The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

Hello Ahimsaman,

Acts 4:32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind,

1 Corinthians 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

Greg, I don’t know what the other verses were alluding to, but I wantted to comment on these here. The community of believers where I worship are of one heart and mind. My definition of the church is different. Each of those early churches in the NT were independent.

I went to the orthodox church in america website a couple days ago and found a good explanation there on unity and divisons. Here is the link:
oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/doctrine/church.html

I’m not “orthodox”, but this explains the issue of unity in the church very well - better than I have explained it at various times. You don’t have to have a pope to be unified.

 

[hlgomez]

Paul didn’t even go up to see Peter or any other apostle for years. He had his ministry and it was not offcially commissioned by anybody but God himself.

If you will notice, Paul didn’t start preaching the Gospel until someone from the disciples (Ananias) LAID HANDS on him. Only then after that he became a minister and started preaching the Gospel. I can’t find nowhere in the Bible that Paul started preaching before the laying on of hands. This laying on of hand is the ordination and Ananias had been given that apostolic authority.

So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit." Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus, and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Pio

 

[Greg_McPherran]

ahimsaman72:

The community of believers where I worship are of one heart and mind…You don’t have to have a pope to be unified.

1 Corinthians 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you,

1 Timothy 3:1 …whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task

 

[ahimsaman72]

1 Corinthians 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you,

1 Timothy 3:1 …whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task

Okay, now I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. I see verses but no commentary or anything. I suppose if I am to comment on these for you, here goes:

The first verse above is written by the apostle Paul to the Corinthian Church. This first chapter is the introduction of his letter to them. He basically greets them and tells them he’s been praying for them and he wants them to be unified. Since he addresses this first among other items, we can assume that it was what was most important to convey. We know that the Corinthian Church had some serious problems. There was sexual immorality and they were living quite sinfully.

Given all this background info, you can therefore make the interpretation that there must have been divisions and problems in the Church (which Paul knew about) and that he was warning them against. See I Cor. 3:1-6. This church like all others was managed by the elders and the Holy Spirit. If you want to broaden this verse and take it out of context then you can say that this involves the whole Christian church. But, I would caution against that way of dealing with Scripture.

This is why it is so important to look at all the Scriptures in context and get the real meaning.

I have no problem with the verse referring to bishop, which actually means, “overseer”.

 

[ahimsaman72]

hlgomez:

If you will notice, Paul didn’t start preaching the Gospel until someone from the disciples (Ananias) LAID HANDS on him. Only then after that he became a minister and started preaching the Gospel. I can’t find nowhere in the Bible that Paul started preaching before the laying on of hands. This laying on of hand is the ordination and Ananias had been given that apostolic authority.

Pio

You are correct in when Paul started his ministry. Acts 9:27 states that he began to preach and then went to Jerusalem and saw the apostles. They were reportedly afraid of him because of his former life. He spent some undetermined time there and left. There is no mention of him being appointed by the apostles in any way for ministry there. I cannot for the life of me find the reference I had for Paul not going to Jerusalem for three years. Maybe I can find it later - maybe I was hallucinating .

Anyway, are you implying the laying on of hands here was for the ministry? if so, that’s not true. The laying on of hands was for reception of his sight back and reception of the Holy Spirit. He was not being anointed into the ministry. Jesus had already done that on the road to Damascus.

His life in the early church began in Acts 7:58 where he was still a practicing Jew and consents to Stephen’s death. Acts 9:4 begins his conversion and laying on of hands - receiving of the Holy Spirit and he was baptized. Beginning in Acts 11:25, Barnabas is said to have went to Tarsus (where Saul had gone) to find him. He did find Paul and they both went to Antioch. They are said to have taught there for a year. From this point they continue to travel.

We then come to Acts 13:2 where it is said that the Holy Spirit told the disciples there, “separate to me Barnabas and Saul for the work I have called them.” They were apparently confirmed in their calling by God at this point. It is the fulfilling of what Christ had said to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Notice in Acts 19:6 the reference to Paul laying hands on disciples for reception of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t mean they were commissioned in some way to be ministers. They were given the Holy Spirit to help them live their Christian lives.

Sorry this post was so long, but I wanted to clarify this.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Ahimsaman,

ahimsaman72:

Okay, now I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. I see verses but no commentary or anything.

2 Timothy 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.

ahimsaman72:

Since he addresses this first among other items, we can assume that it was what was most important to convey…If you want to broaden this verse and take it out of context then you can say that this involves the whole Christian church. But, I would caution against that way of dealing with Scripture…This is why it is so important to look at all the Scriptures in **context **and get the real meaning.

1 Corinthians 1:2 …to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,** their Lord and ours.**

**1 Corinthians 1:10 **I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you,

**1 Corinthians 1:13 **Is Christ divided?

ahimsaman72:

If you want to broaden this verse and take it out of context then you can say that this involves the whole Christian church.

**1 Corinthians 1:13 **Is Christ divided?

 

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

Hello Ahimsaman,

2 Timothy 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.

1 Corinthians 1:2 …to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,** their** Lord and ours.

**1 Corinthians 1:10 **I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you,

**1 Corinthians 1:13 **Is Christ divided?

**1 Corinthians 1:13 **Is Christ divided?

Sorry, if you continue to just quote Scripture and not “speak” to me, then I will conclude our conversations at this point. It’s very confusing and unintelligible.

Peace…

 

[RBushlow]

ahimsaman72:

are you implying the laying on of hands here was for the ministry?

Just a point of clarification, the laying on of hands, with the divine consecration is how the Church always has consecrated priests. It still is even to this day, not just in the Catholic Church, but in the Coptic, Greek Orthodox, Russian, Armenian and other ancient churches and is amply demonstrated in ancient Church writings.

Peace be with you.

 

[Philthy]

p90:

I wrote regarding the Scriptural proof of the Papacy:

P90
The Papacy is a succession of different people. Peter isn’t alive today, and if it is to be accepted that the keys gave infallibility, it needs to be demonstrated that each successor had those keys or it can only be applied to the one who received it.

Philthy:
What do you mean by “demonstrated”? I can give you “a demonstration” of the keys by way of the analogies previously discussed re: Isaiah 22 and the passing of the authority of the office - but it still remains up to you to accept or reject the “demonstration”.

The “demonstration” doesn’t present a reason for accepting the passing of the authority associated with the keys to future holders. Where in Isaiah 22 are the keys passed on?

Well, I guess we just disagree on whether it presents “a” reason or no reason - that’s OK - I respect your intellect! Here’s an analysis of this verse from David Currie that may be helpful: In Matt16:18…"Jesus was borrowing the words of Isaiah to give meaning to his words to Peter. What did Isaiah mean by these words? Isaiah was speaking to Eliakim, a new “prime minister” in Israel. Eliakim took over the office from an unworthy PM (historical fact - right?) God was telling Eliakim that he would be chief ruler in Israel, under the king alone. Isaiah uses two images in his discussion, a key and a peg. It is evident that the key has two important aspects It is a symbolo of the power to rule - authority, AND it symbolizes permanence - intergenerational succession. the dey existed prior to being given to Eliakim, and it would exist after he passed on. The key, the power to rule, passes from mortal to mortal. Later in Isaiah a peg is used to signify the instability of Eliakims personal position. The peg, Isaiah foretells, will be pulled down: Eliakim would be cut down in the prime of his rule. The peg relates to Eliakim on a personal level. but the key denotes an office both power-full and permanent. It’s significant that Jesus only uses the symbolism of the key with Peter and never the peg. The fact that Jesus gives Peter the keys of the Kingdomsymbolizes Peter’s power to rule, just as it did in Isaiah. this is the authority of Peter’s office. It will be passed down, just as the authority of the other apostles will be passed down as they die. this is the intergenerational succession of Peter’s See…
Again, this is “a” reason for accepting the concept of succession, but you may feel it doesn’t meet the “burden of proof” - you are entitled to that belief

:

Quote:

~Matt

 

[Philthy]

F) How do you determine when the oral word of God was faithfully passed on and when it wasn’t?

Quote:
You can’t - only the Church can!
Then why do you appeal to oral tradition at all in discussions with Protestants? If they can’t check that oral tradition without submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church to determine whether or not that tradition is being followed, of what value is it to admonish Protestants to hold fast to them? If the only way to consider the claims of Catholicism on oral tradition is to submit to Catholic authority regarding oral tradition, I am at a loss as how to test the Catholic Church in this area.

~Matt
The reason to appeal to oral tradition to Protestants is because it’s Scriptural and protestants generally hold Scipture as authority. The real problem with trying to simply hold to Scripture alone is that Scripture says to hold on to oral tradition as well! Remember, we are to “hold fast” to whatever is passed by “word of mouth” or written tradition, and we are to do that because “we know who we learned from” - Im doing a little paraphrasing here…but you get the point. who we learn them from is Peter’s successors. And as I said before, none of these traditions will contradict the true Spirit of Scripture because they are both “God breathed”. As far as how to “test” the Catholic Church I have a couple of thoughts. The first is that nothing that the Church teaches (understood truthfully) should contradict what Scripture (understood truthfullly) teaches. And again, I’ll bring up the point that you didn’t respond to of mine: "In reality, given Scriptures’ statements regarding holding fast to oral traditions as well as written ones, any church claiming to lack them would be the Church that you should logically, scripturally, be the most suspicious of." Scripture says the Church should have oral tradition - if a church doesn’t, then that church is going against Scripture - no? Please comment.

 

[p90]

Philthy:

Again, this is “a” reason for accepting the concept of succession, but you may feel it doesn’t meet the “burden of proof” - you are entitled to that belief

Thank you for understanding. Currie’s argument is not sufficient.

~Matt

 

[p90]

Philthy:

As far as how to “test” the Catholic Church I have a couple of thoughts. The first is that nothing that the Church teaches (understood truthfully) should contradict what Scripture (understood truthfullly) teaches.

In other words, I can’t test the Catholic Church’s claims regarding oral tradition. I should just accept that your church is right, and if not, that I simply don’t understand.

Scripture says the Church should have oral tradition - if a church doesn’t, then that church is going against Scripture - no? Please comment.

You’re assuming that this oral tradition is in existence today. That is an assumption I reject as false. Do you know what Paul said to the Thessalonians? Do you know what John left out of his written Gospel? No one has access to those records. How can anyone be expected to follow them?

If you’re going to appeal to the practice and tradition of the church, as asked before, how can I test such claims since only the Catholic Church can indicate when that material has been faithfully passed on? And Catholicism isn’t the only church that claims to have an oral tradition. How do Protestants arbitrate between groups like Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism when it comes to knowing which is following the oral tradition? Given your responses, they can’t.

~Matt

 

[Aris]

p90:

And Catholicism isn’t the only church that claims to have an oral tradition. How do Protestants arbitrate between groups like Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism when it comes to knowing which is following the oral tradition? Given your responses, they can’t.

~Matt

Because the other groups will run smack against the wall of History, Sacred and Secular.

If they trace their history then they have to explain where their church and doctrines were in the first 1500 years.

Pretty hard to trace. I have not seen a non-Catholic who was able to trace their church history back to Christ. The last one still has to get back to me after one month of research.

Almost all of them will tell you that they come from the first Church in Acts then conveniently skip to the present day.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RBushlow:

Just a point of clarification, the laying on of hands, with the divine consecration is how the Church always has consecrated priests. It still is even to this day, not just in the Catholic Church, but in the Coptic, Greek Orthodox, Russian, Armenian and other ancient churches and is amply demonstrated in ancient Church writings.

Peace be with you.

As I stated in another post, there are a number of places where people had hands laid on them and they received the Holy Spirit. In Acts of the Apostles alone there are 6 references to the laying on of hands (6:5-6; 8:17; 9:17; 13:3; 19:6; 28:8). In every one of those instances there was no ordination of priests. They were simply given the power of the Holy Spirit just as the apostles were given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost or people were simply healed.

Are you saying these instances are other than what I have stated above?

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

ahimsaman72:

You are correct in when Paul started his ministry. Acts 9:27 states that he began to preach and then went to Jerusalem and saw the apostles. They were reportedly afraid of him because of his former life. He spent some undetermined time there and left. There is no mention of him being appointed by the apostles in any way for ministry there. I cannot for the life of me find the reference I had for Paul not going to Jerusalem for three years. Maybe I can find it later - maybe I was hallucinating .

I actually found the passage I was thinking about - it is in the first chapter of Galatians where Paul explains that his apostleship was given to him by God and that he sought no authorization from anyone for his ministry.

I guess I wasn’t hallucinating after all - that makes me feel a little bit better.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Ahimsaman,

ahimsaman72:

The first verse above is written by the apostle Paul to the Corinthian Church…If you want to broaden this verse and take it out of context then you can say that this involves the whole Christian church…This is why it is so important to look at all the Scriptures in context and get the real meaning.

The context shows that St. Paul is addressing all Christians. St. Paul refers to ***all those everywhere ***who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1 Corinthians 1:2 …to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,** their Lord and ours.**

St. Paul makes it clear that there are to be no divisions among Christians:

**1 Corinthians 1:10 **I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you,

The fact that St. Paul refers to Christ Himself in relation to division is even further confirmation that his statement about divisions applies to all Christians:

**1 Corinthians 1:13 **Is Christ divided?

Therefore the context indeed shows that St. Paul refers to all Christians.

Greg

 

[hlgomez]

You are correct in when Paul started his ministry. Acts 9:27 states that he began to preach and then went to Jerusalem and saw the apostles. They were reportedly afraid of him because of his former life. He spent some undetermined time there and left. There is no mention of him being appointed by the apostles in any way for ministry there. I cannot for the life of me find the reference I had for Paul not going to Jerusalem for three years. Maybe I can find it later - maybe I was hallucinating .

Anyway, are you implying the laying on of hands here was for the ministry? if so, that’s not true. The laying on of hands was for reception of his sight back and reception of the Holy Spirit. He was not being anointed into the ministry. Jesus had already done that on the road to Damascus.

You didn’t get the point. Why would Jesus who appeared to him on the road to Damascus not heal him (Paul) at that very instant?Why would Jesus have to instruct Paul to meet Ananias? Jesus could have had healed Paul and instruct him to preach right away the Gospel right there and then. But the Lord didn’t do that–for He has already established his Church and placed apostles there and to exercise apostolic authority he had given them. The same as it is today, nobody will just sprung out from nowhere and says; “I have Jesus, I’m a Christian.” Nobody will believe that person unless he goes to a church and be baptized and–receive the holy Spirit from those who have been given authority.

Yes, the laying on of the hands will “regain” Paul’s sight and “receive the holy Spirit.” The receiving of the holy Spirit was the sure sign of giving him the power to exercise apostolic authority. After laying on of the hands from someone with apostolic authority, the holy Spirit will be infused upon the person. The holy Spirit is the source of authority Himself–He is the anointing (get it? ). There is no doubt that Ananias already received apostolic authority right from the apostles’ laying on of hands. You may not find a particular verse in the Bible that says Ananias received the laying on of hands (ordination), but there is no doubt he really did. Otherwise he would have no authority whatsoever to lay his hand upon Paul.

Jesus had already done that on the road to Damascus.

What did Jesus do? Did He say to Paul you are already baptized and have the holy Spirit in you? Just a point, a person who is not baptized cannot have right away the anointing. Paul has to be baptized first and receive the anointing. It’s not the other way around.

Pio

 

[p90]

Aris:

Because the other groups will run smack against the wall of History, Sacred and Secular.

A number of significant concepts in Catholicism were either absent or contradicted by the early church. Prayers to the dead, Catholic eschatology and the Papacy are absent from the earliest of church fathers. The immaculate conception was contradicted for hundreds of years by many fathers, those who either called Mary a sinner directly or called Christ the only immaculately conceived being, while evidence for the assumption is non-existent for the first five centuries of Christianity. What about the eucharist and apostolic succession? Different fathers had different interpretations of each, some of those being mutually exclusive.

My study of early church history, as limited as it is, has revealed that of all the groups which are not historically grounded, Catholicism is the worst.

If they trace their history then they have to explain where their church and doctrines were in the first 1500 years.

Are you aware of the fact that Evangelicals have a significantly different view of church history than Catholics? We don’t believe that our doctrines have to be held in succession throughout history in order for them to be valid. If 2 Kings 22:8-13 is a situation that could happen in light of God’s promises to Abraham and Israel, Evangelicals don’t think it’s far-fetched to see times of church history where no church leaders followed the Scriptures correctly.

~Matt

 

[ahimsaman72]

hlgomez:

You didn’t get the point. Why would Jesus who appeared to him on the road to Damascus not heal him (Paul) at that very instant?Why would Jesus have to instruct Paul to meet Ananias? Jesus could have had healed Paul and instruct him to preach right away the Gospel right there and then. But the Lord didn’t do that–for He has already established his Church and placed apostles there and to exercise apostolic authority he had given them. The same as it is today, nobody will just sprung out from nowhere and says; “I have Jesus, I’m a Christian.” Nobody will believe that person unless he goes to a church and be baptized and–receive the holy Spirit from those who have been given authority.

I would have to say you didn’t get my point. I guess you would have to ask Jesus your questions here. You are straining a gnat here and swallowing a camel. Read my post #194. I gave “Bushlow” clear examples that prove my point with this laying on of hands. It in no way shows ordination.

Yes, the laying on of the hands will “regain” Paul’s sight and “receive the holy Spirit.” The receiving of the holy Spirit was the sure sign of giving him the power to exercise apostolic authority. After laying on of the hands from someone with apostolic authority, the holy Spirit will be infused upon the person. The holy Spirit is the source of authority Himself–He is the anointing (get it? ). There is no doubt that Ananias already received apostolic authority right from the apostles’ laying on of hands. You may not find a particular verse in the Bible that says Ananias received the laying on of hands (ordination), but there is no doubt he really did. Otherwise he would have no authority whatsoever to lay his hand upon Paul.

Again, you are assuming Ananias had been given apostolic authority. As you well know, at this point, there are only 12 “apostles”. You aren’t saying Ananias is one of them, are you?
You assume it because you are trying to make a connection.

What did Jesus do? Did He say to Paul you are already baptized and have the holy Spirit in you? Just a point, a person who is not baptized cannot have right away the anointing. Paul has to be baptized first and receive the anointing. It’s not the other way around.

You are thinking only from Roman Catholic doctrine. As Paul states in Galatians chapter 1, he didn’t need the others’ approval for his ministry. He was given it by God himself.

 

[ahimsaman72]

hlgomez:

What did Jesus do? Did He say to Paul you are already baptized and have the holy Spirit in you? Just a point, a person who is not baptized cannot have right away the anointing. Paul has to be baptized first and receive the anointing. It’s not the other way around.

Pio

In referring to Paul being anointed I will point you to the definition of anointing in a secular dictionary, but still clarifies my meaning. Here it is from the American Heritage Dictionary:

**a·noint ** us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/reference/dictionary/audio_key2.gif (http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i...img.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:
**a·noint·ed **, **a·noint·ing **, **a·noints **

1. 
   *]To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
   *]To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
   *]To choose by or as if by divine intervention. (emphasis mine)
   
   Paul was chosen by Jesus personally. God doesn’t have to baptize someone to anoint them. There are many examples of divine anointing in the Old Testament, whether by God or those he has chosen to do it on His behalf. Samuel anointed Saul to be king (I Samuel 9:16). Aaron’s sons were anointed as priests (Exodus 28:41). Isaiah 61:1 speaks of Jesus being anointed to preach the gospel. He was anointed before He even came to earth.