It’s not biblical!

[dwb001]

Your argument is meaningless since we now know that Paul and Peter's writings are indeed scripture. Do you want to continue with your meaningless argument?

??? how do we KNOW that these writings are Scripture?
You haven't made that point yet.

 

[GodsGrace]

Our part is to believe in it.

I do want to say that it is not that simple.

1. What does BELIEVE mean anyway?

2. Where in the NT does it state that all we need to do is believe in Jesus?
Jesus never said this.
He said we need to BELIEVE in Him a couple of times.
Back to question 1.

The rest of the time of His ministry, He taught how to be a part of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes.
I agree that Jesus is the head of the Church.

We have to start distinguishing between the BLDG and the BODY.
church
Church

I only understand 'church' in two ways. It's either a gathering of believers (not the building), or all believers everywhere composing the entire body of Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

??? how do we KNOW that these writings are Scripture?
You haven't made that point yet.

Good grief, man! Besides what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16, every serious Christian with more than just a passing relationship with God through Christ and the Holy Spirit knows by use that the NT writings have been purposely ordained by God to be holy scripture to lead and guide and comfort and educate millions and millions of true believers through many centuries.

The people I know of that resist calling NT writings official scripture do so because they do not agree with what Paul says about a certain issue. Because everyone knows if you can reduce the NT to just someone's opinions about Christianity then it releases them from being required to obey them.

 

[GodsGrace]

I only understand 'church' in two ways. It's either a gathering of believers (not the building), or all believers everywhere composing the entire body of Christ.

Do you go to a church?
It's a bldg. That's where people gather.
Usually....it could be a bldg too, but we don't call someone's home a church although it could function as one.

Are you a member of the Church?
Jesus' Body.
All believers everywhere.

I made it a point to make this clear to my "classes" or we never know what we're talking about.

 

[dwb001]

Good grief, man! Besides what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16, every serious Christian with more than just a passing relationship with God through Christ and the Holy Spirit knows by use that the NT writings have been purposely ordained by God to be holy scripture to lead and guide and comfort and educate millions and millions of true believers through many centuries.

The people I know of that resist calling NT writings official scripture do so because they do not agree with what Paul says about a certain issue. Because everyone knows if you can reduce the NT to just someone's opinions about Christianity then it releases them from being required to obey them.

Your argument goes... The NT is Scripture because the NT says it is Scripture.
I am not saying that the NT isn't Scripture... I am questioning your proof text.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I do want to say that it is not that simple.

It IS that simple.
To have the sufficiency of Christ's ministry and sacrifice applied to you all you have to do is believe in it for the forgiveness of sin. That is how you become a saved person. God's grace in justification is applied to a person through their faith in that justification, not their obedience or their rituals.

1. What does BELIEVE mean anyway?

To believe means to know with certainly that what God says about the ministry and sacrifice of his Son is true. To the point of wanting it and trusting in it to do what God says it will do.

2. Where in the NT does it state that all we need to do is believe in Jesus?

"to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" Romans 4:6

Jesus never said this.

"Your faith has saved you" Luke 7:50

Not your love, not your works, not your obedience, not your rituals...your faith.

He said we need to BELIEVE in Him a couple of times.
Back to question 1.

The rest of the time of His ministry, He taught how to be a part of the Kingdom of God.

Yes, he taught what the life of the one who believes God is to be. But in the context of having the ministry and sacrifice of Jesus applied to you nothing does that except to receive it by having faith in it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your argument goes... The NT is Scripture because the NT says it is Scripture.
I am not saying that the NT isn't Scripture... I am questioning your proof text.

Well, if you would just read my post again you'll see that's not all I said.

 

[dwb001]

Well, if you would just read my post again you'll see that's not all I said.

Well... what did you say. Obviously I got out of your post what I responded to.
If you think I missed your point... possibly restate your point in clearer language or with a different analogy.
But your argument throughout this post has been that Scripture is Scripture because Scripture says it is Scripture.
And the logic and proof text you used are what I am questioning.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you go to a church?
It's a bldg. That's where people gather.
Usually....it could be a bldg too, but we don't call someone's home a church although it could function as one.

Are you a member of the Church?
Jesus' Body.
All believers everywhere.

I made it a point to make this clear to my "classes" or we never know what we're talking about.

In online discussion 'church' means your local group of people you fellowship and worship with, or the body of Christ as a whole. I've noticed only when talking to Catholics does 'church' mean a building or a denomination. I used to be wired to think of church that way, but not any more. I only think of it that way when I have to refer someone to the place where our fellowship meets, if it's an official building set aside for that purpose.

But as it is, I do not go to a church at this time. But I am a member of a group who wants to start a 'church' based on the open concept presented in scripture, not the traditional structure handed down to us by our fathers. If I ever have to refer to it's location I will refer to it as 'the church', but otherwise 'church' will mean us believers, not the organization we have created.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well... what did you say. Obviously I got out of your post what I responded to.
If you think I missed your point... possibly restate your point in clearer language or with a different analogy.
But your argument throughout this post has been that Scripture is Scripture because Scripture says it is Scripture.
And the logic and proof text you used are what I am questioning.

The witness of the Spirit and practical observation shows us that God did intend for the writings of our NT to be holy writ. That's what I was saying in my post.

That witness of the Spirit is the same way we know with certainty that Jesus is the Christ, so be careful if you want to assail that method of 'knowing'.

 

[dwb001]

The witness of the Spirit and practical observation shows us that God did intend for the writings of our NT to be holy writ. That's what I was saying in my post.

That witness of the Spirit is the same way we know with certainty that Jesus is the Christ, so be careful if you want to assail that method of 'knowing'.

I thought we knew Jesus was the Christ through fulfilled prophecy.
So you don't think Jesus fulfilled prophecy? You go only on your gut feelings?

If these are your proofs... then why did you appeal to Peter's writing? That is the proof text I was disputing.
Not even all the OT is referred to as what I would call Scripture. Many different categories of writings in the OT.
Jewish scholars would agree that not all the OT has equal standing.
So be sure of the proofs you bring to an argument. Not all proofs are equal.

 

[donadams]

What experiment?
Your OP is about Jesus stating IT IS FINISHED.

Then you asked what IT means and we've been responding to that.

SO WHAT WAS your OP about?

I wanted to see if Anyone would assume what my “it” was just like they assume the “it is finished” in jn19 means the “finished work of Christ” thanks

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I am not saying that the NT isn't Scripture.

Okay, let's stop the games. YOU tell us how you know the NT is scripture.

Since you're not disputing the assertion that the NT is scripture there is no reason for you to resist the assertion that Peter is calling Paul's writings scripture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I wanted to see if Anyone would assume what my “it” was just like they assume the “it is finished” in jn19 means the “finished work of Christ” thanks

Well, you got one person. I'd have to skim back to see who that was.

And, yes, 'it' in context means the finished work of Christ offering himself up to be the body and blood the Father accepts for the reconciliation of the whole world in fulfillment of ALL the required sacrifices for sin in the old covenant.

 

[dwb001]

Okay, let's stop the games. YOU tell us how you know the NT is scripture.

Since you're not disputing the assertion that the NT is scripture there is no reason for you to resist the assertion that Peter is calling Paul's writings scripture.

Peter is not calling Paul's writings Scripture. That is my take on that.
I am not calling the NT Scripture. I am not disputing that the NT is Scripture. There is a difference but it is a subtle one.
As I am not making a definitive statement... I have no obligation to defend my non-existent definitive statement.
You on the other hand are making definitive statements... so those statements would need backing up.
Do you see the difference? Honestly a lot of people can miss the difference. This is quite common as a cause for unnecessary disputes.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I thought we knew Jesus was the Christ through fulfilled prophecy.
So you don't think Jesus fulfilled prophecy? You go only on your gut feelings?

Fulfilled prophecy if fine as supporting evidence. But this is ultimately why a person believes in Christ:

Matthew 16:16-17
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah!b For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.


1 John 5:9
9Even if we accept human testimony, the testimony of God (via the Holy Spirit-see context) is greater. For this is the testimony that God has given about His Son.


You call it 'gut feelings'. The Bible calls it the sure voice of faith, the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It is upon that conviction that men believe what they can not see.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Peter is not calling Paul's writings Scripture. That is my take on that.
I am not calling the NT Scripture. I am not disputing that the NT is Scripture. There is a difference but it is a subtle one.
As I am not making a definitive statement... I have no obligation to defend my non-existent definitive statement.
You on the other hand are making definitive statements... so those statements would need backing up.
Do you see the difference? Honestly a lot of people can miss the difference. This is quite common as a cause for unnecessary disputes.

You have indeed made this an unnecessary dispute.
Ultimately, like knowing Jesus is the Christ, you'll just have to sort it out between yourself and the Holy Spirit if the NT is divinely ordained holy writ.

There are countless believers like myself who will testify that through use we can see that God indeed has set the NT aside as authoritative scriptural guidance and teaching and not just as the opinions of Christian scholars. Though Paul does make it a point to tell us when he's speaking from an educated opinion about a spiritual matter and when he's not. Which should show you there is a difference and Paul can tell the difference! Understand what I'm getting at?

 

[dwb001]

You have indeed made this an unnecessary dispute.
Ultimately, like knowing Jesus is the Christ, you'll just have to sort it out between yourself and the Holy Spirit if the NT is divinely ordained holy writ.

There are countless believers like myself who will testify that through use we can see that God indeed has set the NT aside as authoritative scriptural guidance and teaching and not just as the opinions of Christian scholars. Though Paul does make it a point to tell us when he's speaking from an educated opinion about a spiritual matter and when he's not. Which should show you there is a difference and Paul can tell the difference! Understand what I'm getting at?

NO.

 

[jaybo]

Your argument is meaningless since we now know that Paul and Peter's writings are indeed scripture. Do you want to continue with your meaningless argument?

We say these days that their writings are Scripture because they are included in the canon of Scripture, which was decided towards the end of the 4th Century CE. To Paul and Peter and other Jews of their era, "Scripture" meant the Old Testament. Nothing more.