John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[moondweller]

But is your word truth. Are you accurately handling the word of truth? Are you infallible?

I didn’t say my word is truth, did I? I am not infallible. No man is. Only God is. Nor is anyone infallible by simply claiming the attribute and others believing the assertion. One does not magically become infallible based on a position he holds.

One need not be infallible to understand and teach God’s Word as revealed in the Scriptures. But Scripture does give this warning:James 3:1 "Let not many {of you} become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."One must be spiritually regenerated and the spiritually regenerated must be diligent in the study of God’s written Word.

It’s in the Scriptures that we read that in the church Christ is building there are God appointed teachers (1 Cor 12:28), but also within the local churches there will be false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1). That’s why all true believers should be well versed in God’s Written Word. For many years the Scriptures were held from the people.

 

[SHW]

Why? Since Moses God has preserved His Word in this world in theopneustos Scripture.So? What’s your point? That feast wasn’t celebrated according to the Law and Jesus said in the backdrop of that celebration:“I am the Light of the world” (Jn. 8:12)

You fail to see the point that not everything which is legitimately and lawfully decreed/practiced is written in Scripture. Now, Jesus must have thought the Feast of Dedication to be important if He made a special attempt to be there. All Jews, even to this day, celebrate this important feast and it is “nowhere” explained in the Bible as to how to celebrate this feast or even why except an allusion to it in a book of Maccabees which Protestants do not accept. Try and tell the Jews today that they cannot have their feast because Moses (or someone else) did not write it down in the Old Testament.

You’re confusing the Talmud with the Tanach. The Talmud is not thepneustos.Here’s what Paul said and which was preserved for us in theopneustos Scripture:2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter from us."Paul is not stating here that what they were taught by word was different from that which was taught in writing.

No, I am not confusing them. The Talmud has a place in Jewish life. **Paul did not state that what they were taught by Word was exactly the same as what he also wrote in his epistles. Sheesh!
**
John 21:25 “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”

Nor does he state anything about “Apostolic succession,” the “Mass,” or “sacraments.”

They showed examples of Apostolic Succession in Scripture. Most people can comprehend this by reading the Scriptures if they have an open mind. Everything is not specifically categorized in Scripture. This is because Jesus built a Church to take care of these things from person to person down through the ages until He returns. Allusions to the “sacraments” as “mysteries” are in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 4:1 “Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”

John 14:26 “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 things that I said to you.”

Since Scripture is true, then why was an altar necessary unless it be for a sacrifice since altars are used for offering sacrifice? And, why is it implied that we eat from this altar, but Jews (those of the tabernacle) may not eat of it?

Hebrews 13:10 “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.”

This is the altar where the Mass is celebrated. This is the Mass where Jesus’ Body and Blood are given to us to eat so that we may live forever.

John 6:53-55 “Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.”

Praise be to God! This is literal. This is Jesus’ promise to His disciples, those who truly abide in Him.

John 6:56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”

Do you now see the infinite value of having it preserved for us in theopneustos Scripture? We can readily know if anyone adds to what was written. It’s only by the authority of God’s Word preserved in theopneustos Scripture that men can preach and teach what God has said concerning His Son.

You say, “We can readily know if anyone adds to what is written.” Why do you keep adding “alone” as in Scripture alone? This is not Biblical and contradicts 2 Thessalonians 2:15 so it cannot possibly be true.

You have a hard time comprehending what is truth and what is not. Scripture states that the Word of God is preserved in the Traditions of the Church, both written and oral. Why do you have such a difficult time understanding this fact?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

1 Corinthians 11:2 “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

To be continued…

 

[M0nkey]

Because the church is being built on the foundation of the Apostles.

That would imply succession. I hope you see your fallacy in that. Without proper succession, you deny the foundation and make up your own.

I too have the Scriptures. I too study them.

Then why do you go to church? Why not be your own boss?

He resides in heaven, we have His Words (and the others) preserved for us here on earth in theopneustos Scripture.

Please read the end of St. John’s & St. Matthew’s gospel and get back to me.

I didn’t say my word is truth, did I? I am not infallible. No man is. Only God is. Nor is anyone infallible by simply claiming the attribute and others believing the assertion. One does not magically become infallible based on a position he holds.

Then how do you know your precepts to be the truth. Evidently Christ came to bring us the truth.

 

[SHW]

Continued:

Who has the authority? Scripture or the Church?

1 Timothy 3:15 “but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

The Church is the support and foundation of the Truth. The Church has Jesus’ authority to rule in His place on earth.

Which came first? The Church or the Bible? The Church authored the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible did not write itself. The Church decided which manuscripts were inspired and which ones were not. The Church assembled the Bible, using its authority from God, to do so. The Bible would be just another “book” except it has “someone” with authority to vouch for its accuracy and also to be its “infallible interpreter” to protect its “Words” from heretical “interpretations.”

The Church uses Scripture as a helpful tool to teach the disciples the “truth” of Jesus’ gospel, but the hierarchy of the Church (those chosen by God to rule over us) has God’s authority to interpret inerrant Scripture as to what this infallible “truth” is.

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

I am a Scripture Catholic, a Bible Christian, and I eat Jesus’ Flesh and drink His Blood so that I may have eternal life. Jesus promised me eternal life if I continue to abide in Him and eat and drink His Body and Blood worthily until I die.

2 Thessalonians 1:5 “which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer;”

1 Corinthians 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

This is not “symbolic” Body and Blood" of our Savior and our God. This is real just as He claims. And if we sin deliberately after we are saved, then we lose our salvation. [Hebrews 10:26-30]

It is my ultimate hope that I will be considered like the Sardis mentioned in this Scripture:

Revelation 3:4 “You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.”

 

[pete_29]

I didn’t say my word is truth, did I? I am not infallible. No man is. Only God is. Nor is anyone infallible by simply claiming the attribute and others believing the assertion. One does not magically become infallible based on a position he holds.

One need not be infallible to understand and teach God’s Word as revealed in the Scriptures. But Scripture does give this warning:James 3:1 "Let not many {of you} become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."One must be spiritually regenerated and the spiritually regenerated must be diligent in the study of God’s written Word.

It’s in the Scriptures that we read that in the church Christ is building there are God appointed teachers (1 Cor 12:28), but also within the local churches there will be false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1). That’s why all true believers should be well versed in God’s Written Word. For many years the Scriptures were held from the people.

Since your word is not necessarily truth, and since you are not infallible, there is no reason to believe your interpretation of scripture over the Catholic Church. You see, that is the problem I have with Protestants, when Protestants say this is what this verse means, and this what that verse means, they expect people like me to believe it like it came from Jesus himself, but it didn’t. It came from what your intellect and your experiences make you think it says. I’m not saying you are wrong in your interpretations, but you can be no more right in your interpretation than anyone else. Some say that the Holy Spirit revealed the meaning to them. Well the Catholic Church says the same thing. What makes one right and the other wrong. I believe in a single authority to clarify any misunderstandings that arise from private interpretation of Scripture, and the only single authority I can find is the Catholic Church.

 

[distracted]

Thank you. The reason the RC hierarchy is so vehemently against the doctrine of sola scriptura is because the Scriptures themselves do not support their claim that (1) Christ made Peter the head of the universal church and the Bishop of Rome is his “successor;” and (2) that all the Apostles appointed “successors” and those “successors” are the Roman Bishops." The former is based completely on the RC interpretation of Matt. 16:18-19, and the latter on what they say is implied (thinly) in various Scripture passages. These two claims form the foundation on which the authority of the RC hierarchy rests, yet they cannot rightfully prove either strictly from Scripture itself.

you obviously haven’t studied Church history…

The Church came before the Scriptures - before they were (New T) were written…

Most people are going to believe those who “were there” over what some person says about the events 1900 yrs later (some churches were begun that much later) even if what is being transmitted down through the years is done so by Tradition… rather than written word… The written words of the NT were not written down until (earliest ones) Jesus had been gone ( into Heaven) 40 yrs + …

would you believe an eye-witness account of something written by someone 40 yrs after the event ? not syaing we shouldn’t belive the Scirtures but we should definitley believe the Church that produced them …

 

[guanophore]

Officially; your Church is now called The Catholic Church; but this is really just reflecting your Church’s attempts to escape the fact that you also have denominations, within the ranks.

No, moon. A denomination indicates a difference in doctrine. Catholic Churches, by definition (no matter which Rite) share the same doctrine. People that are baptized Catholic and do not embrace Catholic doctrine have become apostates, protestants, or may be poorly catechized and suffering from ignorance.

“The ranks” (laypersons) do not define Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine was committed to the Church by Christ, through the Apostles.

Your leadership wants to use the term Catholic Church to distance itself from the originally Anglican contention that the “church of the creed” was supposed to consist of three major “branches;” Anglican, Orthodox, and “Roman Catholic.”

Not only so, but because the term “Roman” was coined for the purpose of slander. And also, for the reason addressed here, that the Church is beyond language and culture, and calling the other 22 Rites “Roman” is disparaging of their language and culture.

The term “Roman Catholic” is indeed mostly confined to the english language; for it was by the english speaking Bishops at Vatican I that the initial attempt to distance from “Roman Catholic” was made. But it was specifically to avoid the Anglican idea that your leadership decided to try stopping the use of the term “Roman Catholic.”

Certainly one factor, but the slander and disparagement indicated by the Anglican communion was what was problematic. England still has a law that no Roman Catholic can be a member of the Royalty, even though the death penalty is no longer in use. It is a sad commentary on prejudice made legal.

Another example of changing truth in Roman Catholic theology.

Such a statement seems to emanate from someone who does not seem to recognize the difference between infallible doctrine, theology, and pastoral decisions. The word “Roman” is not within the infallible doctrines of the Church (except where it is referenced in Scripture) and does not include the Vatican, or any secular relations from it.

Your persistent claims of “authority” and wanton criticism of Protestants do not have anything to do with actual authority; it does not confer authority on your Church in any way.

What is “wanton criticism”?

Of course you are right, whatever I may have to say about authority confers nothing, just as the “ranks” of Catholics who are not in union with the Apostolic Teachings do not create “denominations” within Catholicism. Authority is conferred by God, and He conferred it to His Apostles, and they to their successors. Your refusal to accept the authority He appointed does not make it go away.

It only shows you as parroting the exact same thing as hundreds of cults who all want us to think that only they have the “truth” or “the fullness of truth.”

The difference here is that Jesus is the Truth. He built one Church, His Body, and He promised the Apostles that He would lead them into all Truth. Many, over the course of the centuries, have chosen to depart from that Truth. Such behavior does not nullify Truth. Pilate did not make the Truth go away, just because He refused to accept it.

 

[guanophore]

Peter did employ an O.T. custom by casting lots; what was unprecedented was choosing an Apostle among themselves.  It's Christ, as Head of the church, who chose His Apostles; that prerogative is Christ's alone and was never theirs, and especially by casting lots.

And who are you to say that the one appointed by God to shepherd His flock does not have the authority to use this method? What you are suggesting is that the power Jesus conferred upon the Apostles to bind and loose did not really exist.

Acts 1:15-26

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18(Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

You are suggesting that Peter wrongfully applied the Scriptures to the situation.

You are suggesting that Peter invented the notion that one of the persons present that met the criteria for an Apostle should take the place of Judas (that the idea did not come from God).

You are suggesting that the HS did not hear their prayer. That the HS did not “show” them as they asked. You are suggesting that all of them together sinned against God by enrolling Matthias into their number.

You are suggesting that Luke sinned by including this passage without pointing out the errors that were made. Elsewhere, all the gospel writers who include misdeeds specify the as such.

If all these things are true, then you have no basis to accept the NT, especially the letters of Paul, who are supported by Peter, since Peter apparently cannot hear and obey the HS.

Peter still had an Old Covenant mentality; he eventually learned.

He learned because God was constantly correcting him. What you are saying is that God failed to do so in this case.

You mean you’re in agreement with me that Scripture reveals Peter had no direct instruction from Christ to choose another Apostle.

Not at all. Peter would not have done such a thing without direction from God. I agree that this part of the story is not included in the NT.

All he was told, along with the others, was to not leave Jerusalem but wait for the Holy Spirit whom the Father had promised would come.As I pointed out in my previous post, Judas never actually became an Apostle.

Judas was ordained and commissioned by Christ. Jesus chose him. The fact that he abandoned his office does not negate that it belonged to him.

Acts 1:15-18
16 "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.

Judas was numbered among them (the 12 Apostles) and was allotted his share.

What you are saying is that Peter is misinterpreting the prophesy of David. If God was unable to prevent Peter from such an error, how can we trust anything he said and did?

He never saw the resurrected Christ and never took the message to the world of believing in this resurrected One for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43; 13:38) and the FREE GIFT of eternal life through faith in Him (Rom. 6:23).  Judas hoped and initially believed that Jesus was the triumphant Jewish Messiah, revealed by the ancient prophets, who would liberate Judea from Rome, but he knew nothing of Jesus being the suffering Servant: The Savior of the world.  Judas had no such saving faith.

I can’t argue that point. However, Judas met the criteria for being an Apostle, because Christ chose him. Acts 1:21-23 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

He left his office, and did not fulfill the duties for which he was called. Jesus always knew this would happen.

 

[guanophore]

What was appointed in all the churches were elders/overseers (Gr. presbuteros/episkopos). They’re one and the same office (Titus 1:5-7)Titus 1:5 "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders (presbuteros) in every city as I directed you,"Paul doesn’t instruct to appoint “successors” in every city.

They are similar. No one becomes an episkopos who has not been first made a presbuteros. However, they are not the “same office”, even though there are many areas of overlap. Titus and Timothy themselves were sucessors of Paul the Apostle. This is why Jesus left the Apostles, to set in order that which remained. They, in their turn, appointed episkopois, presbyteroi, and dikanoi. This same structure has been retained by all those whose Churches were founded by Apostles to this day, those in communion with Rome, and those that are not.

No such concept existed then or in Scripture.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we.

Catholics read scripture in the light of the Apostolic Teaching, so we see in it the structure that was set forth in the Church by the Apostles.

That concept developed and evolved AFTER the Apostolic age.

It is certainly true that the church grew and flourished more and more as the decades passed, requiring more structure to be formed, and the development of canon law.

No.  You yourself stated in an earlier post that your Bishops are not Apostles.  And those in authority over you in Rome agree. A "presbuteros/episkopos is not an Apostle.

Yes. And your point? Are you suggesting that the Authority passed on to the Bishops by the Apostles does not exist? Are you saying that Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus have no authority, because they are not Apsotles?

 A "*successor*" is one who inherits some title or office.  The appointed "*elders/overseers*" inherited nothing of the sort.

I am amazed that you can post the scripture you did, indicating that Paul gave the Bishops authority, and still hold to this. I thought we were in agreement that all authority comes from God?

They were to teach, stand firm and exhort others in the doctrines taught to them by the Apostles (2 Thess. 2:15); and it's upon the foundation of the Apostles that Christ is building His church (Eph. 2:20).

Yes, of course! this is the duty of the Bishop!

Titus 2:15

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

On what basis can Paul tell this to Titus? Where did Titus come by any authority? How is he to “let no one disregard” his teaching, exhortations, and reprovals? He was authorized by Paul, the Apostle, who was authorized by Christ. This authority is then passed on to those whom he appoints in every city. The bishops stand firmly on the foundation of the Apostles. They don’t just appoint themselves, or assume authority without the laying of of hands! Well, they do nowadays, but that did not happen in the beginning.

 Paul wrote to Rome because Peter was not there.

I wonder about that. He wrote why he had not come to Rome:

Rom 15:19-20
I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, 20 thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation,

Who, then, laid the foundation in Rome?

However, it changes nothing if Peter came to Rome after Paul wrote His letter.

If he had been Paul would have had no reason to write to that church. Or are you implying that maybe Peter was incompetent?

The two had different types of ministries. As you can see from Acts, they agreed to split up the work. Peter went to the circumcision, and Paul to the Gentiles. Both communities lived in Rome.

There are no contemporary historical accounts to prove Peter’s alleged position in the church at Rome.

By this I assume you are trying to say that later references in the Early fathers to the fact should be disregarded? We have no contemporary accounts of what most of the Apostles
did. Does that mean they did nothing?

What is said about Peter in relation to that church was asserted AFTER his death.

Well, I am sure plenty of “assertions” were made before that. The fact that we do not have them in writing notwithstanding. We do not have any eulogies of those persons mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Romans existing, either. do you think they did not mourn his death when he was beheaded?

Not surprisingly not even Paul mentions him in the list of those to "*greet*" at the end of his letter (Rom. ch. 16).

This seems to me the strongest evidence that Peter had not yet been to Rome.

Neither Timothy nor Titus are called “Bishops.” In the Scriptures they’re identified as fellow workers/laborers in Paul’s Apostolic ministry to the churches he planted (1 Cor. 16:10; 2 Cor. 8:23).

We know they are bishops because of their duties, and the testimoy of the Early Church. Who do you think they were?

There are many fables attached to your list of so-called “saints.”

This is true, without a doubt. I have read many a folk tale.

 

[guanophore]

Can you give me a documented source that lists the wondrous works performed by each of your "popes?" Which ones, like Peter, raised the dead in the presence of others?  Which healed men who were lame from birth?  If the wondrous works of the Apostles were being performed by your Bishops all the world would be RC.

Well, not all of the Bishops belong to the Roman Rite, so I don’t think it is the case that mighty works done by them would get people “Latinized” that don’t live in areas where the Lating Rite is prevalent. However, I do agree, if those persons walked in the power of the Spirit (as if all of us did) there would be people flocking. I think this is also true of unity. The Orthodox are telling the Catholics all the time that, when we can repair the separations caused by the Reformation, then we can talk to them about unity. The Reformation was a direct result of those in authority behaving in an impure and unChristlike manner. Not only were people not evangelized, but people were driven away.

  Not necessarily saved, but RC.

This is just a slur, moon. You are suggesting that people can be Catholic and not be saved, and this is not the case. To be Catholic is to walk in the power of our baptism, and to be reconciled with Christ. I admit, there are some Catholics that have fallen from grace. However, to imply that there is a separation between being Christian and being “RC” is just maligning.

There’s no such things as “ECFs.” There’s early church writers, but just because they wrote extant letters doesn’t make them “fathers” of the church.

I agree that it is not just writing that makes them fathers. The gnostics wrote quite a bit also, as did the Arians, Pelagians, and other heretics. What makes this group distinctive is their adherance to Catholic faith and doctrine. Do you need to pretend that they were not “fathers” in order to discredit the Apostolic Succession?

As if their writings held some inherent authority. However, as you read their writings what stands out significantly is that they quoted Scripture profusely. So what we all should learn from them by example is the absolute authority of Scripture. Even “Sola Scriptura”

Well, if you have the courage, you will keep reading, and you will discover that they never read scripture apart from Sacred Tradition, nor quoted it outside of the faith carefully preserved from the Apostles. None of them were SS. Authority belongs to people, and the ECF’s did not have “inherent” authority. It was imparted authority. It was the authority that comes from the laying on of hands from the Apostles.

Thank you. The reason the RC hierarchy is so vehemently against the doctrine of sola scriptura is because the Scriptures themselves do not support their claim that (1) Christ made Peter the head of the universal church and the Bishop of Rome is his “successor;”

Since this is not the claim of the Catholic Church, I believe this qualifies as a strawman. Now one can 'succeed" Christ. He is head of the Church. For someone who claims to understand Catholicism, you come up with some amazing imaginary tales.

and (2) that all the Apostles appointed “successors” and those “successors” are the Roman Bishops."

The Apostles did appoint bishops to succeed themselves, and passed to them the authority they were given by Christ to shepherd the Church. They were not “Roman”, though. Maybe Clement was, but all the other Bishops were Egyptian, Syrian, or Greek.

The former is based completely on the RC interpretation of Matt. 16:18-19, and the latter on what they say is implied (thinly) in various Scripture passages.

No, moon, apparently you have forgotten. None of Catholic doctrine is “based upon interpretation” of any Scripture passages. The Catholic doctrine was whole and entire before the Scriptures were written. Jesus delivered it to the Apostles, and they to the Church. The Apostolic succession was already in it’s third generation when the NT began to be formed.

These two claims form the foundation on which the authority of the RC hierarchy rests, yet they cannot rightfully prove either strictly from Scripture itself.

No, of course not! Especially given the fact that Scripture was never designed to be used as “proof” of anything, but a testimony of faith, and that SS is a heresy. Why would Catholics misuse the Scripture in such a manner?

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is built upon Christ, not upon the Scripture (Holy though it is). The authority must come from a person, not Sacred Writings.

Matt 28:17-19
18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples …

Jesus did not authorize a book. He authorized people. Only people can wield authority.

 

[guanophore]

Only the Scriptures are called “thepneustos” (God-breathed, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

It is true that the Scriptures are described this way. However, since the NT had not yet been completed or identified as such when that was written, we know that Paul was referring to the OT. How did we get the NT? From the “God Breathed” Church!

John 20:20-23
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

The believers are also “letters” from the Apostles.

2 Cor 3:1-3
2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

The Spirit that has written on the heart of the Church is not different from the Spirit that wrote on papyrus.

Jesus breathed upon the Church, and empowered them with His own authority, so that they would be able to pass that authority on to their successors, who would eventually, in that power, define the NT canon.

Scripture records the Words of Christ who stated that those who believe in Him HAVE eternal life. That they, in fact, do not come into judgment but have passed out of death in life" (Jn. 3;14-18; 5:24).Since Moses God has preserved His Word in this world by theopneustos Scripture.

Yes, of course. And they can step out of that life whenever they choose. Scriptures call this falling from grace, or being cut off from Christ.

Christ Himself quoted from the Scriptures against Satan.  He told the religious leaders of His day that they did not know the power of God or the Scriptures, and corrected their "*traditions*" by the Scriptures.

Your statement seems to imply that you do not distinguish between Sacred Tradition and the Tradition of men.

God is the One who saves those who *believe* the gospel message of Jesus Christ preserved for us in the *theopneustos* Scriptures.But before He spoke that He said:John 6:47 "*Truly, truly, I say to you, **he who believes*** has eternal life."And He clarifies what He said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood by saying:John 6:63 "***It is the Spirit who gives life***; **the flesh profits nothing**; the words that I have spoken to you **are spirit** and are life."

You seem to believe, from what this states. that the flesh of Christ profits nothing. I think even you will say otherwise. Trying to understand the mystery of the eucharist with the carnal mind (in the flesh) will avail nothing.

 

[BRB1]

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is built upon Christ, not upon the Scripture (Holy though it is). The authority must come from a person, not Sacred Writings.

Matt 28:17-19
18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples …

Jesus did not authorize a book. He authorized people. .

MoonD …

G-4 has refuted you conclusively, in his recent posts.

You hide behind claims of Sola Scriptura. But, time after time, when quoted scriptures that disprove your beliefs …you ignore the SS that invalidate your theories. Its becoming clear you never really consider superior, alternative explanations to those you propose. You don’t read for contextual meanings, and can’t see the big topics Paul and other Church Fathers are making.

You are like the child who cried wolf, to cause a ruckus. Always tossing potato mashers. This thread is no longer about John Mac … its become ‘What’s eating Gilbert Moon’. Only a few here still take you seriously, and bother to debate you.

Hey bro … its the final inning . G-4 got the Catholics pitches in your vulnerable zone. U B FANNED.

Get a grip, apply some tar, and get back in the game. Who knows … it might go extra innings.

 

[moondweller]

SHW:

Every Word that Jesus spoke is God-breathed because He is God, whether is was written down or passed down orally through the Church as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word (oral) or our epistle (letter).”

The Biblical doctrine of “inspiration,” pertains only to the Scriptures. “Theopneustos” has to do with the work of the Holy Spirit; not with what Jesus and His Apostles spoke, but what the Holy Spirit wrote and preserved for us in that Holy Writ.

So, you are telling us that Paul is lying when he states that we must believe both written and oral traditions plus any other traditions that he delivered to them by example?

Lying? You offer circular reasoning. He said to the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold to the traditions they were taught whether by word or by letter from them. IOW, what traditions were taught by word were also taught in writing, which writing were theopneustos (God-breathed).

To “believe in” Him also means to be in obedience to Him. Only those who truly believe in Him (those who obey His commandments and work righteousness) do not come into judgment.

But it’s one’s belief in Him that keeps one from coming into judgment and having passed out of death into life (Jn. 5:24), according to the Scriptures.

Those who fall away from the faith through disobedience which is also unbelief sever themselves from the Vine who is Christ and they are no longer justified unless they repent and confess.

John 15:1-6 is about fruit bearing, not salvation.

Those who fall away from the faith through disobedience which is also unbelief sever themselves from the Vine who is Christ and they are no longer justified unless they repent and confess.

The Galatian heresy was not one of directly rejecting Christ, or the necessity of faith, grace or salvation. The doctrinal error that caused some of them to be “severed from Christ,” to have “fallen from grace” and “Christ to be of no benefit” to them, was the egregious error of their adding to faith obedience of certain aspects of law. In short, the Galatian heresy was approaching God based upon faith plus works. Sound familiar (cf. Gal. 3:22, 24)?

If you sin, you (the branch) cut yourself off from the Vine Christ, and you are no longer saved.

1 John 2:1 "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

“Faith alone” is not true and Catholics do not believe in this falsehood.

Then how are you unlike those Galatians you had “fallen from grace,” who were “severed from Christ,” and He was of “no benefit” to them? Read again what Paul wrote to the church at Rome:Rom 4:4-6 “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:”

You still have not shown that Scripture claims to be the sole rule of faith. Paul claims that Scripture is a “helpful or useful” tool.

But he begins by saying that ALL Scripture is inspired: Gr. theopneustos (God-breathed). Scripture is the Word of God. God left us with no higher authority. The Son of Man himself appealed to it.

So, are you trying to convince us that all the things that Jesus also taught that are not written in this one small book are not important?

2 Tim. 3:16-17.

The reason that many disciples left Him is because they refused to believe that they must literally eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. He meant it literally and they knew that He meant it literally.

No, the reason they left Him was because the did taking Him literally. But that doesn’t mean that they understood Him correctly. Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh (i.e., the act of physically eating and drinking) profits nothing.” IOW, His words were to be understood figuratively. Eternal life was to be obtained not by physically eating and drinking, but by believing in Him (Jn. 6:47-48; cf. 3:14-18). Peter said, “You have the WORDS of eternal life.” And His words have been preserved for us in theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures. Even you keep quoting Scripture to prove your points. Albeit not accurately. It’s all there, we lack nothing. And what’s revealed is that one must come to Him empty handed and BELIEVE. Salvation by GRACE through FAITH means one brings nothing but in turn receives EVERYTHING God has to offer through His beloved Son.

Here, Peter, the leader of the Apostles, the keeper of the keys, the chief steward, is speaking for the whole group again. Must be a pattern here, huh?

Yes. And not always a good one (see Matt. 16:22-23). Shoots down your doctrine of infallibility, doesn’t it?

 

[moondweller]

You are suggesting that Peter wrongfully applied the Scriptures to the situation.

I am suggesting that Peter took the situation into his own hands.

You are suggesting that the HS did not hear their prayer. That the HS did not “show” them as they asked. You are suggesting that all of them together sinned against God by enrolling Matthias into their number.

Does it say that the Holy Spirit chose Matthias? In fact, the only instruction given to them was to not leave Jerusalem and WAIT for the Holy Spirit whom the Father would send. You use the word “sin” too loosely.

You are suggesting that Luke sinned by including this passage without pointing out the errors that were made. Elsewhere, all the gospel writers who include misdeeds specify the as such.

As I said, you use the word “sin” too loosely.

If all these things are true, then you have no basis to accept the NT, especially the letters of Paul, who are supported by Peter, since Peter apparently cannot hear and obey the HS.

Nice try. .

Judas was ordained and commissioned by Christ. Jesus chose him. The fact that he abandoned his office does not negate that it belonged to him.

When did he abandon his office? The first time he pilfered from the money box? The first time he stole from Christ? When he collaborated with Christ’s enemies? When Satan entered him? When he hung himself?

Was Judas among those Christ commissioned to go and make disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18-19)?

What you are saying is that Peter is misinterpreting the prophesy of David. If God was unable to prevent Peter from such an error, how can we trust anything he said and did?

You error in trusting Peter. It’s the Scriptures, not Peter, that’s theopneustos. It’s God’s Word concerning His Son men are to trust, even believe, for salvation and the free gift of eternal life (see 1 Jn. 5:9-13). That’s your fundamental error.

 

[moondweller]

That would imply succession. I hope you see your fallacy in that. Without proper succession, you deny the foundation and make up your own.

Actually, the fact that the Apostles are foundational to the church Christ is presently building means there is no “succession.” You don’t keep building a foundation; once laid, you build upon it.

Then why do you go to church? Why not be your own boss?

I don’t “go to church,” I fellowship and worship with other members of the church. None of them are my “boss,” nor am I theirs.

Please read the end of St. John’s & St. Matthew’s gospel and get back to me.

OK, I’m back.

Then how do you know your precepts to be the truth. Evidently Christ came to bring us the truth.

He IS the truth (Jn. 14:6). This is never said of men, only the theanthropic Man. The Apostles came (were sent) to bring us the truth concerning Christ: salvation and the free gift of eternal life through faith in Him. The truth they took to the world was preserved for us in theopneustos (God-breathed) Scripture.

 

[moondweller]

Since your word is not necessarily truth, and since you are not infallible, there is no reason to believe your interpretation of scripture over the Catholic Church.

Yes, that’s true - and vice versa.

You see, that is the problem I have with Protestants, when Protestants say this is what this verse means, and this what that verse means, they expect people like me to believe it like it came from Jesus himself, but it didn’t. It came from what your intellect and your experiences make you think it says. I’m not saying you are wrong in your interpretations, but you can be no more right in your interpretation than anyone else.

Well, I don’t ever expect you to think that what I think Scripture means comes from Jesus Himself. I have not claimed infallibility. But one can be “more right” than another. In fact, one can be right and the other wrong.

Some say that the Holy Spirit revealed the meaning to them.

Yes, some do. I believe one must have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them to accurately interpret Scripture. But it also takes diligent study of the Word.

Well the Catholic Church says the same thing.

Your teaching authority claims even more: infallibility.

What makes one right and the other wrong. I believe in a single authority to clarify any misunderstandings that arise from private interpretation of Scripture, and the only single authority I can find is the Catholic Church.

Yes, I know. It’s what makes you RC.

 

[moondweller]

MoonD …

G-4 has refuted you conclusively, in his recent posts.

“G-4,” hey, I like that!

 

[SHW]

The Biblical doctrine of “inspiration,” pertains only to the Scriptures. “Theopneustos” has to do with the work of the Holy Spirit; not with what Jesus and His Apostles spoke, but what the Holy Spirit wrote and preserved for us in that Holy Writ.

The Holy Spirit “wrote” nothing that I know of except the Ten Commandments on stone (hand of God in Exodus 32)and the writing on the wall in Daniel 5 and the law written on every person’s heart in Romans 2. The Holy Spirit inspired people to write the Scriptures, He did not do it for them.

Jesus commanded the apostles and disciples to go out and teach/preach and make disciples of all nations. He never once told them to go out and write a “Bible” which would then take their place as the sole rule of faith. He never said that everyone individually should interpret this Bible after it was written and then be their own authority as to what the writings in this book actually meant. He never told them that everyone should then decide for themselves what the truth in this Bible is and that “truth” should be individual for each person even if it contradicted other people’s “truth.”

No, indeed. Jesus established a Church and gave this one Church His authority. He told His appointed hierarchy of this one Church that "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” Luke 10:16.

Seems to me that you are rejecting His Church and therefore rejecting Him.

Lying? You offer circular reasoning. He said to the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold to the traditions they were taught whether by word or by letter from them. IOW, what traditions were taught by word were also taught in writing, which writing were theopneustos (God-breathed).

You do have a problem with comprehension. Paul said no such thing. He said “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15

This is very plain speaking and this is also a commandment. We must hold the traditions that we are taught whether oral tradition or written tradition.

1 Corinthians 14:37 “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

Paul’s first admonition is in 1 Corinthians 11:2 “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

But it’s one’s belief in Him that keeps one from coming into judgment and having passed out of death into life (Jn. 5:24), according to the Scriptures.John 15:1-6 is about fruit bearing, not salvation.

No fruit bearing, then no eternal life. A person cannot be saved unless he does the will of Jesus’ Father in heaven. This is called “works.” Good works help us to gain eternal life. Evil works prevent us from gaining eternal life.

Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"

This is why James 2:24 states “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only/alone.”

The Galatian heresy was not one of directly rejecting Christ, or the necessity of faith, grace or salvation. The doctrinal error that caused some of them to be “severed from Christ,” to have “fallen from grace” and “Christ to be of no benefit” to them, was the egregious error of their adding to faith obedience of certain aspects of law. In short, the Galatian heresy was approaching God based upon faith plus works. Sound familiar (cf. Gal. 3:22, 24)?

This is a perfect example of persons who were once saved but who were no longer saved because of serious sin. Makes no difference what type of serious sin this was, it plainly shows us that “eternal security” is a false doctrine since these persons lost their salvation and had to repent and confess before they could be justified again.

1 John 2:1 "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Yes, this is Catholic teaching. If you sin, then you must repent and confess in order to be re-justified in order to once again have hope of eternal life. [Titus 3:7]

to be continued…

 

[Protestant101]

MoonD …

G-4 has refuted you conclusively, in his recent posts.

You hide behind claims of Sola Scriptura. But, time after time, when quoted scriptures that disprove your beliefs …you ignore the SS that invalidate your theories. Its becoming clear you never really consider superior, alternative explanations to those you propose. You don’t read for contextual meanings, and can’t see the big topics Paul and other Church Fathers are making.

You are like the child who cried wolf, to cause a ruckus. Always tossing potato mashers. This thread is no longer about John Mac … its become ‘What’s eating Gilbert Moon’. Only a few here still take you seriously, and bother to debate you.

Hey bro … its the final inning . G-4 got the Catholics pitches in your vulnerable zone. U B FANNED.

Get a grip, apply some tar, and get back in the game. Who knows … it might go extra innings.

G4 actually has not done the “fine job” you say he has in 'refuting" anything in his last few posts. He has provided a fine series of rationalizations; at the expense of Bible doctrine; and Bible truth. His failure to admit that his own church commonly used the term “Roman Catholic” in a non-critical way is a real stretch at best for “truth.” The rest of his musings and criticisms follow suit. Your derogatory comments are no better.

 

[SHW]

Continued:

Then how are you unlike those Galatians you had “fallen from grace,” who were “severed from Christ,” and He was of “no benefit” to them? Read again what Paul wrote to the church at Rome:Rom 4:4-6 “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:”

This is what happens when people pick up a Bible and then think that they can infallibly interpret Scripture. Paul is speaking of “works of the law of Moses” and that these “works” cannot reconcile us to God by atoning for Adam’s original sin. No righteous works can atone for Adam’s sin either, which we all inherited from him.

Romans 5:10 “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”

So, Moondweller, if we are saved “once and for all,” as you continue to believe, then how can we possibly be saved MUCH MORE by HIS LIFE as Scripture claims?

I will explain this again to you for probably the 20th time: Our first justification comes as a free gift of grace through faith and baptism and this justification gives us hope of eternal life. Jesus as both God and Man has conquered death and opened the gates of heaven for us which no mere man could ever do. However, after our free gift of grace from Jesus Christ, then we continue to be saved “much more” by Him as we grow in perfection and sanctification when we imitate His life and do the will of His Father in heaven. Salvation is a process, not a one-time event.

But he begins by saying that ALL Scripture is inspired: Gr. theopneustos (God-breathed). Scripture is the Word of God. God left us with no higher authority. The Son of Man himself appealed to it.2 Tim. 3:16-17.

No, the Son of Man did not appeal to it in 2 Tim. Paul claims that the OT Scriptures are useful/helpful in explaining the faith. The OT Scriptures are fulfilled in the NT and so in order to prove this fact, OT Scriptures are quoted and then the Apostles and Disciples explain to their flocks how these Scriptures were fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church is the authority. The Catholic Church was first. The Catholic Church authorized the Bible. The Bible is a tool of the Catholic Church. The Bible cannot stand alone. It did not write itself. It cannot interpret itself. It cannot prove that it is the Word of God. Only by believing that the Catholic Church is true and giving a true witness, can one also believe that the Catholic Church’s Bible (collection of writings) is also true.

Any person or group of people can write a book and claim that it is the “Word of God.” Muslims claim that their Koran is the Word of God. Why don’t we believe them? I don’t believe them because I believe the Catholic Church when she states that her Bible is the Word of God. I believe that the Catholic Church was authorized by God to teach the gospel of Christ infallibly or else I certainly would not believe their “words” in their “book.” Why Protestants believe in the Catholic Bible or (even parts of it) is beyond my comprehension. It is prudent to either believe in both the messenger and the message or else neither one.

No, the reason they left Him was because the did taking Him literally. But that doesn’t mean that they understood Him correctly. Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh (i.e., the act of physically eating and drinking) profits nothing.” IOW, His words were to be understood figuratively.

What kind of God do you think that we have? You actually believe that Jesus let them walk away and lose their salvation because they simply misunderstood Him?

Eternal life was to be obtained not by physically eating and drinking, but by believing in Him (Jn. 6:47-48; cf. 3:14-18). Peter said, “You have the WORDS of eternal life.”

Wrong. John 6:53 “Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

And His words have been preserved for us in theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures. Even you keep quoting Scripture to prove your points. Albeit not accurately.

Your “opinion” only, which is incorrect. Some of His Words were preserved for us in Scripture. I quote Scripture in the manner that Paul suggests.

2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,”

John 21:25 “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”

I do show, using Scripture as a tool, that your personal individual “doctrines” are false.

Why do you believe in the Scriptures in the Catholic Bible? How do you know that this whole Christianity business is not just a huge conspiracy thought up by evil men 2000 years ago in order to fool men into believing that God has a Son who will save them if they believe in Him and also receive baptism? [Mark 16:16]

to be continued…