The Absolute and Final Authority for Christians

[Imagican]

Hmmmm..............

Iteresting topic. It would seem that there are those that would DISAGREE that The Word IS The Word of God. And how could IT NOT BE 'the final authority'? Unless, of course, somehow you could convince yourself that YOU are an apostle.

Yes, it IS the Holy Spirit that offers UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD, but The Word PLAINLY states that ANYONE who alters it in ANY way shall be accursed. And we are told to compare scipture to scripture TO be ABLE to discern THE TRUTH.

So, what is it. A 'governing body' that is the FINAL authority? Did God place THAT KIND of authority in the HANDS of mere men? Knowing that those that dwell IN THE FLESH are so easily THWARTED and LED astray? I think NOT.

So, that lead us AGAIN to THE Word. Yes, to be used in guidance BY The Spirit. But the Word is about as MUCH truth as ANY man COULD handle. So, to expect any reasonable READER of The Bible to accept that there are MEN TODAY that are able to discern TRUTH outside of The Word is like trying to REINVENT the Wheel.

The ONLY reason that one would deny this would be to try and circumVENT The Word.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

I believe Minnesota asks a legitimate question, since your "answer" is a circular argument.

As tho I should be surprised to see a bible bashing catholic take such a stance :nag

Ah, I see which "spirit" drives you. The spirit of divisiveness and lies. Thanks for making that clear.

Any such further statements of libel without any support will be forwarded to the Administrators for proper action.

You can give the circular thing a rest...Im not impressed by that sort of nonsense.

I imagine intellectual questioning of your sacred cow presents a problem, thus, you must dismiss it as "nonsense". Frankly, I am not impressed with your dismissal of the "circular thing" with a magic wave of the hand...

Gods word IS the final authority on matters of doctrine. Either you accept that fact or you do not. Either way its not my problem.

Ah, now we will see the circular argument.

The Bible (I am addressing the NT only when I say "Bible" here) is not self-authenticating. First of all, the entire corpus does not have an inspired statement that says "this book contains the Word of God". Secondly, the INDIVIDUAL BOOKS do not make the claim to be the "Word of God", with the possible exception of the Book of Revelation. The Bible AND its individual components, do not make the claim you attempt to invent for it. IF we let the Bible speak for itself WITHOUT the Christian community that WROTE it, we would not conclude that IT is the Word of God to the exclusion of all other "scriptures".

And that leads us to the second issue that you appear blissfully ignorant of...

OTHER "Scriptures" actually DO make the claim to be the "Word of God"... They SAY so within the texts. The Koran, for example. And yet, you dismiss their claims... Hmmm.... So much for the "logic" of your argument. It begs the question while ignoring other claims that more clearly state what you deny them of.

Perhaps they don't have a Comparitive Religion class in your high school. I don't know. But I suggest you consider reading ABOUT what other religions make claim regarding the author of their own scriptures.

Your "argument" is sad and unimpressive. And yes, it is a circular argument.

Riiiight :D
Do you honestly believe that we care that catholics see anything we believe as an illogical ?

[/quote]

By beginning with and continuing with personal attacks, it clearly states your argument has no legs to stand alone. Thus, you must personally attack the person who counters your argument. Ad hominem is usually reserved for later in the discussion, but because yours is so lame, you must use it immediately. Can't let ANYONE question the sacred cow...

I'm thinking you need to consider changing your screen name, because a "follower of Christ" does not need to make such ad hominem attacks - presuming their faith rests in something more than circular arguments.

Now PROVE that those witnesses werent lying.
Since you CANT your logic is as fallacious as anyone elses.

You are mis-applying the idea of logical arguments... You claim that one simply KNOWS that the bible is the Word of God - it is self-evident based upon logic (which is not provided, of course, because it is based upon a fallacy) My argument is based upon faith - just as my argument that my car will start in the morning is based upon faith, not a "logical argument that is provable".

Paul makes the very same claims. Is he ALSO using fallacious arguments???

He doesn't use the "the Bible is the Word of God because the Word of God is the Bible" argument. He makes his claims of truth on his witness and preaching.

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 1 Cor 15:12-15

Paul and the Gospel preach a particular doctrine. There is no Scriptures that support this teaching explicitly at the time. Whether people believe him or not depends upon his witness and the working of the Spirit. Just as today. This is a tremendous blow to your "argument". Even PAUL realizes people believe the Gospel because of his witness, not some finely-laid out logical argument that is beyond refute.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:6-12

Here, Paul makes an extraordinary claim. Consider that the Jews thought angels delivered the Law to them, and so Paul clearly is saying that "his" gospel is from God, even if an angel says otherwise. EXTREMELY strong words based upon HIS WITNESS, not the Bible. Yet again, the Christian way of knowing God's Word is by the witness of others counted as trustworthy bearers of the Truth. Paul claims to be a servant of God - and people can bear witness to that, making the connection (based upon faith) that he indeed is speaking the Word of God.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Romans 16:18

Paul and John writes something similar elsewhere. After some time, false teachers begin to appear within the flock. They deceive for their own personal gain. Thus, again, we are to judge the Word of God and its true interpretation by the witness of others who live the life of Christ, rather than be deceived - or worse, to deceive OURSELVES, as Paul writes the Corinthians.

So how do we know that the New Testament is the Word of God? Because we believe the witnesses of it. We believe they led the life of Christ, practised what they preached, and didn't find it necessary to be divisive or perform libel to gain some brownie points with the choir or the 'hearts of the simple'.

We believe the Word of God because other Christians that we trust have told us it is... To claim otherwise is a circular argument, since reading it doesn't tell us it is the Word of God. It never makes that claim.

The Bible is the Word of God based upon faith, not logical argument.

 

[dadof10]

Yes, it IS the Holy Spirit that offers UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD, but The Word PLAINLY states that ANYONE who alters it in ANY way shall be accursed. And we are told to compare scipture to scripture TO be ABLE to discern THE TRUTH.

Told by whom?

So, what is it. A 'governing body' that is the FINAL authority? Did God place THAT KIND of authority in the HANDS of mere men? Knowing that those that dwell IN THE FLESH are so easily THWARTED and LED astray? I think NOT.

I think so. The "pillar and foundation of Truth" is the Church, not Scripture. The NT is a natural extension of the Church founded by Christ.

The Church is run by "mere men", but it always has been. The apostles were mere men so the same arguments you use against their Church today could be used against their Church when they lived.

So, that lead us AGAIN to THE Word. Yes, to be used in guidance BY The Spirit.

If two "Spirit guided" people disagree on a point of doctrine, while both using the same Scripture, how do you decide which one is holding to proper doctrine? This happens all over the world on a regular basis. Your way (read Scripture and be guided by the "spirit") is unteneble, illogical and was NEVER the operation of the Early Church. It was run by the authority of "mere men".

But the Word is about as MUCH truth as ANY man COULD handle. So, to expect any reasonable READER of The Bible to accept that there are MEN TODAY that are able to discern TRUTH outside of The Word is like trying to REINVENT the Wheel.

What about the INTERPRETATION of the reader? If there is a discrepency, which interpretation is correct?

The ONLY reason that one would deny this would be to try and circumVENT The Word.

The only ones "circumventing the word" or "reinventing the wheel" are those who adhere to the man-made heresy of sola-scriptura, which was invented in the 15th century by "mere men".

 

[Cornelius]

The Church is run by "mere men", but it always has been. The apostles were mere men so the same arguments you use against their Church today could be used against their Church when they lived.

That is problem today, that people believe what you have written here. I agree, the church is run by mere men today and that is its problem. To say that the apostles ran the church would be incorrect. They were not part of the Nicolaitan error as the so called church is today.

In the days of the first Apostles, the true church was run by the Holy Spirit.Act 13:2 And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
These days WE SAY and not the Holy Spirit. And when most claim that the Holy Spirit "said" it is not so, but it is only to give credibility to their own usurping of authority over God's people.

They were following orders, given by the Holy Spirit: Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

They asked the Holy Spirit's opinion on matters: Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

The Holy Spirit LED the church, they only followed : Act 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;

The Holy Spirit Himself appointed the elders (bishops)

Act 20:28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

 

[stranger]

Anth

Some interesting thoughts my friend - I wish I had the time to dig deeper but I do not at this time.

May I throw one tidbit your way?

Rev 2,3 shows a beautiful picture of the post - apostolic church structure. You will note a couple items

1. There were 7 (yes, SEVEN) churches. NOT one institutional church.
2. There was NO interlocking structure between them OTHER THAN the Son of Man who was walking among them.
3. There was NO other authority other than the Angel to each church and the Son of Man.

Additionally - as a counter to the interpretation of the Matt passage - we see the New Jerusalem has 12 (yes, TWELVE) foundation stones - all equal - NOT one Petrine stone. No one apostle was above another with respect to the church at large.

I would suggest there is much more to this passage (assuming that we have a bona - fide scriptural text in the first place). Unfortunately I do not have time to do this justice.

Agreed, the difficulty is being concise in responses and comments. If the scope of enquiry is limited to Rev 2,3 you may draw these conclusions. It is a heavenly vision or perspective given to John. To see the structure I refer to look at the earthly offices of apostle, prophets, elders, deacons etc.

Whatever is written about Peter in the scriptures is fine by me and what can be safely inferred... Yes, there were 12 apostles and three 'senior' ones. I don't assume that the Church is the exact equivalent of the Kingdom of God eg I don't speak about the OT church.

Nevertheless, I will go back and review the texts that you have posted at some point - and see I can nibble on them a bit and whether I can move forward at all.)

Thanks for your pleasant spirit - and effort to understand the Word of God!

Forums can overheat - besides I don't have as much baggage as I use to. I've suffered a few set backs and have had to rethink some issues - one being John 6, hence my signature reference. See how you go with the time you have.

blessings

 

[dadof10]

The Church is run by "mere men", but it always has been. The apostles were mere men so the same arguments you use against their Church today could be used against their Church when they lived.

That is problem today, that people believe what you have written here. I agree, the church is run by mere men today and that is its problem. To say that the apostles ran the church would be incorrect. They were not part of the Nicolaitan error as the so called church is today.

In the days of the first Apostles, the true church was run by the Holy Spirit.Act 13:2 And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Sorry Cornelius. I should have been clear. The Holy Spirit being the final authority for all Truth is, of course, assumed in my post and (I think) everyone else's. The issue is HOW He operates in time and space, how He communicates this Truth to us. This is, and always has been, done through the “mere men†within Christ's Church. It was not, and has never been, done through personal interpretation of Scripture alone, which is subjectivity and the real problem within Christianity.

These days WE SAY and not the Holy Spirit. And when most claim that the Holy Spirit "said" it is not so, but it is only to give credibility to their own usurping of authority over God's people.

Isn't this exactly how Protestantism started and still operates today? Each "milkmaid with a Bible" thinks they have a conduit directly to God when they are "born again" and that the Holy Spirit is guiding them to "all Truth" through the words of Scripture?

If I’m not mistaken, you are a Trinitarian. MEC is not. You both read the same Scripture, pray for guidance by the same Holy Spirit, and (I think) assume you receive it. Why do you come to two totally opposite conclusions? One of you MUST by necessity be wrong, so therefore there is NO “final authority†to appeal to in your theology…except your own subjective, fallible interpretation of Scripture.

They were following orders, given by the Holy Spirit: Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

They asked the Holy Spirit's opinion on matters: Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

The Holy Spirit LED the church, they only followed : Act 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;

The Holy Spirit Himself appointed the elders (bishops)

Act 20:28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

I agree. This is still how the Holy Spirit functions in the world today, through the “mere men†within the Church that Christ founded. What makes you think this operation of the Church ever ended, subjective Scripture interpretation?

 

[Cornelius]

You are most welcome to see those men as your final authority.

 

[francisdesales]

You are most welcome to see those men as your final authority.

It seems you also have man as your final authority (yourself), since you pick and choose what God says to others and apply it to yourself, depending on how the mood strikes you...

Today, contraception is evil, tommorrow, it's not...
Today, abortion is OK in certain situations, tommorrow, it's not...

Your whims are your guide, Cornelius. Those who follow the authority of God THROUGH others (as Scriptures commands) do not have that problem.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

You are most welcome to see those men as your final authority.

It seems you also have man as your final authority (yourself), since you pick and choose what God says to others and apply it to yourself, depending on how the mood strikes you...

Today, contraception is evil, tommorrow, it's not...
Today, abortion is OK in certain situations, tommorrow, it's not...

Your whims are your guide, Cornelius. Those who follow the authority of God THROUGH others (as Scriptures commands) do not have that problem.

Regards

Really ?
Are you actually trying to claim that the CC has NEVER changed its views on anything, friend ?
I wouldnt push this point if I were you. ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

The only ones "circumventing the word" or "reinventing the wheel" are those who adhere to the man-made heresy of sola-scriptura, which was invented in the 15th century by "mere men".

Sorry, where again does Gods word call it heresy ?
Isnt that something MAN made up ?
When you folks can PROVE that our following the WRITTEN instruction of Jesus, Paul, John and Peter, Christs CHOSEN apostles, as presented in the scripture is wrong, give us a ring.

Just looking at the proof within the history of the catholic church and its MANY changes in policy and doctrine down thru the years, Id say that listening to MEN is a far worse option than trusting the WORD of GOD.
Ill take my chances with His word alone, thank you very much

 

[Cornelius]

You are most welcome to see those men as your final authority.

It seems you also have man as your final authority (yourself), since you pick and choose what God says to others and apply it to yourself, depending on how the mood strikes you...

Today, contraception is evil, tommorrow, it's not...
Today, abortion is OK in certain situations, tommorrow, it's not...

Your whims are your guide, Cornelius. Those who follow the authority of God THROUGH others (as Scriptures commands) do not have that problem.

Regards

You are just talking nonsense here. I have never even spoken about any of these matters like contraception and abortion. The Bible on the other hand has clear guidelines, and when I transgress them, then I am open to criticism.

So do not lay things at my door that is an untruth.

As Follower pointed out, your establishment if famous for its opinion change, depending on which direction the wind of doctrine is blowing.

C

 

[follower of Christ]

Ah, I see which "spirit" drives you. The spirit of divisiveness and lies. Thanks for making that clear.
Any such further statements of libel without any support will be forwarded to the Administrators for proper action.

Sorry friend, But the statement was accurate.
Maybe I should forward your personal assault to moderation...

I imagine intellectual questioning of your sacred cow presents a problem, thus, you must dismiss it as "nonsense". Frankly, I am not impressed with your dismissal of the "circular thing" with a magic wave of the hand...

As I am not impressed by any claims that trusting GODS word alone for doctrine isnt in line with fallible mans 'logic'.

Ah, now we will see the circular argument.

What a hoot.
Call me when you get a new line. I really couldnt care less if catholics or otherwise dont like the idea that *I* trust Gods WRITTEN word over the words of uninspired men.

The Bible (I am addressing the NT only when I say "Bible" here) is not self-authenticating.

In your uninspired opinion.

First of all, the entire corpus does not have an inspired statement that says "this book contains the Word of God".

Aww, gee...youre right :crazy
Guess since it also doesnt use the word 'Trinity' that that must be a lie too :o
Little hint, poster...it doesnt HAVE to say its the word of God in the way YOU demand.
Im not surprised at all to see this ridiculous argument used here, tho Id more expect this sort of thing from atheists, not christians.

Secondly, the INDIVIDUAL BOOKS do not make the claim to be the "Word of God", with the possible exception of the Book of Revelation.

Irrelevant that they did not use the exact phrase you demand.
Do you DENY that Paul, John, Peter and the other writers wrote under the inspiration of God/Holy Spirit ?
I doubt you'd be so bold or naive.
It is GODS word because GOD inspired it to be written as instruction for the Church of Jesus Christ....NOT because He did or didnt say 'this is my word' in some exact language...tho that idea IS present in the texts.

The Bible AND its individual components, do not make the claim you attempt to invent for it. IF we let the Bible speak for itself WITHOUT the Christian community that WROTE it, we would not conclude that IT is the Word of God to the exclusion of all other "scriptures".

We certainly would if we look at the history of the book itself.
WHY was canon closed ?

The MOST you can reasonably argue here with any integrity is that the Apocrypha belongs in 'Gods word' and was removed by protestants.
Other than that the CC is directly responsible (from mans POV) for not making sure to leave canon in such a position as to be ADDED to where more 'inspired' work was presented.
Dont blame us for the shortcomings of the CC and her work on the NT 'bible'.

Secondly there is a LOT of doctrinal inconsistency in the works of these early church 'fathers'. You couldnt pay me enough money to trust even one of those men on matters of doctrine.
So tell me, other than those who couldnt agree among themselves on every issue WHOM are you suggesting is qualified to ADD to what GODS word (old and new testament) teaches ?
This magisterium ? The Pope ? Those whos policies, views and doctrines HAVE changed over the years ?
No thanks.

.

 

[follower of Christ]

OTHER "Scriptures" actually DO make the claim to be the "Word of God"... They SAY so within the texts. The Koran, for example. And yet, you dismiss their claims... Hmmm.... So much for the "logic" of your argument. It begs the question while ignoring other claims that more clearly state what you deny them of.

Are you really serious ? Are you actually THIS desperate ?
Frankly, you were better off not even responding to my post rather than making yourself look foolish with this pathetic argument in front of the readers here.

Perhaps they don't have a Comparitive Religion class in your high school. I don't know. But I suggest you consider reading ABOUT what other religions make claim regarding the author of their own scriptures.

High School ?
That was about 25 years ago, chap.
I suggest you stop assuming that someone hasnt already read up on other FALSE religions enough to know that they arent compatible with Christianity or even Judaism.

Your "argument" is sad and unimpressive.

please :nag
I hope you have better than youve presented so far.

And yes, it is a circular argument.

Laughable...

By beginning with and continuing with personal attacks, it clearly states your argument has no legs to stand alone.

What it states is that I find the false claims that trusting uninspired men to teach doctrine is dangerous and absurd.

I'm thinking you need to consider changing your screen name, because a "follower of Christ" does not need to make such ad hominem attacks - presuming their faith rests in something more than circular arguments.

I'm thinking you should keep to the topic.

You are mis-applying the idea of logical arguments... You claim that one simply KNOWS that the bible is the Word of God - it is self-evident based upon logic

Im sorry...WHERE did I say it was based in logic ?
I trust GOD. Logic need not apply.
SAd that mans desperate need for 'logic' has overwhelmed his ability to have real faith.

My argument is based upon faith

No, its apparently based on anything but faith.

just as my argument that my car will start in the morning is based upon faith, not a "logical argument that is provable".

WILL your car start in the morning ?
I THINK mine will. Maybe it will, maybe it wont.

One thing I DO know tho...the bible IS the written word of God.
Of that I have complete FAITH and TRUST in God.

 

[follower of Christ]

francisdesales:
" He doesn't use the "the Bible is the Word of God because the Word of God is the Bible" argument.

What an amazingly ignorant argument. Is it intentional or do you really buy this nonsense ?
WHAT 'bible' existed in Pauls day, chap ? Any NEW testament canon around then ?
Hardly.

The ONLY 'bible' Paul might have had would have been the Hebrew scriptures and possibly a copy of a letter or two.
What Paul DID know was the OLD testament scriptures. And Jesus and Paul very clearly believed them to BE the word of God.
That the letters had not been gathered together into one collection at that point is irrelevant.
Just as it would have been irrelevant that the writings of Moses hadnt been finished and collected together thousands of years ago...they STILL were the WORDS of God !

One thing we DO know is that Paul seemingly encouraged the passing around of his letters...

And whenever this letter is read before you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you also read the one from Laodicea.
(Col 4:16 EMTV)

And what do we do ? EXACTLY what Paul encouraged here...reading his letters of instruction.

I adjure you by the Lord for this letter to be read to all the holy brothers.
(1Th 5:27 EMTV)

Paul knew the importance of his work....whether he called it the 'word of God' or not.

Paul and the Gospel preach a particular doctrine. There is no Scriptures that support this teaching explicitly at the time. Whether people believe him or not depends upon his witness and the working of the Spirit. Just as today. This is a tremendous blow to your "argument". Even PAUL realizes people believe the Gospel because of his witness, not some finely-laid out logical argument that is beyond refute.

uh....yeah....and WHERE were these 'scriptures' at THAT time, chap ?
Your arguments are more and more desperate as you go along.
There is no blow to my arguments at all except in your own mind.
MOST of what was taught THEN before all the letters and writings were brought together was in word, not in letter.
But thanks to God we have them ALL collected together so we CAN see how it all ties together in WRITING.

Here, Paul makes an extraordinary claim. Consider that the Jews thought angels delivered the Law to them, and so Paul clearly is saying that "his" gospel is from God, even if an angel says otherwise. EXTREMELY strong words based upon HIS WITNESS, not the Bible.

Based on Pauls WRITTEN witness that was INCLUDED in the bible that we ALL have today
You keep making references to a 'bible' that did NOT YET EXIST as tho Paul could even have made some comment about it then.
THE BIBLE WAS NOT YET COLLECTED into a whole yet chap...OF COURSE Paul did not speak of it ! :crazy
You sincerely need to step back and look at what youre saying before you post, friend. Your points are becoming ridiculous.


.

 

[Cornelius]

The Bible (I am addressing the NT only when I say "Bible" here) is not self-authenticating.

1Th 2:13 And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.

So the message that Paul brought to them, was not the message or word of men, but in truth, it was the Word of God. This message , the Word of God was taught by Jesus (The Word of God) and was taken by the apostles to the people. This Word of God is now only working in those who believe (that it is the Word of God)

There it is in black and white. "The Word of God on the Word of God"

 

[follower of Christ]

Paul and John writes something similar elsewhere. After some time, false teachers begin to appear within the flock. They deceive for their own personal gain. Thus, again, we are to judge the Word of God and its true interpretation by the witness of others who live the life of Christ, rather than be deceived - or worse, to deceive OURSELVES, as Paul writes the Corinthians.

Hmm.
Possibly like those who ADD ideas such as 'annulment' where Gods word, nor His law, have any such thing ?
Those who add things like bowing before statues where Gods law forbids it ?
Lets not get started down this path, poster. It gets pretty ugly.

So how do we know that the New Testament is the Word of God? Because we believe the witnesses of it. We believe they led the life of Christ, practised what they preached, and didn't find it necessary to be divisive or perform libel to gain some brownie points with the choir or the 'hearts of the simple'.

I believe it is the word of God for ONE reason. I trust God.
Sad that some dont seem to have that sort of trust in Him.

We believe the Word of God because other Christians that we trust have told us it is...

Possibly you do.
I believe it because Ive READ it many times and can see with my own eyes that God has inspired it and collected it together for His children. I dont need any christian to tell me to trust it.

To claim otherwise is a circular argument,

This line is getting quite stale. Find a new one. I couldnt care less what YOUR view of the matter is.

since reading it doesn't tell us it is the Word of God. It never makes that claim.

It certainly does. It actually does so in such a way to be just as convincing as any teaching about the Trinity which is ALSO never mentioned in any exact phrase....care to discuss the Johannine Comma ? ;)

The Bible is the Word of God based upon faith, not logical argument.

Uh...yeah...
And where have I said anything different ?
I have FAITH in God that the bible is HIS word.



.

 

[radorth]

Now, now children.

Hmmmm. If tongues is speaking as a child, what might we infer if you don't have that gift yet?

Possibilities:

A.You outgrew it before you ever received it?

B. You are more spiritually mature than Paul, who used the gift often.

C. You aren't even mature enough to stop arguing about it, and won't receive it until you can stop

 

[Paidion]

The Holy Spirit must have the final authority.

And how do we know what the Holy Spirit is saying? Thousands of people proclaim that the HS told them to do this or that. What the Spirit supposedly told them contradicts what He told someone else.

So the Holy Spirit as the final authority seems pretty subjective.

The Bible as he final authority is also greatly dependent on interpretation --- and that is pretty subjective.

What, then, can be the final authority?

 

[follower of Christ]

And how do we know what the Holy Spirit is saying? Thousands of people proclaim that the HS told them to do this or that. What the Spirit supposedly told them contradicts what He told someone else.

Depends on the topic.
On the nonessentials the Spirit very well could tell someone one thing and another person something else. One person may have a problem in some area that may be causing him to sin that the Spirit is keeping him away from, but someone else may not.
Say, for instance, if a man was a drunk formerly. The Spirit may tell him personally to NEVER touch wine again. But another person simply has a glass of wine with dinner on occasion and has never been drunk in his life. This second person may have the freedom to do so without being instructed otherwise.

What happens in the church tho, is the man who was a drunk takes this instruction and applies it to EVERYONE when it was only meant for him. He starts dividing himself from his brethren because of his lack of understanding that HE was the one who was not supposed to touch wine. It was not meant for everyone else.

What, then, can be the final authority?

certainly not the whims of everchanging men.
If we cant even be consistent in our views WITH written instruction then none of us are qualified to be making up instruction ourselves.
The bible is the only written foundation we have to compare to. Its the only thing that IS actually set in stone, even if we misunderstand the intent at times.
OUR job is rightly dividing it TO understand it.

 

[francisdesales]

The Bible (I am addressing the NT only when I say "Bible" here) is not self-authenticating.

In your uninspired opinion.

Then put your money where your mouth is and point out the inspired verses that the New Testament is the Word of God.

PROVE IT WITHOUT RESORTING TO CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!

All you can do is toss around snide remarks. In your "attitude of Christ" mentality, all you can do is utilize ad hominem - immediately, as usual with you - and pretend the question is no longer on the table. What would Jesus do, indeed...

The rest, I'll ignore, since it is just your petty attempts to change the subject away from your sad circular argument.

If you can't answer the question, fine. Man-up and say so. At least it will be public knowledge that you don't know what you are talking about, like the question on divorce...