John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[Tomster]

BTW, read my post #790 very closely. Thank you very much.

I have read it and found it to be lacking. Additionally, it is nothing more than your own fallible spin on the matter. If you had read my post closely you would have understood why.

You’re welcome very much.

 

[MrS]

The church Christ has been building since Pentecost, which began in Jerusalem, not Rome. The church whose members have a citizenship in heaven from which they eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:20). Paul never said he belonged to a “church” headquartered in Rome. He wrote to the church at Rome, so can you show me where in his letter he referred to it, specifically, as “the” church? Can you show me in his other letters to other churches where he identified himself and them as all being fellow members of the one Roman Catholic church headed by Peter, the vicar of Christ on earth?The RCC according to the RCC. There is, however, a church Christ has been building since Pentecost upon “the rock” (petra) of the truth that Peter (petros) professed: that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The context of Matt. 16:18 is not Peter, but Jesus. Jesus asks the question, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” The answer revealed to Peter is the rock upon which Jesus is building his church. If the RCC is being built instead upon Peter, as it claims, then what does that say about the RCC?

As least you got that part right.

Everybody else got it wrong. But God chose Peter in whom to reveal the answer. Just as he chooses the successors of Peter so that we may know with confidence that it is God’s plan… not MacArthur’s.

The Catholic Church (there is no “Roman Catholic Church” … but there is a Catholic Church, Roman Rite)… is not built by anyone but Jesus Christ. The fact that He chooses the office of Pope, or Prime Minister (Isaiah 20) to rule until He, the King, returns, is His choice.

Live with it … or leave it. That choice is always the individual choice.

.

 

[Protestant101]

P101, in your post you imply that the church changed it’s canon, but everything you have cited so far does not say that, not even implicitly. The canon was still accepted prior to Trent, they merely re-referenced it to protocanonial and deuterocanonical, the books remained the same. I don’t know where you get your ideas other than your clear bias of trying to justify reformists revision of God’s word.

Oh, of course! You must be right!!

 

[Protestant101]

I think the only real problem is they are cut off from Christ’s Church so the other problems ensue.

My goodness! It’s already morning again. I am off to bed!

LOL; you are staying up too late! That’s why you post the way you do!! Have a nice week end! I will be away for a bit.

 

[moondweller]

As least you got that part right.

Everybody else got it wrong. But God chose Peter in whom to reveal the answer. Just as he chooses the successors of Peter so that we may know with confidence that it is God’s plan… not MacArthur’s.

The Catholic Church (there is no “Roman Catholic Church” … but there is a Catholic Church, Roman Rite)

According to Scripture, not Rome, there is “the church” Christ is presently building upon the foundation of the Apostles - but no geographical or doctrinal “Rite” attached to it.

… is not built by anyone but Jesus Christ. The fact that He chooses the office of Pope, or Prime Minister (Isaiah 20) to rule until He, the King, returns, is His choice.

Isaiah 20? Is your “Prime Minister” going around naked and barefoot?

Live with it … or leave it. That choice is always the individual choice.

Yes, it is indeed. But there was a time when men and women paid with their lives to make that individual decision.

 

[M0nkey]

 

[guanophore]

Where and when did we say that Scripture is not infallible? We never ever said that.

I said it, and I try to say it every time I see the claim made. Scripture cannot be infallible because infallibility requires the ability to act. It is a quality that belongs to persons, not writings, however Holy they may be. Infallible means that a mistake cannot be made by taking action, or failing to take it. It requires discernment and volition, qualities not belonging to the Holy Writings. This is why it was such a serious mistake to try to replace the authority appointed by Christ in the Church with the writings. It is trying to force the Holy Scripture into a role that was not intended for it.

Scripture cannot the the final “rule” in the sense of governance because scripture does not have the ability to take responsibility or be held accountable for decisions. What happens is that people end up doing these things themselves, believing that Scripture is acting infallibly. What they have done is become their own magesterium.

 

[guanophore]

I have already provided scripture. Here are the scriptures again. Scripture states that it is "inspired" and competent" for a believer to be "equipped for every good work" 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Let us examine this passage, shall we?

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Indeed, Scripture is inspired. Benedictus’ question is a valid one, how do you know these books are scripture? There were 400+ documents floating around, all claiming to be inspired. How is it only these 27 were chosen for the NT?

This passage does not refer to scripture as “competent”. In order to be competent, there must be an ability to act, which the Holy Writings do not. The duties listed here, which make the believer competent (teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness) are duties give to the Church. Scripture is profitable in the completion of these duties. Notice why Timothy can be confident? “knowing from whom you learned”. His Mother, grandmother, and the Church, especially the Apostle Paul were his instructors. He received infallible teaching from an inspired source.

Paul stresses the need to cling to the scriptures 1:13, 2:15, 3:15-16, 4:2. This supports the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Let’s look at these also, shall we?

2 Tim 1:13
13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me,

Were you referring to this scripture? If so, it is more of a testimony AGAINST SS. The “pattern of sound words” is called Sacred Tradition. What the reformers did was try to replace this with the extrabiblical doctrine of SS. They separated themselves from the pattern of sound words handed down from the Apostles.

2 Tim 2:15-16
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

One becomes approved to rightly handle the word of Truth when they are given this authority by the ones appointed from Apostles. Even so, this verse says nothing about any Scripture. At that time the NT did not exist,and the “word of Truth” was contained in “the pattern of sound words”. This does not demonstrate anything to do with SS.

2 Tim 4:2
2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching

This passage has nothing to do with Holy Scripture either. These are all duties given to the bishop by the Apostle. I don’t know why you think any of these passages support SS, but they don’t.

That being said, I will concede that Scripture can be used to support all manner of non
Christian ideas. For example, this scripture:

1 Tim 2:15
15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Has been used to support the notion that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant, so they will be saved. And this one:

Titus 2:8-10
9 Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, 10 nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Has been used to justify corporal punishment to slaves, as well as coercive sexual relations upon demand.

My point is that cherry picking scriptures to support extrabiblical ideas is very possible. Doing so does not make the ideas correct. The scriputres you have provided to “support the doctrine of SS” may do so in your mind, but only there.

Jesus also appealed to the bible as the final court of appeal. This was done often with the phrase "it is written" Matt 4:4,7,10. Jesus made it clear that the bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. "why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition Matt 15:3,6"

No, Jesus did not. Jesus used the Scripture as it is meant to be used, an unbreakable standard of faith. The Scriptures cannot act as “final court of appeal” because appeal and jurisdiction require discernment, which Scriptures do not do. Jesus is the final court of appeal,and He applied the Scriptures infallibly. He enabled the Apostles to do the same, and they passed this on to their successors.

 

[guanophore]

You’ve got to be kidding, guanophore. Paul was an Apostle and the church is being built (to this very day) upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph. 2:20).

Yes, of course. My point was about the "sub apostolic’ period, where converts who came to the faith through the preaching of the Apostles, such as Mark and Luke wrote what the Apostles taught.

But it’s the Scriptures that “expose” such an error, they don’t uphold it. Although Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus, it was by Scripture that Jesus exposed the error of his thinking. From the beginning Satan has attacked the Word of God (Gen. 3:1,4). Nothing has changed since then.

I agree. My point is that the scriptures can be “interpreted” or applied by Satan, and by the “ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction” 2 " Peter 3:16

Scripture can be used both ways, and the reason for it is because each one who reads it interprets it according to his own wisdom (or lack of it). This is why Scripture alone cannot be a relialbe final rule of faith.

There still is only one church (although many claim to be it). It began at Pentecost in Jerusalem and is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles to this very day.

I am glad we can agree on SOMETHING! :extrahappy:

The point being they were Scripture the moment they were penned by those first generation Christians. Men, nor council, made them Divine Scripture. They were with and in the churches since the first generation of believers. It’s as simple as that, my friend.

Yes, they came forth from the pen inspired. The reason that the ECF’s and the councils recognized them as inspired inerrant Scripture is because they reflected 100% the teaching of the Apostles that was handed down to them. Those documents that did not, were not included in the canon.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Yes, of course! His Word, however, is not confined to the pages of the Holy Writings. When this world passes away, and everything in it (including all the Bibles), His word will still stand.

 

[guanophore]

No; this is not how it is; and you should know that:

“In the early Church, there was no list of books accepted as canonical. Christ and then the Apostles did not provide any kind of authoritative statement as to what books might be consulted”, Taken from: Our Sunday Visitor’s ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLIC HISTORY, under “Bible.”

As with scripture, we read it differently, don’t we?

The fact that no canon had been formally defined does not mean it did not exist. Just as the holy scripture was scripture the moment it was penned, so the authoritative collection existed. The fact that the Apostles did not make a list of them does not mean there was not an authoritative collection. Jesus and the Apostles used the Alexandrian Septuagint, and that is how we know this collection is authoritative.

As has been well stated on this thread, the NT Scriptures were inspired and inerrant the moment they were written. They did not “become” scripture when the canon was formed in 382. The Septuagint was the authoritative collection because this is what the Apostles used. It did not become that way in 382 when it was defined as such, nor at the Council of Trent, when this was re-iterated for the sake of the reformers. A simple study of the history of the canon from the early councils makes this clear.

Compare the statement of Trent to that of the decrees on the Holy Trinity. The Trinity was not “formed” when the Church defined the dogma. It was taught from the beginning, and believed by the Apostles. It was defined and promulgated later in answer to heresies, just as the canon of Scripture was at Trent.

It wasn’t until the early 1500s that Catholics added the Apocrypha to what had already existed as God’s Word. Luther didn’t invent it; he tried to continue it and restore it: As I said; and you have utterly failed to prove otherwise; the Catholic Church CHANGED THE BIBLE, at the council in 1546.

" At the council in 1546, the Council Fathers gave formal definition of the Canon of the Bible (while declaring the Vulgate to be authentic), promulgating a list of the books accepted as entirely canonical in the decree Sacrosancta: in the OT there are forty-five books; the NT has twenty-seven books.

No, P101. The declaration of a formal council does not equate to the invention or addition of anything. This is like saying that, when the Holy Council declared Mary to be the Theotokos, they were “adding” to the once for all divine deposit of faith. This is just not the case. She was Theotokos from the time the angel came to her, and did not become that way centuries later when it was given “formal definition”. These types of “formal definitions” are given to combat heresies that arise, not to change what was received from the Apostles.

If you think this happened at Trent, you are mistaken. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, issued a biblical canon identical to those of the early councils. Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. **When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church. ** Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the canon until the Reformation, when Luther decided some books should be removed.

 

[guanophore]

Poor guanophore - you would have no power at all here if you didn’t make fun of someone, and give such biased answers.

Believe me, I was not making fun. I believe the Reformers had very good reasons for wanting to replace the Authority appointed by Christ with Scripture. I believe they did this with all sincerity, wanting to get away from the clerical corruption that was rampant in Europe at the time.

You should be apologizing because your post creates more questions than answers.

Great! Where shall we start?

You are on public record here as saying that it is not good to use the scriptures to check for error…how sad that Christians have reached such conclusions.

Not at all P101. Of course we should be well versed in the Scriptures, as ignorance of them is ignorance of Christ. We should check our own errors by them, and evaluate our surroundings, both inside and outside of the Church by them.

My point is that the Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them, so when we use them to check for error, we must do so in accordance with the “pattern of sound words” that has been handed down from the Apostles.

WoW to say the Word of God “never says that it is scripture that equips the man of God” is crazy. I guess the Holy Spirit was wrong in having Paul write 2 Tim 3:16-17

It is more likely that you are not receiving that same inspiration as you are interpreting it.

2 Tim 3:16-4:1
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

We read here that Scripture is profitable for the equipping of saints. To whom is this duty given?

Eph 4:10-13
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

Scripture is profitable in doing these things, but the authority and responsibility for doing them is given to the authorized ministers in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

And that is what was written, revealed, and preserved for subsequent generations in the *theopneustos* Scriptures (Eph. 2:20).  It's the Holy Spirit, through the written Word He inspired, who testifies of the church Christ is building through Him.  No church can rightly testify of itself.

It is true that the NT contains Apostolic Teaching, but it was never meant to be a complete container of them. The Word of God in the Church did not suddenly disappear when the Scripture was written.

1 Thess 2:13
13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

The Word of God at work in the Church did not suddenly stop living and working in them after some of it was committed to writing.

Jesus testifies to His Church, in His Person, and in Holy Scripture.

We see in Scripture that a local church developed in city of Rome, to which Paul addressed his doctrinally pack letter, but nowhere do the theopneustos N.T. Scriptures ever refer to that church which developed in Rome as “The Church.”

Why would they? There was only one Church, and it was the same everywhere.

This was a time developed assertion by its own internal hierarchy.

Apparently you are laboring under some misconception that the Catholic Church is “Roman” which it is not.

Christ has been building only ONE church since Pentecost, each of its members being individual believers “baptized into the body of Christ by one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13-14).

Yes. I think the difference in the way Evangelicals and Catholics understand what “Church” means is a fundamental part of the divisions.

2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us."Notice that it’s the SAME tradition whether it was spoken or written. That which was spoken was preserved in writing for subsequent generations.

This is certainly a myth that must be espoused by Sola Scripturists, in order to justify the disobedience to the Apostolic command for those traditions not found in Scripture.

The N.T. Scriptures were fully anticipated by Christ’s words spoken to His Apostles:John 14:25-26 “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”“These things” were preserved in Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures

I am sure that the NT was anticipated by Christ’s words. And, indeed, we do have much preserve in the inspired scriptures. However, this in no way means that the fullness of God’s revelation to the Church was written in the NT.

and for this reason they’re called the written Word of God and therefore carry the full authority of God Himself.

I agree with what you have written, to the extent the scriptures are authoritative when used by the authority appointed by Christ. They are not to be separated from those Jesus placed in charge of the Truth.

“Catholic,” in respect the church, is a word that was used to describe it after the Apostolic age. Nowhere in the Scriptures is the church ever called “the Catholic Church,” differentiating it from other churches.

Well, no, because there were no other “churches”. The Apostles understood that Jesus only founded one Church.

Acts 9:31
31 So **the church throughout all **Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up;

This descriptor, used by Luke to describe the Body of Christ (kath holos) captures the belief of the early church that there was only One Body. It was the same “throughout all”. Look up the Gk, moon. It is right there in your Bible.

 The church Christ is building was always "*universal*" (the meaning of the word "*catholic*").  It's one body made up of many individual members scattered throughout the world.  Those who have died are now in the Lord's presence.

These statements are true, except you seem to imply that, because they have gone on to be with the Lord, they are no longer part of His Body, the church. This would be erroneous.

This is the “universal” church of Christ.

While this is true, to stop here would leave one with a deficient view of the Church. The Head of the Body is Christ, and the Soul of the Church is the HS. These divine elements are what makes the Church infallible, not her individual members scattered throughout the world.

 

[guanophore]

As for the canon, the first express definition of the whole N.T. comes from the African synod of Carthage (397 a.d.) in the presence of Augustine, the theologian of that day, and Jerome. Carthage was a provincial council consisting of only forty-three African bishops and, therefore, could claim no general authority. But by that time all the churches had become nearly unanimous as to which writings were canonical anyway, and therefore no general or ecumenical church council ever convened over the issue.

This is one reason that Trent served the purpose of formal declaration. But it is clear to see that the canon existed from before the tinme of Carthage.

Not even the Roman Bishop Siricius was present at the Carthage council; but he did, however, in a lust for power claim for himself Universal Jurisdiction over the Church; which of course the eastern church ignored and never accepted.

Moon, the forum rules require that you cite your sources when you are quoting. It seems you took this from an anti-Catholic website. FYI, the Eastern Church did recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and this continued for a Millenia, until cultural, political, economic and language barriers divided the One Church.

Your slanderous statement about Biship Siricius having a “lust for power” probably belongs on another thread. I think this one has diverged enough.

Officially, the canon for RC’ism was not ratified until the council of Trent (1546).

This is a false statement, moon, which your own quote from Carthage demonstrates. Second, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The canon for the Catholic Church, East and West, was finalized in Carthage. A formal declaration of this was made at Trent in order to address heresies.

 

[MrS]

But there was a time when men and women paid with their lives to make that individual decision.

Yes that is right. The catacombs are a very visible reminder of the early Catholics who died for Christ… and also the site of Mass which had to be offered in secret.

All part of the history of the Catholic Church and none other.

.

 

[guanophore]

"**B**," according to 1 Tim. 3:15.  **But**...

(1) We do have an issue as to what Paul meant by “the church.” In that same passage he called it “the household of God;” so, if you think he meant the RCC (although, in reality Paul possessed no such concept) then anybody who does not subject themselves to the authority of the “Roman See” must be considered by you as outside the “household of God.” By default, not at all a part of “the Church” (according to your definition). Therefore it would a misnomer to call Protestants your “separated brethren.”

Paul thought of the Church as the Body of Christ - One - pure:
Eph 5:25-27
“… as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

I agaree with you, though, the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church had not yet developed when this was written. That does not make the Church less “catholic”, as I am sure you will agree. However, you are in error about the teaching of the Church. Those who rebel against the authority appointed by Christ are not necessarily “outside the household of God”. Most do so out of ignorance, and those such as yourself that do so willingly still embrace a sufficient degree of Apostolic Teaching to be considered our brethren, however separated by doctrinal errors. You are like Apollos, fervent, but only going on that which you know (incomplete).

(2) Paul does call the church the “pillar and support of the truth,” but, mind you, he doesn’t call it “the truth.” That designation, along with the authority that goes with it, is reserved for the Word of God. Jesus prayed:John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth."He didn’t pray “Sanctify them in the church, the church is truth,” but “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” It’s the Scriptures that are theopneustos (God-breathed), hence, it’s in “the truth” as revealed in the Scriptures that Jesus prayed for all true believers to be sanctified.

I agree that the church is to uphold the truth, however, the Scriptures cannot sanctify anyone. The God-Breathed writings lead to Christ, who is the only One who can sanctify, and that by His blood. Those who try to find salvation in the Scriptures may not be able to see Him.

John 5:39-40
9 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Jesus is God’s Word - it is He who makes us clean. The Scriptures are profitable, and testify to Him, but they cannot shed their blood for us.

The church Christ has been building since Pentecost, which began in Jerusalem, not Rome

Since the Church was the same throughout the world, of course Christ was also building His Church in Rome, as He did everytwhere. I agree that it started in Jerusalem, but it is likely that it was pilgrims who were there for Pentecost that returned to Rome who formed the community to which Paul later wrote.

Paul never said he belonged to a “church” headquartered in Rome.

That is because the headquarters didn’t form there until he and Peter arrived there. It was their teaching, and the primacy of doctrine, that gave the Roman See the higher authority.

the one Roman Catholic church

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, moon. This is just your prejudice talking.

“the rock” (petra) of the truth that Peter (petros) professed: that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The context of Matt. 16:18 is not Peter, but Jesus. Jesus asks the question, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” The answer revealed to Peter is the rock upon which Jesus is building his church. If the RCC is being built instead upon Peter, as it claims, then what does that say about the RCC?

These things are not divided, moon, as you seem to believe. Jesus is THE Rock. He grafted Peter into Himself, and made him a rock as well (that is why He renamed Simon Cephas). Peter’s statement, made infallibly by the revelation of the Father, is also a rock. Peter is not separated from Christ, or from the statement of faith he made.

 

[guanophore]

According to Scripture, not Rome, there is “the church” Christ is presently building upon the foundation of the Apostles - but no geographical or doctrinal “Rite” attached to it

This statement reveals an ignorance about the Catholic faith. First of all, Rome does not teach what you have asserted here. Secondly, there is no difference in doctrine between the geographical and cultural Rites in the Church. They are all One, unique in language and practice, but not doctrine. Divergence of doctrine is found in the Reformation,and the separating and dividing fruits of it.

Isaiah 20? Is your “Prime Minister” going around naked and barefoot?

I am sure if God found it necessary, he would. The popes have been through some amazing torture and castigation. The first six were martyred for the faith in short order.

Yes, it is indeed. But there was a time when men and women paid with their lives to make that individual decision.

They still do. It is going to get worse, too.

 

[ppasa316]

If you have provided Scripture to support your point, why would it be necessary to read the extra-Biblical commentary of John MacArthur. Wouldn’t your own infallible interpretation be sufficient?

Just being like a Berean brotha. Did they not search the scriptures after Paul taught. I don’t want my own interpretation. I want to make sure I am sharing the Word of God correctly. It would do others well to do the same. There is nothing wrong with going to other references. I also use Warren Wiersbe and the teaching of my Pastor. But you are right the Word of God is infallible. That is all we need to live the Christian life. You might check the teachings of Chuck Smith, David Rosales and Raul Ries to help you better understand the Word of God. They are awesome Calvary Chapel Pastors. If you need help just let me know. God Bless

 

[MrS]

Just being like a Berean brotha. Did they not search the scriptures after Paul taught. I don’t want my own interpretation. I want to make sure I am sharing the Word of God correctly. It would do others well to do the same. There is nothing wrong with going to other references. I also use Warren Wiersbe and the teaching of my Pastor. But you are right the Word of God is infallible. That is all we need to live the Christian life. You might check the teachings of Chuck Smith, David Rosales and Raul Ries to help you better understand the Word of God. They are awesome Calvary Chapel Pastors. If you need help just let me know. God Bless

So, if I read this right…

First you say, be like a Berean… they would HEAR what was being taught by the early Church leaders, and simply check (the OT) to see if what they heard was in conflict… not if it was actually there… but whether it was in conflict.

Then you say, check the non-Scriptural or non-authoritative teachings of pastors who are NOT in the early Church or in the same Church that continues today.

hhmmmm…

IMHO, you have chosen to listen to or check with sources that are nowhere near as credible as the sources which the Bereans checked.

Catholics have that. But they also have the actual writers of the NT, or those they taught, or those who they taught etc etc etc.

History of the Catholic Church is a wonderful thing, huh.?

.

 

[M0nkey]

guanophore:

I believe they did this with all sincerity, wanting to get away from the clerical corruption that was rampant in Europe at the time.

My take this was probably hyped up by reformers who went printing press happy in exposing any kind of “corruption” they could find. I think I’m going to read more research on this, but this might be yet another lie told by these people.

 

[guanophore]

Just being like a Berean brotha. Did they not search the scriptures after Paul taught. I don’t want my own interpretation. I want to make sure I am sharing the Word of God correctly. It would do others well to do the same.

There is a critical difference between you and the Bereans:

Acts 17:10-11
11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca,** for they received the word with all eagerness**, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

You do not receive the word with joy from those ordained by the Apostles. You think you are “noble” because you search the Scriptures, when Jesus entrusted Himself to His Apostles. They are those who are authorized to teach, preach, and baptize. The scriptures testify to this, and all that Paul taught is found in Scripture. However, those that approach scripture with the mindset of opposing the Catholic Church do not do so with Berean nobility.

There is nothing wrong with going to other references. I also use Warren Wiersbe and the teaching of my Pastor. But you are right the Word of God is infallible.

No, the Scripture is not “infallible”. This is a quality that only belongs to persons. It requires characteristics that Scripture does not have.

That is all we need to live the Christian life. You might check the teachings of Chuck Smith, David Rosales and Raul Ries to help you better understand the Word of God. They are awesome Calvary Chapel Pastors. If you need help just let me know. God Bless:)

No, thanks, ppasa, we need no help in finding those who have abandoned the Apostolic Succession. We are surrounded by them! If Scripture was all we needed to live the Christian life, then we would not need to “check the teachings…to help better understand the Word”. Your own words demonstrate that what you have stated is false.

Eph 4:10-14
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12** to equip the saints **for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

If Scripture were all that was needed, God would not have given these gifts to the church. The duty of teaching, correcting, and reproving belongs to those who are ordained and gifted for this task. Scripture is useful in these duties.

2 Tim 3:15-4:1
16 All scripture is inspired by God and **profitable **for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Who is responsible for equipping the saints?