P
ppasa316
Guest
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
- Status
M
moondweller
Guest
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. The testimonial must come from God, and this we have in the theopneustos Scriptures. 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.” This was a time developed assertion by its own internal hierarchy. It has no Apostolic nor Scriptural support.
It is a singular. 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).
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. It’s how God has always preserved His Word in this world ever since Moses. It’s what men of God have always appealed to for authority, even the Son of Man Himself, down through the ages (including this church age).
Your reasoning is far too subjective. The number of letters and their content was determined by the Holy Spirit who inspired them. 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 and for this reason they’re called the written Word of God and therefore carry the full authority of God Himself.
“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. 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. But, according to the Scriptures, the time will come when…"…the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of {the} archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first (bodily resurrection). Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words" (1 Thess. 4:16-18).This is the “universal” church of Christ.
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. 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.
Officially, the canon for RC’ism was not ratified until the council of Trent (1546).
T
Tomster
Guest
What exactly did the 16th century Reformers have in mind when they cried out "sola Scriptura? Did it mean the individiual Christian interpreting Scriptures in his or her own way?
It would appear that Martin Luther launched out on that path until confronted with the same insubordination that he had accorded the Pope. At which point, he felt compelled to modify his position significantly: “I know now that it is not enough to throw many passages together helter-skelter, whether they are fit or not. If this is to be the way , then I can easily prove from Scriptures that beer is better than wine.”
Jaroslav Pelican, a Protestant, does not hesitate to say that “Luther could not have been the exegete he was without the help of the Church’s Tradition. The Tradition gives him a footing on which he could and did move and shift, but which he never lost.”
Similarly, John Calvin condemned (something he was always very fond of doing) a free-floating and totally subjective form of Bible interpretation: “I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign.”
A close reading of the Fundamentalist situation, however, reveals that complete freedom of interpretation does not exist. While assuring common Christians that they did not need scholarly help in Bible study, these teachers initiated them into a complicated system that most people could never maneuver without considerable assistance. In the final analysis, there is something incongruous about Fundamentalists who say they can read the Bible by themselves, then pore over Scofield’s notes in order to discover what the text really means.
Fundamentalists are confident that everything in Scriptures is true, and if they have a question about a seemingly difficult passage, they know that prayer, study and a VISIT WITH THE PASTOR are guaranteed to provide an answer.
It is in Fundamentalism that particular regard is paid to the great individual personality, the great evangelist or radio pastor who virtually creates and runs his/her own church and is venerated for his/her teachings.
T
Tomster
Guest
B
benedictus2
Guest
Where does it say in 2 Tim 3:16-17 that Scripture ALONE is what equips the man of God?
Ppasa, please stop avoiding my questions. If you are as passionate about scripture as you claim, then you surely you can cite them with ease.
Furthermore, 2 Tim 3:16-17 was not considered scripture when Paul wrote it.
It was the Catholic Church that declared it to be part of Scripture.
M
moondweller
Guest
“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.”
(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.
B
benedictus2
Guest
In Pau’s time, there was only one church, the Church that Christ built upon Peter.
The Church that Christ built upon Peter is preserved by Christ. So which Church today can be traced back to that Church during Paul’s time to whch Paul belonged?
His word is truth indeed. And His Word goes: “Simon BarJonah, You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
So of the thousands of Christian Churches today, which church is that Church that Christ built upon Peter?
T
Tomster
Guest
The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Not the Bible. Therefore the Church can determine which books belong in the NT and which ones do not belong there.
Thank you very much.
T
Tomster
Guest
BTW - read my post, # 787, closely.
T
Tomster
Guest
The Church is the Kingdom of God on earth governed by apostolic authority. As rulers of the kingdom He appointed the Apostles (Luke 6:13; Matthew 18:15-18; John 20:21; Matthew 28:18-19, etc.) As the head of the Apostles He constituted Peter (Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:17). St. Paul knew who St. Peter was and acknowledged his authority over the nascent Church.
How many times do we have to explain this to you?
B
benedictus2
Guest
“Your” meaning God the Father’s Word. What is God the Father’s word. Is Jesus referrring here to the OT since the NT was not written yet when He spoke these words.
T
Tomster
Guest
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?
T
Tomster
Guest
They do have a problem with chronological order.Where does it say in 2 Tim 3:16-17 that Scripture ALONE is what equips the man of God?
Ppasa, please stop avoiding my questions. If you are as passionate about scripture as you claim, then you surely you can cite them with ease.
Furthermore, 2 Tim 3:16-17 was not considered scripture when Paul wrote it.
B
benedictus2
Guest
And yes you have dear. But as I have said, I have proven in my post 686 that your scriptural support is no support at all. So please reply in detail to my post 686 and answer my questions. Then maybe we can have some really interesting dialogue.
That you can’t do that shows that … YOU CAN’T!
Also, as exegettes go from what I have heard from other posters, McArthur is not worth the bother
. Why read a lightweight when we have the heavyweights called the Fathers of Church and the Saints.
T
Tomster
Guest
Contextuality is another problem they have.Here are the texts of the references you quoted:
2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Where in that does it say that Scripture ALONE is enough. Sure Scripture is is important, but it does not say that Scripture ALONE is essential for correction, training in righteousness, etc.
Also, during Paul’s time, only the OT is considered Scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.
Again, nowhere here do we find Peter saying that Scripture ALONE is enough.
Matt 4:4,7,10
4 - He said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”
7 - Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’” 10 - At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’”
So for the third time, where in the above verses from Matthew does it say that Scripture ALONE is sufficient.
**Matt 15:3-6 **He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God 3 for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Now this particular last one is the most ridiculous support you have supplied. This highlight’s the protestants’s ugly practice of chopping up scriputure which leads to all kinds of ridiculous exegesis.
Did you even bother to read verses 1 & 2? If you did, then you would know that the tradition Jesus is talking about is a man made tradition of washing of hands before eating a meal.
So here is a little advise, before you start throwing out verses, read the entire passage first.
B
benedictus2
Guest
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!
M
Mickey
Guest
LOL!!! Good one! You should be a comedian!
M
moondweller
Guest
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?
M
moondweller
Guest
BTW, read my post #790 very closely. Thank you very much.
M
moondweller
Guest
Are you implying that God was ignorant of His word? The N.T. writings were just as theopneustos as the O.T. writings. Both are God’s Word; both are divine truth. Both make up what Jesus referred to when He said in His prayer “…Your word is truth.” Jesus prayed for all true believers to be sanctified (set apart) in the divine truth as revealed in God’s Word - that would entail both Old and New Testaments. Scripture is Scripture.
- Status