qualify for inclusion a document must have been written by an Apostle or under the direct supervision of an Apostle. Thus authorship of the documents is of critical importance.

Yes and the CC does not differ that scriptural origins are from Apostolic orgin.However,where we differ is that inspiration and infallibility was not limited alone to the writers of the scriptures.

PastorVW:

No one was in a better position to authenticate the authorship of than the local churches that first received them often times the person delivering the document both knew the author and was known to the local church.

Yes but local churches were not a “hands-off” and independent churches apart from the larger context of the universal church. If you believe the early church resembled modern day Protestanism where every church was out doing their own things is a far cry from the truth.

In other cases the author had actually served as pastor of the church receiving the document, so not only was their theology known to that church, their handwriting may have been as well (yes, we know they used scribes - but we know Paul wrote some portions in his own hand). We also know that very early on they were reading Epistles written to other churches. In this case the church that originally received the letter would testify to the authenticity of the letter - as might the Apostle who wrote it. In the case of the Gospels, they would have been authenticated by the authors or the Apostle under who they worked. The bottom line is that the early church knew what documents were written under Apostolic authority.

Yes before anything was written down for authentication…all was taught by Apostolic Traditions or transmitted orally.

Of course, the early church also had the direct teaching of the Apostles - and this provided yet another way they could validate the New Testament documents. If someone produced a document supposedly written by an Apostle, and the doctrine in it conflicted with what they knew to be Apostolic teaching, they knew it was false.

Indeed,but determination of their authenticity did not a take a few years. The Church as whole took hundreds of years to decide. Determination was not settled and ratified at the local church,but at ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea 325 A.D, etc,etc).

In addition, once the first Apostles died, any “new” documents would fall under great suspicion. We know that the Church Fathers began to quote the New Testament documents very soon after the last Apostle died. These men were much closer in time to the origin of the documents then we are and their quotations indicate what documents the early Church held to be authoritative. Thus were have a strong and early witness to the New Testament “cannon”.

Yes but again, canonization was made official and ratified at councils,not local churches,big difference. Second, if no infallible church is required to determine an infallible source (Bible),then why bother to have any councils to determine the canon? The result (Bible) cannot be greater than the foundation (Church). Third, Scripture is very clear where lies the pillar of Truth…the church,not infallible writings.

Now, let’s remember the definition of inspiration and infallibility. It is the original documents that we hold to be infallible - not the subsequent copies. The hold that the text we have today is reliable, not perfect. I think this is the Catholic view as well, since some Catholic theologians are involved in the science of textual criticism. We continue to compare early manuscripts in order to produce more accurate Greek texts.

Yes,but as I said,where was infallibility limited to scriptural writers alone? Christ promised to guide the church into all Truth,never mentions infalliblity limitations to a byproduct called the Bible.

So, if the early church (and the church today) is to be considered infallible, why did they not preserve the New Testament text perfectly? It is obvious that this did not happen, so it seems to me that if you argue that an infallible Bible requires an infallible Church you have a problem at this point.

No offense,but here is where you are in error. The original NT writings perished as anything organic…time and elements. The Word of God was perserved,not the parchments. The Word of God resides within our hearts and souls,not strictly binded to written words. Peter and the others preserved the Word of God orally for years before anything was penned. What Bible did Abraham use?

Furthermore, our definition of Biblical infallibility only applies to the original documents. Reliable transmission simply does not require a infallible Church.

Really? Then show me the original documents or NT writings? How can infallibility apply only to written documents and not in the hearts,minds and souls of humans? Again, Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to the church (people) to guide them into all Truth, not to original documents.

So, that’s what I believe and I look forward to your responses!

---

Grace and Peace,

Vince

Much respected and always a pleasure Vince. God Bless

 

[Cat_Herder]

I think that the idea that an inspired and infallible Bible requires an infallible Church to authenticate it just doesn’t stand up to logical examination.
…
First, what is the traditional Protestant view of inspiration? It is that the Scriptures are inspired and infallible as they came off the pens of the original authors. In regards to the New Testament, we believe that in order to qualify for inclusion a document must have been written by an Apostle or under the direct supervision of an Apostle.

Pastor, as I’m sure you are aware, the bolded part is a church-defined tradition which you consider to be infallible. Before anyone brings it up I wanted to remind everyone that Methodists do hold to tradition as part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That is why you can square having an infallible tradition with “sola scriptura”–because in your case it is actually prima scriptura, IMHO.

 

[PastorVW]

Thanks for your response, Pastor. So, if I may ask, what is this “core doctrine” which unites all Christians. And if there is a “core doctrine” that is the only thing essential in being a Christian, then why isn’t the New Testament 1 or 2 pages long?

There’s a Christian comedy special running on our TV service. The tease for it features a puppet routine in which the puppet has “Twitterised” the Bible. For instance, he reduced the Book of Revelation to two words, “Oh oh!”

Asking why the New Testament isn’t one or two pages long assumes that all that is needed is a basic doctrinal statement. Obviously a lot more is important and needed, We also need stuff explained in many different ways.

The Apostle’s Creed is not very long - yet it does a fairly good job of summarizing a great deal of very important doctrinal information. In fact, it could be used as a statement of “core doctrine” that unites all Christians (or at least almost all).

About a hundreds years ago, Protestant Evangelicals from a variety of church communions came together to oppose the theological liberalism of the day. They came up with five core doctrines that both united them and - in their opinion - formed the core doctrines of the Christian faith. They came to be known as the Five “Fundamentals”. They are:

1. The inspiration and authority of Scripture.
2. The Deity and Virgin Birth of Christ
3. The atoning death of Christ upon the Cross
4. The literal, bodily resurrection of Christ.
5. The literal, future return of Christ.

I think the Apostle’s Creed does a better job of summarizing the core doctrines of the faith - but it is interesting to note that all five fundamentals are affirmed by the Catholic Church

My point is that there are truths that are essential to believe that have been rejected by most outside of the Catholic Church. “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you.” That sounds pretty essential, but most Protestant denominations reject this.

Actually, it would be accurate to say that most Protestant denominations reject a completely literal interpretation of that verse. That is not the same thing as saying that they reject the verse itself. Very, very few denominations completely reject Holy Communion - almost all practice it in some form. All link it to the atoning work of Christ upon the Cross. Many view it as symbolic of the Body and Blood of Christ, which saves us. Others - including myself - believe that actually Christ is present in some way. Virtually none fail to carry out the command to “do this in remembrance of me.”

I certainly realize that this matter does divide us. I deeply respect the Catholic position (which is why, unlike a certain former president, I do not partake when I have occasion to attend Mass).

Yes, we can all say that we believe in God. We can all say that we believe that God sent his only Son to save us from our sins and that we must believe in Him in order to be saved. But is that enough? Some say it is.

I think we need to define things a bit tighter than that, but I basically agree. For one thing, we need to make sure we are talking about the Biblical Jesus, second person of the Trinity. Belief must be actual and really lived out, not just an intellectual exercise. In so much as your statement is consistent with the five fundamentals and the Apostle’s Creed, I agree.

And then we hear that we must be born of water and the Spirit through Baptism. Yet some say this is only an “ordinance” and that Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Those that do believe it is necessary disagree on exactly what effect it has on the soul.

And yet, as my Baptist professor said, "The Bible nowhere envisions unbaptized “Christians”. There is universal agreement upon the Trinitarian Formula and on the need for all believers to be baptized. There is also agreement that Baptism is the initiatory rite of the Christian Faith. To its’ credit, the Catholic Church does not re-baptize those who have been baptized in other churches. Neither do we.

I also think that there is agreement that, in the absence of faith, it cannot save an adult.

The biggest practical disagreements are over methods (like Catholics, we accept all three) and the baptism of infants (we dedicate or baptize according to the parents beliefs). I do not want to minimize these differences because they are very real and heartfelt - and could have eternal effect.

Many of the other questions are academic if we are simply obedient to the command to be baptized. As for unbaptized infants, or converts who have not yet had an opportunity to be baptized, I trust that the God of the universe, to God who sent his Son to die for us, WILL DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

I’m sorry, but I just cannot buy the notion that the division is due to just ministering to different groups, or different forms of church government or the location in different regions.

All of it isn’t - but a great deal of it is.

Probably the biggest cause today is the spread of theological liberalism. Sadly, about the only large “mainline” denomination that has stood firm is the Southern Baptists. Many new denominations have been formed simply to retain basic Christian beliefs.

Yes, there have been cases where new denominations have been formed for very dumb reasons. Sometimes people to “major in the minors”.

Please also remember that our view of Christian unity does not require us to be part of the same organization. We believe that all believers are united in Christ by the Holy Spirit - no matter what church they belong to. It cannot be created by church government, it cannot be created by us at all - we can only recognize it.

 

[PastorVW]

The Catholic Church is located all over the world and has been for centuries, but we are united in our doctrine, practices and beliefs.

That’s why there is only one order of Priests and nuns, right? There are many different flavors of Catholics, under the Catholic umbrella. There are also many flavors of Evangelicals under the Evangelical Protestant umbrella.

As for length of time, we share the same roots. Sadly, too many in my camp think nothing happened between the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther, but many - including myself - disagree with that statement.

The division is due to personal opinion as to what is essential based upon personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

If you mean as opposed to a single individual being able to dictate doctrine opposed to the teaching of the Scriptures, I plead guilty. If you really believe that the Pope is the infallible interpreter of Scripture - what would you do tomorrow if he announced that the Trinity was not true and that there are three Gods “with who we have to do”? I hope you would rise up and say, “That’s wrong! The Bible and 2,000 years of Church Tradition (I would say consensus) support the Trinity!”

Of course this will never happen. Why? Because, in reality, the Pope is submissive to both the Scriptures and Tradition.

IMHO, neither Catholics or Protestants teach that entirely "personal interpretation is the way to go. If we did, we would just had people a Bible and tell them to read it.

Instead, we take Paul’s command to Timothy seriously: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15 NASB)

We study the word diligently and collectively. IMHO the core truths if the Word are just not that hard to understand. They are very clear. That’s why so many churches hold them in common.

The fact that when it all shakes out there may be some common ground here and there is not enough.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I just can’t consider the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, the Deity of Christ, His atoning work on the Cross, the resurrection, the second coming of Christ, the Trinity, the baptismal formula, and whatever else I am forgetting at this time of night to be “some common ground”. If you said, “a great deal of common ground, with room for disagreement on some very important issues”, I would agree.

Yes, the Catholic Church calls most Protestant denominations our “seperated bretheren”. We say this because we believe in the mercy of God and also believe that if they knew the truth of the Church that they would accept it.

Thank you. Yet, what standard is applied to determine who are “separated brethern” and who are not?

So, what is essential, Pastor?

That which if not believed and acted upon, excludes us from the saving work of Christ.

And who determines what is essential? You? Me? The next person that knocks on our door? And by what authority do we proclaim that only this is essential and that isn’t?

God determines it and communicates it through His Word. The only authority we have to answer these questions is the Word.

Thanks and God bless. Hope you get everything fixed. One thing we certainly have in common is that we all have days like that.

Steve

Thanks Steve. My Explorer is up and running, but fixing the wife’s Kia has been an excellent lesson is patience

I thought we were finally passed everything after we located the last part we needed at “Pick and Pull”. Wrong - we lost the crossmember bolts. This job should have taken about three days, but it has taken three weeks.

The good news is that my 92 year old mother in law is recovering nicely from her fall - she is much more important than any car!

May Our Lord spare you from trials and keep your faith in Him strong!

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Actually the bolded words are false. The Bible did not decide all by itself it is the infallible Word of God, it needed another external and infallible source. What could that be? The Church…the Mystical Body of Jesus (Eph 1:22-23).

Actually, the bolded words of yours are false.

Nic do you really believe God needs an arbiter?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Actually, the bolded words of yours are false.

Nic do you really believe God needs an arbiter?

I believe he is referring to the book itself.

The book (or collection of books) needed to be put together. If we affirm that the books contained in side the bible are indeed the word of God.

1. Who determines which books (Actually in the past tense since this has already been determined)
2. By which authority and guidance?

God doesn’t need an arbiter, we do. He is our All.

If you assert that the Bible you hold in your hands is the word of God,
How did you come to that conclusion?
Who told you it was?
Who told the person that told you it was? Keep going as far back as you can.
Who wrote the books contained therein?
Who put those books together originally?
Did the authors of some of the books teach and delegated the teachings that go along with them?
Who were those authors?
Who were their disciples?
Did the authors follow the instructions given to them by Jesus?
Did they form His Church?
Was His Church formed before the New Testament came about?
Is that the New Testament you hold in your hands right now?

These are but some of the questions we need to ask ourselves, and we must answer them in all honesty, regardless of how much we don’t like those answers.

Are we the rich man that would not sell all his possessions (ideas) and give all his wealth (attachment to temporary things)?
Are we too proud to put down our walls and look at the truth?

Are we in complete obedience to Him?

I’ve been there, truth is truth and there is nothing I can do about it. If I am to accept the Bible as the Word of God, I must accept the reality that comes with it. No ifs, no buts.

In Him,

Jose

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, the bolded words of yours are false.

Nic do you really believe God needs an arbiter?

Nope! You are incorrect. Show me one verse where the Bible provides or mentions the canon? Do you believe God does NOT need an arbiter on earth? Seriously?

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes he gave us Christians the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes he gave us Christians the Holy Spirit.

You aren’t claiming that the Holy Spirit inspired all of the divisions and disagreements in Protestantism, I hope.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Actually, the bolded words of yours are false.

Nic do you really believe God needs an arbiter?

No, God doesn’t need humans. But they exist anyway.

 

[Luvtosew]

You aren’t claiming that the Holy Spirit inspired all of the divisions and disagreements in Protestantism, I hope.

All Christians, that includes you too.

 

[Nicea325]

All Christians, that includes you too.

Your position is true to a point. However, if the Holy Spirit inspires us all,then why thousands of different denominations,sects,beliefs,etc? Since when did the Holy Spirit teach conflicting TRUTHS? Where is that in the Bible?

God the Father teaches…ONE TRUTH
God the Son taught…ONE TRUTH
God the Holy Spirit…teaches…MULTIPLE TRUTHS? :ehh:

 

[Luvtosew]

Your position is true to a point. However, if the Holy Spirit inspires us all,then why thousands of different denominations,sects,beliefs,etc? Since when did the Holy Spirit teach conflicting TRUTHS? Where is that in the Bible?

God the Father teaches…ONE TRUTH
God the Son taught…ONE TRUTH
God the Holy Spirit…teaches…MULTIPLE TRUTHS? :ehh:

Well apparently it happened in 1054 right, and then with the Protestants. Men are fallible and not all follow the HS. , thats why they need to follow the Bible and not their own agenda.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well apparently it happened in 1054 right, and then with the Protestants. Men are fallible and not all follow the HS. , thats why they need to follow the Bible and not their own agenda.

Grace and Peace from God the Father and Blessing from His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Can you please explain how there were multiple truths lead by the Holy Spirit in 1054 and with the Protestans?

Who is saying that all men follow the HS?

You say we need to follow the Bible, but there’s some unanswered questions in another thread from your opinion of Bible Alone. Can you please explain?

Can you please find what Matthew 17:21 says in the NIV translation?

And please what is this agenda you mention?

Thanks.

 

[Luvtosew]

Grace and Peace from God the Father and Blessing from His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Can you please explained how there were multiple truths lead by the Holy Spirit in 1054 and with the Protestans?

Who is saying that all men follow the HS?

You say we need to follow the Bible, but there’s some unanswered questions in another thread from your opinion of Bible Alone. Can you please explain?

Can you please find what Matthew 17:21 says in the NIV translation?

And please what is this agenda you mention?

Thanks.

I was talking about the division of the RCC in 1054 with the other 4 Apostolic Churches and then again with the Protestant reformation. So see everyone has a different take on tradition and interpretation of the Sciptures. The Bible needs to be followed, that is the Word of God. Some men have their own agenda, so one needs to be careful who to listen to. All Christians are given the HS, but some don’t use it and some don’t listen to it, and some haven’t fed it. Why don’t you tell me what Matt 17:21 says.

21 Howbeit this akind goeth not out but by prayer and bfasting.