What's Your Authority?

[rainman10]

eazy, you quoted the above. My questions:

1. you are following the scriptures as given by the Holy Spirit to whom? to you personally?
2. is it not true that the Holy Spirit was left to guide Christ’s Church unto all Truth?
3. also, isn’t it true that the Holy Spirit does not lie or cause confusion? It teaches ALL Truth, 100%?
4. if you are following the scriptures as given to you by the Holy Spirit, then all that you proclaim is the 100% God given truth, correct?
5. therefore, your interpretations of scripture are completely infallible, correct?
6. and as a result, then, every Christian on earth should be following you, because you must be Christ’s Church. You are THE authority we should all follow, correct?

Eazy, please answer my questions above. Seems you might have missed them.

 

[JMM1957]

Jews call their bible “Tanach” but then the word Tanach is not in the Tanach.
Paul also quoted Greek literature but that doesn’t make it inspired either.

Obviously, the Greek literature itself is not inspired. He was inspired to quote from it though, so that makes it part of our inspired scripture, does it not? Or are you saying that the Bible is composed of some things inspired by the Holy Spirit, and some things not inspired? If so, how would you differentiate the two?

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry, sounded to me like you were trying to say that if this eunuch needs help to understand, then it would follow that Christians do too. I misunderstood, but then, what was the point?

Eazy,

I think the point that you’re attempting to make here is that an unbaptized person – one who hasn’t yet received the Spirit – is unable to understand God’s word, but that a baptized person, who has the gift of the Spirit, no longer needs an authoritative teacher, but is inspired by the Spirit to understand God’s Word. Is that about right?

If so, I encourage you to re-read Acts 8. Yes, it looks like the eunuch is a ‘righteous Gentile’ – not a Jew, but one who saw the truth of God in Judaism. But, what is it that the Spirit inspires Philip to do? After all, if it’s only a matter of baptism and instant understanding, then shouldn’t Philip have simply come to the eunuch and baptized him? Shouldn’t he simply have said, “these verses proclaim Jesus. I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. There you go! All done!”…?

Yet, Philip didn’t do that – inspired by the Spirit, and within the scope of his role in the Church, he proclaimed Christ to the Ethiopian through his exegesis of Scripture. If all it took was baptism, then Philip could’ve skipped this step, right?

I think that’s what’s being presented to you here: the teaching of the Church is necessary, and not simply baptism. (After all, if baptism were all that were necessary, then what is the need for the Gospels? For Paul’s epistles? For the structure of the Church, as visible in the New Testament?)

 

[JMM1957]

(Ephesians 4:11-16) - 11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

John 6:44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 

[Erich]

Jews call their bible “Tanach” but then** the word Tanach** is not in the Tanach.

That’s 'cause it’s *not *a word.

Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text’s three traditional subdivisions: Torah (“Teaching”, also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi’im (“Prophets”) and Ketuvim (“Writings”) – hence TaNaKh.

 

[eazyduzit]

Eazy,

I think the point that you’re attempting to make here is that an unbaptized person – one who hasn’t yet received the Spirit – is unable to understand God’s word, but that a baptized person, who has the gift of the Spirit, no longer needs an authoritative teacher, but is inspired by the Spirit to understand God’s Word. Is that about right?

If so, I encourage you to re-read Acts 8. Yes, it looks like the eunuch is a ‘righteous Gentile’ – not a Jew, but one who saw the truth of God in Judaism. But, what is it that the Spirit inspires Philip to do? After all, if it’s only a matter of baptism and instant understanding, then shouldn’t Philip have simply come to the eunuch and baptized him? Shouldn’t he simply have said, “these verses proclaim Jesus. I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. There you go! All done!”…?

Yet, Philip didn’t do that – inspired by the Spirit, and within the scope of his role in the Church, he proclaimed Christ to the Ethiopian through his exegesis of Scripture. If all it took was baptism, then Philip could’ve skipped this step, right?

I think that’s what’s being presented to you here: the teaching of the Church is necessary, and not simply baptism. (After all, if baptism were all that were necessary, then what is the need for the Gospels? For Paul’s epistles? For the structure of the Church, as visible in the New Testament?)

This is not so mysterious. All we are talking about is basic evangelism, which the bible itself explains in Rm.10:14,15: How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall the hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
This should settle the question. All that we need to do is preach the Gospel and show by the scriptures how to repent and call on the name of the Lord. It is the work of the HS to convict the person. Have you ever heard Billy Graham? He just preaches the Gospel. At first he consentrated on trying to bring conviction himself, but latter he said that when he stopped trying to do God’s work, his ministry really took off.Now if Philip was a catholic, he would have said: you must join our church, because there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Then you must be a candidate and do the RCIA classes, etc. Then you can be baptised.

Also, the bible says that “the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation”, not the Church, not baptism.

 

[Erich]

Also, the bible says that “the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation”, not the Church, not baptism.

The Bible also says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” [Mark 16:16]

Jesus Himself teaches us of the importance – indeed, the necessity – of baptism.

 

[Magdalena59]

This is not so mysterious. All we are talking about is basic evangelism, which the bible itself explains in Rm.10:14,15: How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall the hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
This should settle the question. All that we need to do is preach the Gospel and show by the scriptures how to repent and call on the name of the Lord. It is the work of the HS to convict the person. Have you ever heard Billy Graham? He just preaches the Gospel. At first he consentrated on trying to bring conviction himself, but latter he said that when he stopped trying to do God’s work, his ministry really took off.Now if Philip was a catholic, he would have said: you must join our church, because there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Then you must be a candidate and do the RCIA classes, etc. Then you can be baptised.

Also, the bible says that “the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation”, not the Church, not baptism.

Part of the Gospel message is to believe and be baptized, repent and be baptized.

John the Baptist filled with the Holy Spirit:

Mark 1:5 People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins

Jesus was baptized and we are to follow him.

Mark 1:9 It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John.

If this is what Jesus did and in Luke 9:23 He says to follow him, shouldn’t we follow him into the waters of baptism?

1 Peter 3:21. After Peter discusses the eight people saved through water, he says baptism now saves

1. Since the days of the Apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey could be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements always had to be present: (1) the proclamation of the Word, (2) acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, (3) a profession of faith, (4) the Sacrament of Baptism itself, (5) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and (6) admission to Eucharistic communion. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1229)

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Acts 2:42: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship in the breaking of bread and in prayers.”

Doctrine: 1, teaching, instruction; 2, a, something that is taught, b, a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief: Dogma.

Tertullian AD 160 - 225 (before he became a montanist):
“Moreover, if there be any bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which apostolic Churches transmit their lists; like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles.”

 

[JMM1957]

This is not so mysterious. All we are talking about is basic evangelism, which the bible itself explains in Rm.10:14,15: How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall the hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
This should settle the question. All that we need to do is preach the Gospel and show by the scriptures how to repent and call on the name of the Lord. It is the work of the HS to convict the person. Have you ever heard Billy Graham? He just preaches the Gospel. At first he consentrated on trying to bring conviction himself, but latter he said that when he stopped trying to do God’s work, his ministry really took off.Now if Philip was a catholic, he would have said: you must join our church, because there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Then you must be a candidate and do the RCIA classes, etc. Then you can be baptised.

Also, the bible says that “the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation”, not the Church, not baptism.

The Catholic church has not existed for 2000 years because we are without unity. We may not do things the way you do them, but we get it done. What’s your issue?

 

[JMM1957]

Also, the bible says that “the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation”, not the Church, not baptism.

It also says that “the church is the bulwark and pillar of truth”. What church? An invisible church? If you were an unbeliever and wanted to come to a knowledge of the truth back in NT times, where would you go to get that truth? Would you go to the synagogue? Would you ask someone standing on the street corner reading the scriptures to teach you? Would you ask someone to give you the scriptures so that you could take them home and study them and come to your own conclusions? Please explain what your course of action would be?

 

[eazyduzit]

I see that it does not say specifically that he was a “Jew” or a practicer of Judaism, it just said he was going to Jerusalem to worship. Looking at the context again, he most likely was a Gentile. I stand corrected on that, I wasn’t aware of the Court of the Gentiles being a place of worship, I thought it was just a mall area, or marketplace type setting.

On the other hand, that passage does indeed show that a teaching authority is necessary for proper understanding of some scripture, certainly not every letter of scripture, but some of the more difficult or mysterious passages, of which there are many in the Bible. That is what Phillip did here, is to explain it to the Ethiopian, am I right or wrong?

Also, Peter was not talking of the same gift he had, but “a” gift, one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, of which there are many. I really think your defiance towards a teaching authority in the church stems from a misunderstanding of the biblical role of the church in the first place, the church established on the original twelve Apostles. Your idea that any one individual can pick up the Bible and pray for the help of the Holy Spirit for understanding, and come to a complete and accurate knowledge of the mysteries of God has no scriptural support hwhatsoever. If you think that this is possible, then please explain why there are thousands and thousands of different Reformed churches in the world today, each teaching something different, some with little differences, some with great differences? Does that sound like the Holy Spirit at work, really? Phillipians 2:1-2 says much better what I am getting at.

True, Philip did need to assist the eunuch to explain who Jesus is, but i believe that is still the job of every believer, no matter how clumsy they may be, the HS will honor it if the scriptures are presented. I don’t think one needs a perfect understanding of all things in the bible to be saved, nor does one need “perfect and complete” knowledge to be a witness.Note please that the Samaritan woman at Jacobs well in Jn. CH.4 did not have credentials from any church, yet she went just after she was saved to be a witness for Christ and I believe many in her village also believed on Jesus because of her and the witness of the HS.

I do understand about Paul’s vision of “oneness” in Philippians, however he says in ch.1:18 “notwithstanding, EVERY WAY, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea and do rejoice.” You see, that unlike some, Paul rejoiced in whatever way the gospel was preached as long as someone was doing it.

Having checked out the modern versions, i see that you are right about my quote from Peter.The “the” in KJV has been replaced with “a”, which does indeed change the meaning. Thank you for pointing that out.

I don’t think anyone has a “complete and accurate” knowledge of the Bible. Yet, one must get some things right. The bible says in James 1:5 “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally”. Have you not ever asked the HS to show you the meaning of a scripture? He is able and willing. Often, in meditation He will illuminate a verse without my even asking.

I can evangelise along side a Reform believer without a problem because we all believe the same in regard to the basic Gospel. The power of the Gospel is not hindered. Just as in Mt. 16:15, it is the HS who must bring the revelation of who Jesus is.

I think that it is that I have a different definition of the meaning of “church” than you. As you know, the Greek is “ekklesia” which is rendered from two root words: “ek”, meaning “out of, from, by, or away from” and “kaleo” meaning “to call aloud or to invite”. Thus the basic meaning is "the called out or the called out ones or assembly. It is not an hierarchical organization in what I see, but obviously your tradition sees differently, but I hope you will allow that the Kingdom of God can still work even if it is done according to the plain meaning of the text. Sometimes less is more.

 

[Abu]

Eazyduzit #486
The power of the Gospel is not hindered. Just as in Mt. 16:15, it is the HS who must bring the revelation of who Jesus is.

In fact, following Mt 16:15, Peter affirms with great clarity: “Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”

Then Jesus, the Christ, immediately founds His Church – the Catholic Church – on St Peter as seen in post #13.

I think that it is that I have a different definition of the meaning of “church” than you. As you know, the Greek is “ekklesia” which is rendered from two root words: “ek”, meaning “out of, from, by, or away from” and “kaleo” meaning “to call aloud or to invite”.

ECCLESIA. The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia, meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew kahal in both a secular and a religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 16:18) and of a singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5). The *Catechism of Trent *defines Ecclesia as the Church, which is the faithful of the whole world (I, 10,2). (Etym. Latin ecclesia, universal or an individual Church; from Greek ekklesia, assembly of people called together.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

It is crystal clear that the Church founded by Jesus is the Church He put His St Peter in charge of with all of His authority to teach, sanctify and rule as St Matthew elucidates so well.

The power of the Gospel is shredded by the unfortunate persistence on substituting one’s own prejudices.

 

[KjetilK]

Secondly, death does not “put an end to human life”, only the physical part. Human life continues in the soul because the soul is the life force. When it departs, the physical ceases to function.

That ‘physical part’ is an essential part of being human. Death is the separation of the soul and the body, and you won’t be complete again until the soul and the body is reunited.

Christianity is not a gnostic religion.

 

[JMM1957]

True, Philip did need to assist the eunuch to explain who Jesus is, but i believe that is still the job of every believer, no matter how clumsy they may be, the HS will honor it if the scriptures are presented. I don’t think one needs a perfect understanding of all things in the bible to be saved, nor does one need “perfect and complete” knowledge to be a witness.Note please that the Samaritan woman at Jacobs well in Jn. CH.4 did not have credentials from any church, yet she went just after she was saved to be a witness for Christ and I believe many in her village also believed on Jesus because of her and the witness of the HS.

I do understand about Paul’s vision of “oneness” in Philippians, however he says in ch.1:18 “notwithstanding, EVERY WAY, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea and do rejoice.” You see, that unlike some, Paul rejoiced in whatever way the gospel was preached as long as someone was doing it.

Having checked out the modern versions, i see that you are right about my quote from Peter.The “the” in KJV has been replaced with “a”, which does indeed change the meaning. Thank you for pointing that out.

I don’t think anyone has a “complete and accurate” knowledge of the Bible. Yet, one must get some things right. The bible says in James 1:5 “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally”. Have you not ever asked the HS to show you the meaning of a scripture? He is able and willing. Often, in meditation He will illuminate a verse without my even asking.

I can evangelise along side a Reform believer without a problem because we all believe the same in regard to the basic Gospel. The power of the Gospel is not hindered. Just as in Mt. 16:15, it is the HS who must bring the revelation of who Jesus is.

I think that it is that I have a different definition of the meaning of “church” than you. As you know, the Greek is “ekklesia” which is rendered from two root words: “ek”, meaning “out of, from, by, or away from” and “kaleo” meaning “to call aloud or to invite”. Thus the basic meaning is "the called out or the called out ones or assembly. It is not an hierarchical organization in what I see, but obviously your tradition sees differently, but I hope you will allow that the Kingdom of God can still work even if it is done according to the plain meaning of the text. Sometimes less is more.

I think I can agree with most everything you have said. It is clear that we have a difference though in the way we each view “church”. The rendering of the Greek word for “church” in not the issue here, it is how we apply it in light of how Jesus established it to be structured. Salvation comes from Christ the Head, through the Church which is His Body. Scripture describes the Body of Christ in relation to a human body which is composed of many parts, each part necessary to the other, and all functioning together as a cohesive unit. Just because the Catholic Church has much more authoritative structure than most churches, does not mean that we are slaves to it, on the contrary, it gives us more freedom. As Scripture says " the truth will set you free". We believe the fullness of truth of the Gospel is in the Church, which by its nature is Apostolic and is guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve the truth handed down from the original Apostles themselves. Surely we can also bring the truth of the Gospel to other people too, the command by Our Lord to “preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth” is every Christians duty in whatever capacity they can do it. The Church, besides protecting and handing down the truth of the Gospel to other faithful people, has the mission of administering the Sacraments to those same people. The Sacraments were instituted by Our Lord himself, and partaking of them we gain graces which edify us tremendously to bring us into a closer union with Christ.

 

[Erich]

I can evangelise along side a Reform believer without a problem because we all believe the same in regard to the basic Gospel.

So, you agree with the Reform believer on the “essentials”, and agree to disagree on the “non-essentials”? Who gets to define “essentials” and “non-essentials”? Or, to put it another way, all Christians, to a greater or lesser degree, can (or should) agree that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God… so who gets to decide what part of the Inspired Word of God is non-essential?

My follow-up question is, can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?

 

[eazyduzit]

So, you agree with the Reform believer on the “essentials”, and agree to disagree on the “non-essentials”? Who gets to define “essentials” and “non-essentials”? Or, to put it another way, all Christians, to a greater or lesser degree, can (or should) agree that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God… so who gets to decide what part of the Inspired Word of God is non-essential?

My follow-up question is, can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?

Its not about who gets to decide. Some things are central (gospel). Some are peripheral,such as eschatology, or that we have apostles, and they don’t. Do you see the difference? Everything is important, but not in the same degree. Salvation only depends on certain essentials.

 

[eazyduzit]

That ‘physical part’ is an essential part of being human. Death is the separation of the soul and the body, and you won’t be complete again until the soul and the body is reunited.

Christianity is not a gnostic religion.

Maybe i’m different, but for me, its the spiritual things that are the “real” rather than the physical. My soul is the mind, emotions, memories feelings; the things that make me who I am. The flesh is dust. Its a vapor that passes away. Its not the real. I am not a body that has a spirit. I am a spirit with a soul that is resting in a body for this present time.

 

[eazyduzit]

Sorry Erich, but I don’t get what you mean by “approval”? Scripture says “all who call upon the name of the Lord can be saved”. All means everyone. There are no qualifications other than that one must be a sinner.