|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/14/2008 9:18:23 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1780
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
2Preacher:
I apologize if my reply to Ezra seems harsh, my intent was to be firm.
No need to apologize. I don't really care whether someone's response is harsh or mild, as long as that person is seeking after the truth or expressing the truth.
quote:
I agree and understand that the OT was put together well before Jesus, and at the same time much of the same criteria for the NT applies to the OT. The OT doesn’t give a table as to which books should or shouldn’t belong. From my limited research, I have found that the OT was going through something similar (as far as false scripture circulating) as the fathers of the NT. Because there is no table of contents for the OT, it was tradition that was used to decide which books belong, and not scripture all by itself.
When a person fails to grasp the significance of the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself regarding any matter, there is nothing more to be said.
Christ Himself clearly stated the scope of the OT by referring to (1) the Law, (2) the Prophets and (3) the Psalms as "the Scriptures", and that should have been the end of this discussion. This is a very precise and accurate summation of the 24 books of the OT Scriptures by the Word of God Himself.
And the Hebrew scribes were meticulous in transmitting and transcribing these Scriptures from generation to generation. That is precisely why the Isaiah scroll dating from 200 B.C. found among the Dead Sea Scrolls is identical to the book of Isaiah found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text dating from 1000 A.D. The Isaiah scroll opened and read by Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth would have been absolutely identical to both of the above. And the one read by the Ethiopian eunuch and interpreted by Philip would have also been the exact replica of all the others. That was the power and the beauty of the OT Scriptures.
Every Jew in Christ's day would have clearly understood that the Scriptures were the written Word of God given to them by the Hebrew prophets and contained in their Tanakh (which did not include the Apocrypha). These were called "the oracles of God" therefore tradition had nothing to do with them. God gave His Word, preserved His Word, and oversaw His Word. That's the only reason we have a totally reliable Holy Bible. This was not a man-made compilation but a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.
We do not need a "table of contents" for the Hebrew Tanakh to be valid. Christ Himself validated the Tanakh yet you rejected His testimony with your talk about "tradition". IOW you do not believe the Lord Jesus Christ in His testimony to the scope and contents of the OT Scriptures. Therefore there is nothing further to be said or discussed!
< Message edited by Ezra -- 8/14/2008 9:36:41 PM >
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/15/2008 1:08:09 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Ezra:
I appreciate your stand for the AUTHORITY of Scripture. With me, Authority is not the issue. As I have stated earlier, I believe that the Scriptures of both Old and New Testament are the verbally inspired Word of God in their entirety with no admixture of error. Every word of every one of the 66 books of Scripture is the Authoritative Word of God.
However, I do not believe that Authority is the issue here. We are talking about Canonicity - which books belong in our Bible. Both Authority and Canonicity are determined by God but there is a human element involved as well.
Norman Giesler and William E. Nix, in their book, "A General Introduction to the Bible" state that "canonicity is determined or established authoritatively by God; it is merely discovered by men." (pg. 221) This does not mean that men have anything to do with whether or not a particular book of Scripture is truly Scripture or not, authoritative or not, inspired or not. These things are determined by God alone. NO DISCUSSION NECESSARY. The issue is settled simply because God said so.
Therefore, you are correct in saying that Jesus validation of the Tanakh is enough. No other validation is needed. I believe this whole heartedly and mind you, I am not rejecting Christ words in any sense. However, from a strictly human standpoint of scholarship there had to be some criteria for recognizing the God given canonicity of the Scriptures and that is what we are discussing. What were those criteria?
Loco79:
quote:
There is no table of contents for the OT, it was tradition that was used to decide which books belong, and not scripture all by itself.
Loco, as promised, I did a little digging and found what I was looking for. There were several criteria which were used to "discover" i.e. "recognizing" the canonicity of the books of our Bible. Again it is important to remember that "Authority and canonicity" are determined by God i.e. the books of the OT and NT canons are THE AUTHORITATIVE WORD OF GOD WHETHER RECOGNIZED BY MEN OR NOT BECAUSE GOD SAID SO.
Those men who compiled our Bible were guided and over seen by the Holy Spirit in the process of recognition.
For purposes of DISCOVERY or RECOGNITION the criteria are:
1. "Was the book written by a prophet of God? Is it prophetic? Propheticity determines canonicity. If it was written by a spokesman for God, then it was the Word of God." (Giesler / Nix, pg.223)
The words characteristic of this are "And the word of the Lord came unto the prophet," or "the Lord said unto," or "God spoke". These words fill the pages of nearly all of the books of the old testament.
A Prophet was the spokesman for God in the Old Testament. There were the "mouthpiece" used by God to deliver his Word to his people Israel. "The names given to the prophets such as, " man of God" (I Kings 12:22) revealing that he was chosen by God: a "servant of the Lord" ( I Kings 14:18), indicating his occupation; a "messenger of the Lord" ( Isaiah 42:19), designating his mission for god; a seer or beholder (Isaiah 30:10), revealing apocalyptic source of his truth; a man of the spirit ( Hosea (9:7), showing by whose promptings he spoke; a watchman ( Ezekiel 3:17) manifesting his alertness to do the work of God. By far and away, the most common expression was "prophet" of spokesman for God. " (Geisler/Nix, pg. 224)
In view of the nature of religious exhortation by a prophet, it is reasonable to conclude that whatever is written by a prophet of God is the Word of God and therefore canonical. This principle also applies to the writings of the Apostles in the new testament.
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? Miracles are the confirming acts of God which accompany his prophets. Moses was given signs from God to confirm his prophet status and authority before Pharaoh and the Children of Israel (Exodus 4:1-9) Elijah triumphed over the prophets of Baal by calling fire down out of heaven (I Kings 18) Jesus was attested to by God through the miracles which he did. (Acts 2:22; John 3:2) The ministry of the Apostles was confirmed by "signs and wonders" and "miracles and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his own will" (Hebrews 2:4)
3. Does the message tell the truth about God? Does the book tell the truth about God and his world as known from previous revelations? God cannot contradict himself (II Cor. 1:17-18) nor can he utter what is false (Heb. 6:18) Therefore, no book with false claims can be the Word of God.
"Any teaching about God contrary to what His people already knew to be true was to be rejected. Any predictions made about the world which failed to come true indicated that a prophets words should be rejected."
(see Deut. 13:1-3)
4. Does it come with the Power of God? The Fathers believed the Word of God is "living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and consequently ought to have a transforming force of edification (II Tim. 3:17) and evangelization (I Peter 1:23) The Fathers believed that the Word of God can accomplish its purpose in the lives of the people of God (Isaiah 55:11).
5. Was it accepted by the people of God? Not every prophet was accepted by the community at large. Many were rejected. But true believers in the community acknowledged the prophetic nature of the message as did other contemporary believers familiar with the prophet. This acceptance by the people of God occured in two stages: Initial acceptance and subsequent recognition.
There is ample evidence in the Scriptures that books were immediately accepted into the canon by contemporaries of the writers. For example, when Moses wrote, his books were immediately placed by the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:26) Joshua's writings were accepted in like manner (Josh. 24:26) Following him the books of Samuel and others (I Sam. 10:25) Daniel even had a copy of Moses and the Prophets (Dan. 9:2-11) which included his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. (9:2). Likewise in the NT Paul quoted the Gospel of Luke as "Scripture" (I Tim. 5:18) and Peter had a collection of Paul's Letters ( II Pet. 3:16) The Apostles exhorted that their letters be read and circulated among the churches (I Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:3)
As you can see from the above mentioned criteria. Tradition was definitely not the only criteria used in the recognition process. Again, let me state, these are only criteria of discovery or recognition of the authority and canonicity of Scripture. They in no way DETERMINE the authority or canonicity. The Scriptures as given by God ARE the Word of God whether man thinks so or not. Man does not decide this issue, he simply recognizes it. And how does he do that? By recognizing the "marks" of authenticity which are contained within Scripture itself. By submitting to the guidance and promptings of the Holy Spirit as he speaks through the Word to the hearts and minds of his people.
Well, it is late. I am tired. I know that this will probably stir up questions. I don't know all of the answers. I don't even pretend to know them. As I have said before, I simply take God at his word by Faith.
I will write more later.
Peace.
"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight O Lord, my Strength and My Redeemer" Ps. 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/15/2008 4:23:10 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
In response to:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
Scripture testifies to its own authority, Sorry...its probably a personal flaw or shortcoming of mine, but this sentence makes just zero sense to me.
and
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
Scripture testifies to its own authority, but ultimately, if we are looking at the issue of the precise bounds of Scripture (the canon issue), there are various authorities that come into play.
How exactly would you say scripture testifies to itself?
The answer is that the Scripture testifies to its own authority in the strongest possible terms, namely by claiming inspiration:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
The inspiration of Scripture is the source of its authority - it is authoritative, because it provides the very words of God.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/15/2008 4:48:18 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Ezra:
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
...
[Bulk of cut-n-paste work by someone else omitted]
...
2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
You may want to think about cutting and pasting apologetic arguments from a more reliable source. It has already been demonstrated elsewhere (link) that this list is bogus and misleading.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/21/2008 7:32:43 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
According to II Timothy 3:16-17, " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. " Doesn't "profitable" mean "beneficial"? I don't see "authoritative" here.
I contrast that with -
2 Tim 2:2 - "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."
2 Tim 2:23 - "Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth,..."
Scriptures bear witness to the Deposit of Faith and are the means by which some accomplished what is being discussed in 2 Tim 2:2. Those people who received the Deposit of Faith from their forebears are the ones authorized to decide (and have the means to decide) what authoritatively is that which is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
The second cite above speaks to the necessity of that authority - we are not to quibble among ourselves but are to lay down our personal discernment and beliefs in favor of the one that has been authorized by Jesus - the one He placed with the Apostles, and that has come down to us through Paul, then Timothy, and through their predecessors.
Eph 2:20 - "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."
This sounds to me like an orgnization, not a bunch of individuals gleaning what they can from whatever they choose.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/21/2008 7:09:52 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
Doghouse:
You're missing the issue. Scriptures are "given by inspiration of God." That's what gives them authority.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/21/2008 8:05:28 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Turretinfan:
Tradition is also "given by inspiration of God", so then it should have equal authority by your standards
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/21/2008 9:35:11 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1780
Status: offline
|
quote:
Doesn't "profitable" mean "beneficial"? I don't see "authoritative" here.
People only "see" what they want to see.
"Profitable" not only means beneficial but also essential, and essential because it is the Word of God. And by definition, the Word of God is supremely authoritative because it emanates from the Highest Authority in the universe.
That is why Christ simply had to use the phrase "It is written" against both Satan and His enemies to present the authority of the words of God. And no one disputed that authority in His day. Even Satan.
Any church and any individual who fails to see that God's Word is supremely authoritative because it is God's Word will never learn the power or authority of Scripture.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/21/2008 9:37:17 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1780
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Turretinfan:
Tradition is also "given by inspiration of God", so then it should have equal authority by your standards
If this were true Christ would not have severely condemned tradition. The traditions of men pervert the Word of God, and the tradition of the "Traditionalist" churches is exactly that.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/21/2008 9:52:05 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
If you search the bible, is the word of God limited to just the written word? No it is not
Galatians 1:9,12 . . .
If any one is preaching to
you a gospel contrary to that which you received,
let him be accursed . . . For I did not receive it
from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through
a revelation of Jesus Christ
2 Timothy 2:2
And what you have heard from me
before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who
will be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 1:13-14
Follow the pattern of the
sound words which you have heard from me . . .
guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by
the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
Galatians 1:9,12 . . .
If any one is preaching to
you a gospel contrary to that which you received,
let him be accursed . . . For I did not receive it
from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through
a revelation of Jesus Christ
1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . .
when you received the
word of God which you heard from us, you
accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it
really is, the word of God .
1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . .
you received the word
of God, which you heard from us, . . .
1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . .
we preached to you the
gospel of God.
So it is clear that the word of God pertains to written word and oral gospel of God.
And if we continue to look through the word, we will see tradition is also important.
1 Corinthians 11:2 .
. . maintain the traditions . .
. . even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . .
hold to the traditions . .
. . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . .
the tradition that you
received from us
In these verses the only thing condemned is disobeying tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/22/2008 2:50:49 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1780
Status: offline
|
quote:
In these verses the only thing condemned is disobeying tradition.
When we encounter the word "tradition(s)" in the NT, we need to carefully determine what the apostle is referring to. Since Christ condemend the traditions of men, the "tradition" of the apostles must of necessity be something different.
Upon further investigation we find that the Greek word translated as "tradition" means "that which is handed down". So who handed down what to the apostles, and what then must be further handed down?
It is Christ who taught the apostles, and the apostles faithfully handed down these teachings to the churches verbally. But since the apostles would be on earth for a limited period they also wrote down by Divine inspiration in their epistles the same teaching which they taught orally.
Therefore, the word "traditions" in essence is the body of teaching regarding the practical aspects of Christianity which were first taught by the Lord, and handed down from Him by the apostles, and are now found in Scripture. These teachings would by definition be consistent with the rest of Scripture.
In contrast, the "Tradition" of the "Traditionalist" churches is generally opposed to the teachings of Scripture. For example, there is absolutely nothing in the Word of God that directs the Christian to pray to, venerate, or worship Mary. To the contrary, Scripture expressly forbids this as idolatry.
However the "Tradition" of the RCC and EOC allows for praying to the saints and Mary, and the RCC actually exalts Mary above Christ and God. Therefore this is clearly a "tradition of men" and to be rejected out of hand.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/22/2008 3:09:48 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . .
hold to the traditions . .
. . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.
Things that are handed down are not limited to just what is in scripture,
2 Timothy 2:2
And what you have heard from me
before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who
will be able to teach others also.
In this verse the thing that is being handed down, is what he said and taught.
This clearly states that a tradition can be either written or verbal.
The bible also tells us that not everything that Jesus did was written down, because there were too many things that were done. So if one were to ask the question, of what are some of the things Jesus might have taught that were not written down, is there anywhere in scripture that would support oral teachings just as well as those that are written?
And from the scripture verses I gave above, then the answer would be yes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/22/2008 3:26:47 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Ezra:
If i look in the bible, just from a literal view as you suggest, then there are many answers to questions we could never find. As I have stated before, taking just what is written we could not find:
Scripture as the pillar of truth
Trinity
Authors of: Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts and Hebrews
salvation by "faith alone" - God nor Jesus, nor his followers state you are saved by "faith alone"; I do know there is a forum on this topic, I am strictly speaking from a literary standpoint.
Which books belong in the NT, and the Canon as a whole.
The list could go on. So if I take your point that it must only be in scripture, then scripute in itself would not answer some very important questions.
Scripture does tell us that the Gospel of God can be written and oral. It also tells to keep the traditions that we were taught. We must also pass them down to trustworthy people.
Now I am just going strictly off scripture, as per your request. And if you ask me to do so. Then I would ask, why would you teach that following oral tradition is wrong, when scripture shows us examples of the contrary?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/22/2008 3:33:03 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Ezra:
I agree with you concerning "tradition". As I have stated in other posts of mine, the RCC of today is not the same as the church prior to 325 A.D. and the edict of Constantine which made Christianity the state religion of Rome.
The RCC position, from the posts I have read here, seems to be that inspiration is an ongoing process i.e. "tradition is inspired". Much of the tradition of which the RCC speaks came well after the Scriptures were finished and closed i.e. after John penned the final words of the Revelation. What do you think?
It is, IMHO, certain that RCC teachings, in more than one area contradict the clear teachings of Scripture i.e. purgatory, praying to saints and Mary, etc. The same could be said of most churches outside of the RCC as well because there are many things that people believe that are not Scriptural .
For instance, find me the verse that states "God helps those who help themselves." I can't tell you how many times as a pastor I have heard that statement made as though it were in the Bible even by my own mother. Yet I fail to find a reference for it and so do those quote it so fluently.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/22/2008 6:35:06 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
People only "see" what they want to see. That's a double-edge sword that cuts both ways, now isn't it...?
quote:
"Profitable" not only means beneficial but also essential, and essential because it is the Word of God. "Essential" means essential, so does "required", "mandatory"...
quote:
Any church and any individual who fails to see that God's Word is supremely authoritative because it is God's Word will never learn the power or authority of Scripture. What is in dispute here is not the authority of God's word, but the interpretation of that word by the discerner or the reader, and the authority of that person to then convey the Deposit of Faith, if indeed their interpretation of the Deposit rendered by their discernment is errant.
My hypothesis is that the role of Church is reserved to be that authority - to guard and defend the faith from heresy and error, and to assure its conveyance to the faithful - both now, and in the future. What I see in dispute is a favoring of self-appointed authority to discern over the Scripturally prescripted authority of the Church to perform this role for the Body of Believers.
Obviously, you dispute the message contained in my signature below....
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/22/2008 9:56:18 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2Preacher
Ezra:
I agree with you concerning "tradition". As I have stated in other posts of mine, the RCC of today is not the same as the church prior to 325 A.D. and the edict of Constantine which made Christianity the state religion of Rome.
The RCC position, from the posts I have read here, seems to be that inspiration is an ongoing process i.e. "tradition is inspired". Much of the tradition of which the RCC speaks came well after the Scriptures were finished and closed i.e. after John penned the final words of the Revelation. What do you think?
It is, IMHO, certain that RCC teachings, in more than one area contradict the clear teachings of Scripture i.e. purgatory, praying to saints and Mary, etc. The same could be said of most churches outside of the RCC as well because there are many things that people believe that are not Scriptural .
For instance, find me the verse that states "God helps those who help themselves." I can't tell you how many times as a pastor I have heard that statement made as though it were in the Bible even by my own mother. Yet I fail to find a reference for it and so do those quote it so fluently.
Err. St. Constantine didn't make the state religion of Rome Christianity. He merely made it legal to be Christian.
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/22/2008 10:12:02 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2Preacher
Ezra:
I agree with you concerning "tradition". As I have stated in other posts of mine, the RCC of today is not the same as the church prior to 325 A.D. and the edict of Constantine which made Christianity the state religion of Rome.
The RCC position, from the posts I have read here, seems to be that inspiration is an ongoing process i.e. "tradition is inspired". Much of the tradition of which the RCC speaks came well after the Scriptures were finished and closed i.e. after John penned the final words of the Revelation. What do you think?
It is, IMHO, certain that RCC teachings, in more than one area contradict the clear teachings of Scripture i.e. purgatory, praying to saints and Mary, etc. The same could be said of most churches outside of the RCC as well because there are many things that people believe that are not Scriptural .
For instance, find me the verse that states "God helps those who help themselves." I can't tell you how many times as a pastor I have heard that statement made as though it were in the Bible even by my own mother. Yet I fail to find a reference for it and so do those quote it so fluently.
Lurker:
"Err. St. Constantine didn't make the state religion of Rome Christianity. He merely made it legal to be Christian.
Lurker:
When this happened it suddenly became popular for every one to become a Christian, because the Emperor himself declared that he was one.
That is what changed the church. No longer were the Christians persecuted for their faith. It was almost as if the Roman government decided, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/22/2008 11:54:40 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2Preacher
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2Preacher
Ezra:
I agree with you concerning "tradition". As I have stated in other posts of mine, the RCC of today is not the same as the church prior to 325 A.D. and the edict of Constantine which made Christianity the state religion of Rome.
The RCC position, from the posts I have read here, seems to be that inspiration is an ongoing process i.e. "tradition is inspired". Much of the tradition of which the RCC speaks came well after the Scriptures were finished and closed i.e. after John penned the final words of the Revelation. What do you think?
It is, IMHO, certain that RCC teachings, in more than one area contradict the clear teachings of Scripture i.e. purgatory, praying to saints and Mary, etc. The same could be said of most churches outside of the RCC as well because there are many things that people believe that are not Scriptural .
For instance, find me the verse that states "God helps those who help themselves." I can't tell you how many times as a pastor I have heard that statement made as though it were in the Bible even by my own mother. Yet I fail to find a reference for it and so do those quote it so fluently.
Lurker:
"Err. St. Constantine didn't make the state religion of Rome Christianity. He merely made it legal to be Christian.
Lurker:
When this happened it suddenly became popular for every one to become a Christian, because the Emperor himself declared that he was one.
That is what changed the church. No longer were the Christians persecuted for their faith. It was almost as if the Roman government decided, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
2Preacher
True there were a lot of converts, but that doesn't mean that the Emperor suddenly made the rules for the faith.
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/23/2008 3:07:00 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Tradition is also "given by inspiration of God",...
You have no basis for that statement. God says only of the written Word that it is inspired - nothing else. If you believe your "tradition" is inspired you do so only because your church tells you such a thing - not because God tells you.
We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word of the New Testament. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile.
2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
And for those who think the meaning of the word "profitable" is not a strong and essential, I suggest they investigate the uses of the word before making such an erroneous judgment.
Is not "godliness" essential/profitable for salvation? 1Timothy 4:8
Is not the evidence of salvation, i.e., "good works" essential/profitable in the life of the believer? Titus 3:8
Just as Holy Scripture is essential/profitable to teach the way of righteousness to the believer and to provide God's doctrine for him. 2Timothy 3:16
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/23/2008 10:41:51 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Kelman:
I fully agree with your post but I do have one small "bone to pick". The word of God is essential in knowing and doing his will. It is essential in knowing God himself. It is essential for KNOWING THE WAY OF SALVATION. It is essential for ALL doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness.
quote:
We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word of the New Testament.
It is not just the NT which is INSPIRED. The writings of the OT are as well. The OT has just as much authority as the NT.
Matt. 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Luke 24:13-35 especially vs. 27
" beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
My POINT? If the OT were not "inspired", how could it contain any of the details of Christ life? Why then would Jesus use it to "expound unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself"? The answer, of course, is that the OT is just as much the "inspired Word of God" as the NT is.
Anyone, RC or P, who denies this has missed the mark by not acknowledging the INSPIRATION OF THE WHOLE WORD OF GOD.
Thank you for your post. I sincerely hope that the statement I questioned was an oversight on your part and that you do not deny the inspiration of the OT.
2Preacher.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/23/2008 10:52:45 AM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Kelman:
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
We are commanded in the name of Jesus to withdraw from those who do not follow traditions. How much more inspiration do you need, then a command from God himself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/23/2008 10:59:07 AM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Kelman:
1 Tim 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
So the church is t | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
