Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

[dadof10]

Paul always upholds the scriptures as the authority for doctrine -- not only in Acts 17:11 where they "study the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" but also in 2Tim 3:16 the scriptures are "to be used for doctrine and correction" according to Paul "so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good deed".

Paul never argues "do not use scripture to test what is being said" - when the practice is referenced - he only affirms the practice as we see Acts 17:11 since he considers the scriptures are to be "used for doctrine and correction".
Paul is seen to embrace this very practice in Acts 17:1-3. Teaching "From the scriptures".

Yes, I agree. Paul uses Scripture as AN authority, considered it inspired, taught doctrine from it, and probably referenced it often, especially when debating Jews. The Catholic Church does these exact things also. That's not the point. He did not use Scripture ONLY. He also considered his own ORAL "preaching" to have come "through a revelation of Jesus Christ" and he called it the "gospel".
Bob, when Paul says the word "gospel" he is not talking about Scripture alone. The gospel is written and oral, and is the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Jesus.

In Matt 24 Christ said "THIS Gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world".
Paul argues in Gal 1:6-11 that there is ONLY ONE Gospel and in Gal 3 that the Gospel was preached to Abraham during his

Right, and neither of these verses say that the gospel is Scripture only.

What "other valid source" would a non-Christian have for checking things out?

Logic if he was speaking with Greeks or pagans. I doubt if he used Scripture when debating them.

When does Paul "ever" argue "don't check anyone out who comes after me to see if their teaching is correct"?

Never. And I never claimed he did. Where we differ is how we are to "check out" others’ teaching. You say it's Scripture alone, with no Biblical backing, and I say it's the ENTIRE gospel message: both Scripture and oral Tradition, which is Scriptural. 1 Thes.2:13 "And we also thank God constantly for this, that 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, which is at work in you believers.

 

[dadof10]

It does not help us to urge fellow Christians to "test all church leaders by what the church at Corinth had in scripture and by what they heard Paul saying that you do not have any record of"
By contrast it is a simple matter to leave it as "test all church leaders by what the scriptures said at the time... and by all that Paul is recorded to have written at the time" -- i.e. NT and OT

We are not debating what helps us or what’s more expedient or easy or “simpleâ€Â. We are discussing what is BIBLICAL. BINDING ORAL TRADITION IS BIBLICAL. Sola Scriptura is not. It is a man-made doctrine that leads to divisions because EVERYONE comes into Scripture with their own personal bias.

... but would be impossible to ask that church leaders be tested by what one might imagine Paul to have said that did not get recorded

Obviously Paul didn’t think so. 2Thes. 2: “15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[Vic C.]

The thread has been split and all posts concerning the conversation about atheism is here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=33108&p=395612#p395612

Back to the original topic. Thanks. 8-)

 

[BobRyan]

It does not help us to urge fellow Christians to "test all church leaders by what the church at Corinth had in scripture and by what they heard Paul saying that you do not have any record of"
By contrast it is a simple matter to leave it as "test all church leaders by what the scriptures said at the time... and by all that Paul is recorded to have written at the time" -- i.e. NT and OT

We are not debating what helps us or what’s more expedient or easy or “simpleâ€Â. We are discussing what is BIBLICAL. BINDING ORAL TRADITION IS BIBLICAL. Sola Scriptura is not.

I would argue that the "Bible is Biblical" -- so

"studying the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by PAUL were SO" Acts 17:11 provide a Biblical concept hard to ignore.

As for the issue of man-made traditions added in by the very highest levels of church leadership in the "One True Nation Church started by God at Sinai" we have Mark 7

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

Christ said that they who did this "sat in the seat of Moses"

It is a man-made doctrine that leads to divisions because EVERYONE comes into Scripture with their own personal bias.

And as we see in Mark 7 -- that man-made tradition comes in from the very highest levels of church leadership.

Hence Paul's warning "though WE (Apostles) or even an Angel from heaven should bring to you a different Gospel - let them be accursed".

Paul argues that the standard was ALREADY available to judge all leaders -- even those at the very highest levels.

The only way for us to apply that instruction is to read what the Bible writers wrote -- and then judge all -- even those claiming to be Apostles or an Angel from heaven - against what we see written there (since obviously we can not go back in time and listen in on every single church meeting in the first century).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

"studying the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by PAUL were SO" Acts 17:11 provide a Biblical concept hard to ignore.

And where exactly does the Bible teach that IF one were to find that Paul or an Apostle didn't teach "Scriptures", that they were to leave and start their own Church? Paul teaches to hold onto the traditions given, NOT the OT Scriptures...

We actually DO find the Apostles teaching something "not found in Scriptures"...

Look at Acts 15. NOWHERE do we find in Scriptures the Apostolic warrant to do away with circumcision. Where is the "study Scriptures to see if the things spoken by Paul were so"? clearly, you are misappropriating Acts 17, unless you would have the Bible disagree with itself. In Acts 17, you hold the Church responsible to the individual interpreter, in Acts 15, the individual is held responsible to the NON-BIBLICAL ruling of the Church... Two chapters later...

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''
[/size]

Christ said that they who did this "sat in the seat of Moses"

And did Christ say to follow them or start a new "church"...?

"Do as they say, but not as they do" - correct? Nothing about "break away and invent another church".

And as we see in Mark 7 -- that man-made tradition comes in from the very highest levels of church leadership.

It certainly can. Such as sola scriptura and sola fide...

We are to refute such things that are not found in Scriptures, nor taught by Apostolic Tradition. Neither of these are, so they are refuted.

The only way for us to apply that instruction is to read what the Bible writers wrote -- and then judge all -- even those claiming to be Apostles or an Angel from heaven - against what we see written there (since obviously we can not go back in time and listen in on every single church meeting in the first century).

Paul was not writing to a community with a New Testament, so your statement makes no sense... He was writing to a community that he had ALREADY GIVEN the Word of God to - by oral teachings.

Regards

 

[duval]

I agree no man or group of men have scriptural authority for "inventing " a new church. However, some have, even before Luther.
Duval

 

[francisdesales]

I agree no man or group of men have scriptural authority for "inventing " a new church. However, some have, even before Luther.
Duval

Heresy is also mentioned in Scriptures. It is not a new concept that suddenly appears with Luther. Numerous men over the ages believed they could interpret God's Word in opposition to the Scriptural warrant to "take it to the Church" when two or more disagreed. So much for listening to God's Word...

Regards

 

[Pogo]

Bob -

Excellent, execellent, posts!

You are expressing, exactly what the scriptures are saying to me, in ways that I, myself, don't seem to be able.

Please don't be discouraged when those here, who need to understand, adopt, and practice, these messages the most, reject your interpretations, they will reap a different reward one day.

Many others here, though, will be edified and uplifted by your interpretations of these precious messages of truth, which we all need to hear, know, practice ourselves, and share with the world.

Keep up the good work

Your friend in Christ,

Pogo

 

[francisdesales]

Please don't be discouraged when those here, who need to understand, adopt, and practice, these messages the most, reject your interpretations, they will reap a different reward one day.

Yes, I make it a habit of rejecting false intepretations that are refuted by other Scriptures and common sense...

Regards

 

[duval]

Francis wrote: "Heresy is also mentioned in the Scriptures."-----True, and I Cor.11:19 gives the reason for heresy. II Thess. 2, while not using the word "heresy" itself. provides a wider under-standing for us.

Francis wrote: "Numerous men over the ages believed they could interpret God's Word in opposition to the Scriptural warrant to 'take it to the church' when two or lmore disagreed."
I assume Francis refers to Matt.18. If so, in WHAT SENSE is the word "church" used, LOCAL or OTHERWISE??? If NOT local, then in WHAT SENSE???

Francis further wrote: "so much for listening to God's Word."-----I for one am most happy to listen to God's Word for Rom.10:17 reads: "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

Best wished to all--Duval

 

[Pogo]

duval -

You posted...

I agree no man or group of men have scriptural authority for "inventing " a new church. However, some have, even before Luther.
Duval

I agree!

Many of the problems Christians today face, as I see things, can only be solved by RESTORING a church that has been allowed to drift into the ditches of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry...NOT 'inventing' a new one!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[francisdesales]

Francis wrote: "Numerous men over the ages believed they could interpret God's Word in opposition to the Scriptural warrant to 'take it to the church' when two or lmore disagreed."
I assume Francis refers to Matt.18. If so, in WHAT SENSE is the word "church" used, LOCAL or OTHERWISE??? If NOT local, then in WHAT SENSE???

Universal, or catholic, a church led by one group of apostles, the twelve who had been given power to bind and loosen, the same men who left successors in their local churches.

Jesus certainly is not refering to "local" churches, as He only established one church heirarchy, one leadership, one community linked by one faith, one baptism, and one loaf. Jesus, as far as we know, did not send one apostle to Crete, another to Corinth, another to Antioch, etc...All others who deviate from this Church, the writers of the end of the first century note, were not part of the Church by leaving it. John even suggests they "never were part of us".

Francis further wrote: "so much for listening to God's Word."-----I for one am most happy to listen to God's Word for Rom.10:17 reads: "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

Are you hearing God's Word or your own? That is the question one must ask themselves when they deviate from the already established Church.

Regards

 

[one_lost_coin]

It is not within the realms of possibility to invent a new church. No one has done it. There has only been and ever can be only one Church the one God gave us. The luthers of this world were sadly misguided only God can make a Church and He made it so well He doesn't need to make another one.

 

[duval]

Francis:
I am a member of the "one body" which is universal. We have the same apostles today as we had in the first century church.
I'm not sure what you meant by the apostles leaving their successors "in their local churches."
I believe in the "oneness" of the church Jesus built. Paul emphasizes this oneness in Eph.4:1-6.

Sincerelly---Duval

 

[francisdesales]

Francis:
I am a member of the "one body" which is universal. We have the same apostles today as we had in the first century church.
I'm not sure what you meant by the apostles leaving their successors "in their local churches."
I believe in the "oneness" of the church Jesus built. Paul emphasizes this oneness in Eph.4:1-6.

Sincerelly---Duval

This "Oneness" is based upon the ONE faith, not a numerous patchwork of disagreeing and contradictory "opinions". Without an infallible interpreter, we cannot even determine WHAT IS Scriptures in the first place. Luther wanted to toss the back section of the NT out. Others wanted to toss out the OT. Some today prefer Paul over the Gospels. Some prefer the NT idea of God, while tossing out the OT idea of God. The Protestant idea of self-illumination is, frankly, a difficult proposition for the common sense.

And of course, the ONE FAITH implies ONE interpreter - Jesus tells us who that is, the Church.

Our "Oneness" is based on beliefs that have yet to be totally corrupted by individuals. The correct teachings are catholic teachings that Jesus Christ appointed His Apostles to teach to the world. You hold to the Trinity? Good. You are following a catholic teaching. And so forth.

Regards

 

[Godfirst633]

Hi, francisdesales. I have a question for you. I've been reading through these blogs and I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. So, I just would like some clarification. I completely, believe that there is ONE body of Christ. It isn't seperated by denominational lines, racial lines, gender lines, or any other kind of line you can put. It almost sounds like you are saying that the Catholic church is the first and only church that is of God and everyone who deviated it from it...i.e...Luther, is incorrect. If I am incorrect in my understanding of what you are saying, please let me know. Thanks!

As for the original point of the blog, I absolutely 110% believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. Don't get me wrong, there are things in the Bible, where it would be appropriate to know that it is symbolism. An example used earlier in the blog...Jesus is the door...obviously we know this isn't saying God is a piece of wood, but rather that he is the entrance. When the Bible is meant to be symbolic, the text will clue you in to that. But, the Bible as a whole should be read and studied literally. Many false doctrines and theology, comes out of not taking the Bible literally. Also, with that being said, literal, also means in context of what is being said. That's another reason there is so many false teachings.

God Bless
Michael

 

[francisdesales]

Hi, francisdesales. I have a question for you. I've been reading through these blogs and I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. So, I just would like some clarification. I completely, believe that there is ONE body of Christ.

Agree.

It isn't seperated by denominational lines, racial lines, gender lines, or any other kind of line you can put.

Well, that depends on how much you want to define "separated by denominational lines". I would agere with your "racial" or "gender" statements. However, Scriptures are clear that there is only ONE faith, ONE baptism, and ONE Lord, in Ephesians 4. Not many faiths or many types of baptisms. Other "denominations" preach other doctrines, which are other faiths, while some preach that baptism is merely utilitarian - which makes it a different baptism. The Bible also stresses that there are some people who are outside the community, but appear to share SOME beliefs that those IN the community believe in. We see this in the later epistles, especially. I think it is clear that Judaizers did NOT believe the same thing as the Christians written to and later compiled as the NT, BUT, they DID believe in SOME things in common.

The writers of Scriptures do NOT consider Judaizers as fellow believers, although they DO share some components of the Christian faith. It becomes clear that the Bible itself does not allow for multiple belief systems. There certainly is warrant to believe that "he who is not against me is with Me", but there is only one Church.

'It almost sounds like you are saying that the Catholic church is the first and only church that is of God and everyone who deviated it from it...i.e...Luther, is incorrect. If I am incorrect in my understanding of what you are saying, please let me know. Thanks!

Yes, the Catholic Church is the first and only Church established by Jesus. To the degree that men deviate from the teachings of the Apostles of this church, men reject Christ, as Christ Himself clearly says in Luke 10:16.

However, please understand that being a non-catholic Christian does not mean one is outside the Church of Christ, only imperfectly attached to her. You presumably DO have Catholic beliefs, such as "Jesus is Risen from the Dead". "God is a Trinity of persons". "Our day of worship is Sunday, the Lord's Day". And so forth. There are no other Churches then Catholic - but individuals are indeed attached to the Catholic Church (in many cases, unknowingly) based upon their "one faith, one baptism, one Lord". Imperfectly doesn't mean one cannot BE part of the Church, part of the Kingdom. But the fullness of the teachings of the Apostles is only found in one place - the Church with the power to bind and loosen fellow believers in matters of faith.

As for the original point of the blog, I absolutely 110% believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. Don't get me wrong, there are things in the Bible, where it would be appropriate to know that it is symbolism. An example used earlier in the blog...Jesus is the door...obviously we know this isn't saying God is a piece of wood, but rather that he is the entrance. When the Bible is meant to be symbolic, the text will clue you in to that. But, the Bible as a whole should be read and studied literally. Many false doctrines and theology, comes out of not taking the Bible literally. Also, with that being said, literal, also means in context of what is being said. That's another reason there is so many false teachings.

One must understand the genre of the writing before presuming to interpret literally. Otherwise, it leads to some silly ideas, esp. when we read the Apocalypse of John literally! In addition, it would be wise to look at how the earliest Church viewed particular verses. This is not foolproof, but it does help us to understand better the mind of the Apostles.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

We are not debating what helps us or what’s more expedient or easy or “simpleâ€Â. We are discussing what is BIBLICAL. BINDING ORAL TRADITION IS BIBLICAL. Sola Scriptura is not.

I would argue that the "Bible is Biblical" -- so

"studying the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by PAUL were SO" Acts 17:11 provide a Biblical concept hard to ignore.

Yes, searching Scripture to see if a prophesy contained within is true (or "so") is definately a Biblical concept.

if "the Bible is Biblical", then will you agree that binding oral tradition is Biblical, whether you or I can personally see the exact application of this "oral Tradition" notwithstanding?

As for the issue of man-made traditions added in by the very highest levels of church leadership in the "One True Nation Church started by God at Sinai" we have Mark 7

I would argue it's at the very highest levels of synagogue leadership. The Holy Spirit had not come to the Church yet. Pentecost is when the Church was born, and the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon Her then.

And as we see in Mark 7 -- that man-made tradition comes in from the very highest levels of church leadership.

Hence Paul's warning "though WE (Apostles) or even an Angel from heaven should bring to you a different Gospel - let them be accursed".

Paul argues that the standard was ALREADY available to judge all leaders -- even those at the very highest levels.

Yes the standard was the deposit of faith. Scripture and Tradition, not Scripture only. That's why it was proper for EVEN PAUL to appeal to the leaders in Jerusalem, and not just resolve the problem himself with Scripture alone.

The only way for us to apply that instruction is to read what the Bible writers wrote -- and then judge all -- even those claiming to be Apostles or an Angel from heaven - against what we see written there (since obviously we can not go back in time and listen in on every single church meeting in the first century).

The ONLY WAY? Why on earth did Paul not do exactly that when confronted with a doctrinal problem? Besides, it's not in Scripture.

 

[dadof10]

Francis:
I am a member of the "one body" which is universal. We have the same apostles today as we had in the first century church.

Could you please elaborate on this point? Thanks.

 

[duval]

What Francis wrote about contradicting opinions has great merit, yet his church has perhaps been the greatest contributor. As for myself, I am neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish.

Dadof10 asks me to elaborate on my statement that the "one body" ( Eph.4 ) of which I am a menber can have the same apostles as the church in the NT. Thank you! We have Peter, James and John etc., today in the sense that we have threir inspired writings to go by and not those of un-inspired men. As I said in a previous post, the Bible ONLY makes Christians ONLY---NOTHING more, NOTHING less and NOTHING different!

I believe (as Francis mentioned) in the Trinity (The word Trinity not found in scripture but the meaning is there) NOT BECAUSE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES IT OR ANY OTHER CHURCH, BUT BECAUSE THE BIBLE TEACHES IT. The all-important question for me in all topic discussions is not what some church teachesBUT WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH??

God bless---Duval