If scripture is sole authority,why have a preacher?

[djns9437]

Just read what it says,lol,and be done with it.

[Rechtgläubig]

If scripture is sole authority,why have a preacher?

Hi djns9437,


Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:17)

That is from scripture, you should check it out sometime...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=&version=NIV

:D

[Caelum]

You typically stop and ask someone for directions when you're lost and a map isn't available. What's the difference? If someone has been where you haven't already, its best to find out the best way to get there, and what to expect. :) (btw, this is not a sponsored post by mapquest.com :))

[TomUK]

May i direct you to Acts 8:30,31

So Philip ran to him and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"

Philip proceded to help the man understand scripture. Hope that helps

[Bulldog]

To adminster the gospel to others, as Rectauglabig brought up, people believe on hearing. Not to mention how Paul speaks to churches aout having clergy.

[FreeinChrist]

The role of pastor is scriptural. And a pastor should be given that gift of the of the Spirit.

[newname]

Gal. 4 says " But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father"

and 1John2 says "but the annoiting which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you..."

Jesus also says that "if" you keep his commandments, he will ask the Father to give you the Spirit of truth, and he will guide you unto all truth.

This is hard for some to understand, but the church is given understanding from God that they need to seek God and the place to do that is the differant denominations, it's there that the one drawn by God is taught by tutors, until the appointed time, if you are obediant to Jesus' sayings and are willing to be taught by Him and corrected by Him, (only He knows your heart) he will give you the Spirit of Truth and you will no longer need "man" to teach you. In Corinthians God says that the "natural man" does not know the things that are spiritual. The church (body of Christ) must "seek truth diligently" and put truth above everything else and God our heavenly Father will guide you. I pray that all consider what God says and seek truth above all. newname

[tigersnare]

Just read what it says,lol,and be done with it.

I read what it says. :sleep:




"...preach the word in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort sound with complete patience and teaching. For a time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching..."

2 Tim 4:2-3

This tells me we are always to have Preachers who teach the word.


Where are you trying to go with this question? :scratch:

[tigersnare]

Gal. 4 says " But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father"

Context(in my opinion)...This verse and the surrounding are dealing with adoption, and Paul is explaining it from the angle of slavery and childhood.





and 1John2 says "but the annoiting which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you..."

Context...I don't think John is saying these people no longer need a teacher, the very fact that he is writing a letter to those who "have been anointed by the holy one and have all knowledge",and tells them to "let what you've heard from the beginning abide in you", seems to suggest they are always in need of further instruction.


Jesus also says that "if" you keep his commandments, he will ask the Father to give you the Spirit of truth, and he will guide you unto all truth.

And who can keep his commandments? No one....sin will always be in our hearts to lead us astray.


This is hard for some to understand, but the church is given understanding from God that they need to seek God and the place to do that is the differant denominations, it's there that the one drawn by God is taught by tutors, until the appointed time, if you are obediant to Jesus' sayings and are willing to be taught by Him and corrected by Him, (only He knows your heart) he will give you the Spirit of Truth and you will no longer need "man" to teach you.

What do you feel Paul's charge to Timothy means for us today?

[Foundthelight]

Scripture is not the sole authority, it is the sole infallible authority. We have our creeds and confessions and the teachings which illuminate scripture and guide us. But, all teachings should be looked at under the light of infallible scripture. If they disagree with scripture then they are to be rejected.


As others have pointed out the role of pastor, elder, teacher, etc. are clearly called out in scripture.

[RhetorTheo]

Don't sermons "add to the Bible"?

[II Paradox II]

Don't sermons "add to the Bible"?
Sure, so do creeds and confessions, systematic theologies, rules against "mixed bathing" and grand works of high literature like the "Left Behind" series.

The issue is that the scripture is the only certain infallible authority we have in perpetual existence before us. All else is a derived authority and is not added to the class of divine revelation or infallible authority.

ken

[FreeinChrist]

No, they don't pretend to have authority over scripture. All the sermons at the churches I have attended are based on scripture, and then applications are made for us today.

[Cary.Melvin]

I think we may be on to something.

If you adhear strictly to "Bible Alone" the only real need for a Pastor is to read. Actually you could fire the Pastor and buy the Bible on CD and just listen to it at service and let everone make up their mind with what it means to them.

Now that's real sola scriptura. Sermons just sway peoples beliefs away from what they would have otherwise beleived.

[djns9437]

May i direct you to Acts 8:30,31

So Philip ran to him and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"

Philip proceded to help the man understand scripture. Hope that helpsPhilip is not here to guide me?

[djns9437]

Hi djns9437,


That is from scripture, you should check it out sometime...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=&version=NIV

:D
Wouldn't you need a reader,not a preacher?

[djns9437]

You typically stop and ask someone for directions when you're lost and a map isn't available. What's the difference? If someone has been where you haven't already, its best to find out the best way to get there, and what to expect. :) (btw, this is not a sponsored post by mapquest.com :))
What about the saying " The blind leading the blind " I have had a number of directions that were wrong.

[Endure2]

not to anyone in particular.

yeah i could find it all out on my own maybe, but id like to save myself 50 years of confused hell, by listening to someone whos gone before me to give me insight. i care too much about people's souls and pleasing God, to postpone my ministry years and years, just to say i didnt need help!

plus it is absolute pride to wish to find it out on your own, and it also absolute pride to think you can. the devil has been perfecting his warfar for maybe millions of years... who do you think you are?
this is the devil thought he could beat God and tried... what makes you think you can stand on your own?

and it also rebellion to want to figure it all out on your own, and end up postponing your ministry for years and years.

also, the bible calls for ALL people, to be acountable.
we all ought to have men and women in our lives that preach to us the undignified raw word of God commanding us to live holy et,. no you ought never be alone. THERE ARE NO LONE RANGERS IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD, YOULL DIE ALONE OUT THERE.
it is a foolish man who walks alone, for if he falls he has no one to pick him up. you ought to have men you can run to and ask for help.

also, the person who wrote the scripture that the annointing in you can teach you all things, was a teacher himself. he absolutely did not mean for you to think you didnt need a teacher in your life.

ive known many people, who grew up in church, started out well, but when the older, wiser, men of God began to speak to them about issues, they younger men didnt listen, becuase they thought theyd heard diffrent from God themselves.... those younger men arent in church today, who knows where they are... but they arent serving God.
but im still here praise God, and so are the older men...and their still faithful.
you better condensen a lower start, humble yourself and find someone to teach you. becuase you wont make it alone.
there are 3 in heavon...not even God is alone. so why do you think you can do anything by yourself?

paul told the old women to teach the young women, and the old men, to teach the young men.

no, it is never right to think you dont need a teacher. youll die thinking you can hear from God and know the truth by yourself. and God will let you die, becuase he hates pride. and pride will keep you from running for help.

in the body of Christ, the annointing flows from the head down. if you arent under someones ministry and accountable to someone, and humbled under someone, you will never be annointed.
youll blow up like a flame, and maybe be great for a bit, but you wont last.
youll be a nobody, and no one will remember you.

you have to show yourself faithful, show yourself a faithful servant, and if you cant do that for a man you can see, youll never do that for a God you cant.
your not ready for the ministry today, you need to sit and be taught.

in the psalms, david wrote the isrealites lived BY THE PROPHET...ate BY THE PROPHET... were saved BY THE PROPHET...
you need a prophet in your life. God said he gave isreal MIRIAM and AARON, to keep them.
you need a miriam and aaron in your life.

[djns9437]

To adminster the gospel to others, as Rectauglabig brought up, people believe on hearing. Not to mention how Paul speaks to churches aout having clergy.You don't need a preacher to hear the word of God,you need someone to read it.

[Bulldog]

You don't need a preacher to hear the word of God,you need someone to read it.

Is that not what a preacher does?

[Endure2]

not becuase you cant read the bible by yourself, but becuase the devil can wipe you out, before you have time to assimilate all that by yourself, you need to stand on the shoulders of those who went before, and learn this now as quick as you can.
becuase the devils goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.
and you better believe he wants you.

[eldermike]

Just read what it says,lol,and be done with it.

If you read what it says you will have a preacher.

[nobdysfool]

Just read what it says,lol,and be done with it.
Oh, that it were that simple....

[Endure2]

what.....? i dont hate anyone and i dont mean to be offensive.

but some of you actually think you need a preacher...?

man... all im gonna saythe devil is a liar and so are you if think you dont need a preacher. it was a preacher who got you saved, and you cant think you dont need him now. the bible calls paul a FATHER... and other men a SHEPERD...

ive watched many people who didnt heed words of wisdom from elders and preachers, even though they had their reasons, didnt think they needed a man of God in their life, and now there gone...bottom line. it was the faithful brothers who stayed true and humble, that are still serving God today.

[Cary.Melvin]

Wouldn't you need a reader,not a preacher?
Preachers are just loud readers. :D

[djns9437]

The role of pastor is scriptural. And a pastor should be given that gift of the of the Spirit.
Would you say everthing in the Bible should be used? For example NIV (1John 1:8-9) If we claim to be without sin,we decive ourselves and the truth is not in us.If we confess our sins,he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

[ZooMom]

I have a couple of questions, and I hope no-one thinks I'm being smart or sarcastic. :)

1) Who told you the Bible was the only infallible authority?

and...

2)What criteria do you use to judge a 'preacher' by? Age, # of years as a Christian, a feeling that you get listening to them speak, or something else? IOW, what gives someone else the authority to interpret the Bible for you?

Thanks and God bless!

Peace be with you!

Sandy

[djns9437]

Sure, so do creeds and confessions, systematic theologies, rules against "mixed bathing" and grand works of high literature like the "Left Behind" series.

The issue is that the scripture is the only certain infallible authority we have in perpetual existence before us. All else is a derived authority and is not added to the class of divine revelation or infallible authority.

kenHow does confession add to Bible?

[ZooMom]

...and grand works of high literature like the "Left Behind" series.

AaaaHHHAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAaa!!!!!! :D :D :D


oops...sorry... :sorry:



;)

[II Paradox II]

How does confession add to Bible?
Confession(s), not confession. Things like the Westminster Confession and such. I actually don't have a big problem with the concept of confession in general. It has been practiced in the church since the beginning (albeit public confession, not so much private) and the scriptures talk of the value of confessing one's sins.

ken

[djns9437]

Oh, that it were that simple....
If the sole authority is scripture,it is that simple!

[FreeinChrist]

Would you say everthing in the Bible should be used? For example NIV (1John 1:8-9) If we claim to be without sin,we decive ourselves and the truth is not in us.If we confess our sins,he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Yes. And that verse, BTW, does not say that confession is to be to a priest, but to God. There is no veil between man and the throne of God because of Christ.

And looking into the Greek behind that verse, it is saying that though we have been cleansed of sin, we do commit sins. When we do, and we confess them, we will be forgiven. A related part of that is eing brought to repentence is we are in Christ.

There is another verse in I John that talks about those who have sin and no light is in them - that refers to a habit of sin, like a person that lives a Godless life.

[FreeinChrist]

I have a couple of questions, and I hope no-one thinks I'm being smart or sarcastic. :)

1) Who told you the Bible was the only infallible authority?
The infallable authority is God, and the scriptures are His word. There is even a verse that scripture is inspired by God.
And I beleive that scritpure bears it's own record of it's authority.



2)What criteria do you use to judge a 'preacher' by? Age, # of years as a Christian, a feeling that you get listening to them speak, or something else? IOW, what gives someone else the authority to interpret the Bible for you?
The ministers at the churches I have attended have degrees in theology, even PhDs. They have a great store of knowledge, understand context, and can see the message of God as a whole - Genesis to Revelation. But what proves it to me is how they live their lives and how they express the love of Christ in their actions and words.
And of course, there is the written word to compare. :)

[djns9437]

Confession(s), not confession. Things like the Westminster Confession and such. I actually don't have a big problem with the concept of confession in general. It has been practiced in the church since the beginning (albeit public confession, not so much private) and the scriptures talk of the value of confessing one's sins.

ken
Oh, I see what your saying,thanks for clearing that up for me.I'm interested in the (I) as in I don't have a big problem with,it sounds as if your, your own authority?Do you see things that way?

[djns9437]

Is that not what a preacher does?
I have never heard a preacher just read the word of God,have you?

[Bulldog]

EDIT: post now superflous

[ZooMom]

Yes. And that verse, BTW, does not say that confession is to be to a priest, but to God. There is no veil between man and the throne of God because of Christ.

:eek: I wonder what my priest would think if he thought that *I* thought I was confessing to *him*?!

Good thing we both know I only confess to God. ;) Sure saves alot of awkwardness. :)


Peace be with you!

Sandy

[tigersnare]

I've answered your question with scripture, yet you have ignored it, and addressed the the post around mine that were less direct.

I also think, you know the answers to these simple questions, your motives are the real question I see here.


Why are you here?

[FreeinChrist]

:eek: I wonder what my priest would think if he thought that *I* thought I was confessing to *him*?!

Good thing we both know I only confess to God. ;) Sure saves alot of awkwardness. :)


Peace be with you!

Sandy
confession to priest - as in one sits on side of a wall with a window and the priest on the other, and one tells the priest their sins. That you beleive it is to God is good...but I believe we can go directly to God without the priest or setting a time for it. We can do it as it occurs.

[ZooMom]

Please keep in mind that my questions are asked in the utmost sincerity.

The infallable authority is God, and the scriptures are His word. There is even a verse that scripture is inspired by God.
And I beleive that scritpure bears it's own record of it's authority.

So you believe that the Bible is infallible because the Bible told you so? :confused:


The ministers at the churches I have attended have degrees in theology, even PhDs. They have a great store of knowledge, understand context, and can see the message of God as a whole - Genesis to Revelation. But what proves it to me is how they live their lives and how they express the love of Christ in their actions and words.


So you check their credentials before you put too much faith in their interpretation? How do you reconcile two equally educated and godly men having differing interpretations of Scripture?

And of course, there is the written word to compare. :)
Does this mean that you always check their interpretation against yours? Then we are back to the original question of why you need them in the first place. :confused:


Peace be with you!

Sandy

[ZooMom]

confession to priest - as in one sits on side of a wall with a window and the priest on the other, and one tells the priest their sins.

:) Oh we don't tell the priest our sins. That's Hollywood for ya. The priest is only there for guidance and support and to offer absolution. God is the one who forgives us.

That you beleive it is to God is good...but I believe we can go directly to God without the priest or setting a time for it. We can do it as it occurs.
I don't just 'believe it is to God', I know it is. :) And I can agree with the rest of what you said. :)

Peace!

Sandy

[II Paradox II]

1) Who told you the Bible was the only infallible authority?
How you answer this question can vary. I would classify knowledge of it's infallible authority (as revelation from God) as a basic Christian presupposition built on the inward work of the Spirit primarily and the testimony of the church and other such things secondarily. As for why it would be the "only" such thing is built on various arguments and observations such as the insufficiency of other claimants to that title, lack of inward testimony to other claimants, lack of general Christian acknowledgement of such authorities (for instance, protties, EO's, Oriental Orthodox and so forth all reject Rome's particular claim thus making an argument for broad Christian approval of this authority doubtful)

2)What criteria do you use to judge a 'preacher' by? Age, # of years as a Christian, a feeling that you get listening to them speak, or something else? IOW, what gives someone else the authority to interpret the Bible for you?
a few thoughts:

1) There are some fairly obvious things - For one, they should be morally upright. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our spiritual fathers shouldn't be the town drunk or something even more dreadful. For another, it would probably be good if they are reasonably intelligent. There are exceptions of course, but it's never good if your teacher should be the one being taught.

2) Age is generally a virtue, but I wouldn't make it absolute. Paul counseled timothy to not let people despise his own young age. Probably a good reminder that God doesn't always choose those who look like they are wise.

3) Beyond that, it seems to me that you might do well simply to listen to those who have proven their worth by effectively ministering to others and who have been approved by other Christian leaders. To be honest, I am not a fan of the rather divided state of Christendom today, and I think it does lessen the authority of the church when there are so many competing interests and groups. However, God still gets his truth out to people who turn to Him, and this message is promulgated by men whom God gifts to speak to His people.

4) On perhaps the most fundamental level, a preacher must preach the wisdom of God, built from the revelation of God. As has been the custom of believers from the beginning, doctrine and teaching has been built on God's revelation to man by faithful preachers who searched them day by day and passed on what they knew to their congregations. Anyone who does not continue in this would be highly suspect in my eyes.

5) As for the last question, I'm not sure it is neccessarily an appropriate question to ask. For example, it is clear that no one expects an infallible interpretation of every verse when being taught, even Rome has only a few verses infallibly interpreted, so the sermons might get a bit repetitive after a while if this were the criteria. So following this, the issue is not so much whether one has "authority" to interpret, for we all interpret every moment of our lives (and yes, even the interpretations of our teachers are then interpreted by us), but whether any given preacher is interpreting correctly. After all, one can be correctly ordained and have all the "authority" in the world to teach yet still be misinterpreting the scriptures to one's own doom, as well as his hearers. God will judge the teachers and show whom was approved and who was not.

ken

[II Paradox II]

Oh, I see what your saying,thanks for clearing that up for me.I'm interested in the (I) as in I don't have a big problem with,it sounds as if your, your own authority?Do you see things that way?
It means that it is a reasonable position to hold considering the evidence. Everyone weighs evidence for their opinions and this is no different. The issue between us is that I hold the scriptures as the final and highest authority and you do not. However, we both interpret the teachings given us by our teachers (either the scriptures or the church) and we are forced to judge things based on evidences (such as which interpretation of a given teaching is correct).

ken

[djns9437]

Yes. And that verse, BTW, does not say that confession is to be to a priest, but to God. There is no veil between man and the throne of God because of Christ.
NIV Matthew (9:1-8)The authority was given to men.(plural) Jesus passed it to his ministers in (John 20:21-23)

[QUOTE]And looking into the Greek behind that verse, it is saying that though we have been cleansed of sin, we do commit sins. When we do, and we confess them, we will be forgiven

God hears prayer,but who hears confession?

[djns9437]

Preachers are just loud readers. :D
lol

[djns9437]

How you answer this question can vary. I would classify knowledge of it's infallible authority (as revelation from God) as a basic Christian presupposition built on the inward work of the Spirit primarily and the testimony of the church and other such things secondarily. As for why it would be the "only" such thing is built on various arguments and observations such as the insufficiency of other claimants to that title, lack of inward testimony to other claimants, lack of general Christian acknowledgement of such authorities (for instance, protties, EO's, Oriental Orthodox and so forth all reject Rome's particular claim thus making an argument for broad Christian approval of this authority doubtful)


a few thoughts:

1) There are some fairly obvious things - For one, they should be morally upright. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our spiritual fathers shouldn't be the town drunk or something even more dreadful. For another, it would probably be good if they are reasonably intelligent. There are exceptions of course, but it's never good if your teacher should be the one being taught.

2) Age is generally a virtue, but I wouldn't make it absolute. Paul counseled timothy to not let people despise his own young age. Probably a good reminder that God doesn't always choose those who look like they are wise.

3) Beyond that, it seems to me that you might do well simply to listen to those who have proven their worth by effectively ministering to others and who have been approved by other Christian leaders. To be honest, I am not a fan of the rather divided state of Christendom today, and I think it does lessen the authority of the church when there are so many competing interests and groups. However, God still gets his truth out to people who turn to Him, and this message is promulgated by men whom God gifts to speak to His people.

4) On perhaps the most fundamental level, a preacher must preach the wisdom of God, built from the revelation of God. As has been the custom of believers from the beginning, doctrine and teaching has been built on God's revelation to man by faithful preachers who searched them day by day and passed on what they knew to their congregations. Anyone who does not continue in this would be highly suspect in my eyes.

5) As for the last question, I'm not sure it is neccessarily an appropriate question to ask. For example, it is clear that no one expects an infallible interpretation of every verse when being taught, even Rome has only a few verses infallibly interpreted, so the sermons might get a bit repetitive after a while if this were the criteria. So following this, the issue is not so much whether one has "authority" to interpret, for we all interpret every moment of our lives (and yes, even the interpretations of our teachers are then interpreted by us), but whether any given preacher is interpreting correctly. After all, one can be correctly ordained and have all the "authority" in the world to teach yet still be misinterpreting the scriptures to one's own doom, as well as his hearers. God will judge the teachers and show whom was approved and who was not.

ken
I still can't understand how you can tell a sheep from a wolf in sheeps clothing?Could you please simplify your answer?

[CCWoody]

Just read what it says,lol,and be done with it.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/mvo0015l.jpg


The term sola Scriptura simply means “by Scripture alone.” This slogan declared the idea that only the Bible has the authority to bind the consciences of believers. Protestants did recognize other forms of authority, such as church offices, civil magistrates, and church creeds and confessions. But they saw these authorities as being derived from and subordinate to the authority of God. None of these lesser authorities was deemed absolute, because all of them were capable of error. God alone is infallible. Fallible authorities cannot bind the conscience absolutely; that right is reserved to God and his Word alone.[/url]
[url="mid://00000000/#_ftnref1"] (mid://00000000/#_ftn1)
Sproul, R.C. (2000, c1997). Grace unknown : The heart of reformed theology (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.


Now that we have a definition on the table, CCWoody will entertain questions.:holy:

[II Paradox II]

I still can't understand how you can tell a sheep from a wolf in sheeps clothing?Could you please simplify your answer?By their adherence to the fundamental creeds of the Christian church (the obvious ones we all know), their lifestyle, the fruit of their ministry and their fidelity to God's word.

Tell me, how can you tell a sheep from a wolf? There have been plenty of heretical bishops and priests, some who have lived their whole lives without being removed. Some who have taught heretical doctrines to their congregations for years or decades. If you compare them to say, the catechism, how do you know you are interpreting the catechism correctly? Are you infallible? If their superiors do not remove such wolves or point them out to you, how do you know they are wolves without using your own private judgement? Could it not be you who has misinterpreted the teachings you are judging them by?

ken

[kayanne]

Don't sermons "add to the Bible"?

Based on the comments I'm reading in this thread regarding preachers and sermons, I wonder if you've ever heard a protestant preacher preach? (I mean a really good Bible-preaching sermon). Sermons (at least the ones I've heard) aren't "adding to the Bible" but serve to remind us, to get us thinking, to help us apply scriptural principles to our lives.

For example, our pastor's sermon this morning used several verses from the book of Proverbs which contrast the diligent worker with the lazy sluggard. He talked about how our work ethic has such a great effect on our Christian testimony. He also used Colossians 3:22-24 "...with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord, whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men."
He expounded upon those verses to remind us that our work should be done
1) with a good attitude ("with sincerity of heart")
2) with diligence and effort ("do your work heartily") and
3) with the right motive ("as for the Lord")
Of course this is just a little snippet of his whole sermon, but usually as I hear our pastor preach, it's not anything brand new, totally outside of what the Bible already says. Sure I could study the Bible hours and hours every week and come up with practical ways to apply various verses, but he is SO much more knowledgeable about the Bible, and does such a wonderful job of making it meaningful to our lives. He has done sermons on relationships within the family, being a good neighbor, how to help people who are hurting, etc--all very practical and all based on the Bible, not just his thoughts and opinions.

Does that help you understand at all about sermons? Does it sound like he was "adding to the Bible" or just giving the congregation something to think about in a deeper way? I know that as I think ahead to the work I need to accomplish this week, I will have a more Biblical perspective about it because of this morning's excellent sermon. I will remember that God does not want me to just do enough to "get by" or do my work while grumbling under my breath, but to really do it in a way that would glorify God. Did I already know that? Of course--but it's nice to have a Biblical refresher every Sunday.

[FreeinChrist]

So you believe that the Bible is infallible because the Bible told you so? :confused:

Don't you believe the writers of the Bible were inspired by God?
Do you just believe what it says because a priest tells you?






So you check their credentials before you put too much faith in their interpretation? How do you reconcile two equally educated and godly men having differing interpretations of Scripture?
Did I say that? I don't believe I did.

And I specifically mentioned how they lived their lives being a factor. AND that we have the written word.



Does this mean that you always check their interpretation against yours? Then we are back to the original question of why you need them in the first place. :confused:

My answers will never satisfy you, and I wonder why you ask in the first place.

Have you ever attended a Baptist service? Say the topic is on dealing with disappointment in life. The minister would give examples of disappointments, and then compare with a person in scripture who also had to deal with a similar disappointment. It isn't as if they are creating dogma!

[rnmomof7]

I still can't understand how you can tell a sheep from a wolf in sheeps clothing?Could you please simplify your answer?

If you can not , you may be in serious spiritual trouble

[FreeinChrist]

[/color]

:) Oh we don't tell the priest our sins. That's Hollywood for ya. The priest is only there for guidance and support and to offer absolution. God is the one who forgives us.


So .... you just talk about the weather? :P

I told my husband how you responded and he was surprized. He was raised Catholic and went through Catholic schools and all the catechism and more. He has been to confession many, many times. According to him and his huge family, confession is more than just counseling, but telling the sins you commit and receving absolution and a penance, if needed. He had needed lots of that as a boy apparently :D




I don't just 'believe it is to God', I know it is. :)
And that is what believing is. :)

[FreeinChrist]

God hears prayer,but who hears confession?


God hears confession too. Our prayers, personal and corporate are not just repeating a prayer written in book like the one used for mass. We pray with our own words and in praying, confess and ask Him directly.

[tigersnare]

nevermind....better idea

[djns9437]

[QUOTE=II Paradox II]By their adherence to the fundamental creeds of the Christian church (the obvious ones we all know), their lifestyle, the fruit of their ministry and their fidelity to God's word.
The authority to state what is fundamental to the christian church belongs to man?
Tell me, how can you tell a sheep from a wolf? There have been plenty of heretical bishops and priests, some who have lived their whole lives without being removed. Some who have taught heretical doctrines to their congregations for years or decades.
There is a structure in the Catholic church to combat this sort of thing,but even with that,you are right in saying,"some have taught heretical doctrines for years or decades.War has even broken out between monks in a dispute over icons!

If you compare them to say, the catechism, how do you know you are interpreting the catechism correctly? Are you infallible? If their superiors do not remove such wolves or point them out to you, how do you know they are wolves without using your own private judgement? Could it not be you who has misinterpreted the teachings you are judging them by?
I'm Catholic,I belive very much in creeds,and the authority of man to speak for God on matters of the Bible,and to guild me in truth.But instead of private judgment,I use the Churchs judgment on everything.Does that mean I can't be decived,no it doesn't.For the reason you have stated.

[djns9437]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/mvo0015l.jpg


The term sola Scriptura simply means “by Scripture alone.” This slogan declared the idea that only the Bible has the authority to bind the consciences of believers. Protestants did recognize other forms of authority, such as church offices, civil magistrates, and church creeds and confessions. But they saw these authorities as being derived from and subordinate to the authority of God. None of these lesser authorities was deemed absolute, because all of them were capable of error. God alone is infallible. Fallible authorities cannot bind the conscience absolutely; that right is reserved to God and his Word alone.[/url]
[url="mid://00000000/#_ftnref1"] (mid://00000000/#_ftn1)
Sproul, R.C. (2000, c1997). Grace unknown : The heart of reformed theology (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.


Now that we have a definition on the table, CCWoody will entertain questions.:holy:
Doesn't God have the ability make his Church infallible,in spite of the fallen state of man?

[djns9437]

If you can not , you may be in serious spiritual trouble
Why,I have the church.Isn't there safety in numbers?

[tigersnare]

Why,I have the church.Isn't there safety in numbers?

No

Can 1 billion people be wrong? Yes....Islam.

I ask again, why are you here? You're original question was answered, you are now on the border of debating, but obviously being very careful about it.

[Cary.Melvin]

Don't you believe the writers of the Bible were inspired by God?
By Scripture Alone? I'm not sure. I would first have to know what exactly scripture is. I suppose we could just accept the Old Testament Canon from the Jews and just hope they knew what they were talking about. Seeing that most of them couldn't recognize the Messiah walking among them, I'm not sure if that is the most reliable source.

And what about the New Testament? The Jews are no help to us on that, they thought Jesus was a blasphemer. We do have the various Gospels, but Mark and Luke were written based on hearsay evidence. And John and Mathew were written so long after the actual events, how do we know that they remembered everything correctly? And how about those letters by Paul? Is that stuff really scripture or just Paul's personal opinions? He wasn't even one of the original Apostles that spent 3 years with Jesus during his ministry. And Revelation? I read it and all it revealed was my confusion. Is that scripture? I can't even understand it.


Do you just believe what it says because a priest tells you?
Depends. If that Priest has been validly ordained by the Church of the original Apostles and is in communion with said Church, then I would say yes. But the bottom line is that I do not know what scripture is without the Church of the Apostles telling me what it is.

[ZooMom]

I want to thank everyone who has tried to answer my questions. I promise that I had/have no ulterior motives in asking them. I am just trying to understand. I still don't really understand, but I don't want to cross any lines by appearing to debate. Thanks, again. :)

(FWIW, I was raised in the Methodist church, and have been to several Baptist services. None of these experiences have helped me to understand any better.)

If anyone thinks they can maybe shed some more light, and so I can answer more freely questions posed to me, I would be happy to continue this via PM. This also extends to freeinChrist re: Confession. I would be happy to continue our 'derailment' in PM. :) :angel:


Peace be with you all!

Sandy

[II Paradox II]

Why,I have the church.Isn't there safety in numbers?
Hmm... I would be careful about relying on the "safety in numbers" argument. Lest you forget, Israel was often in serious sin, with only a remnant remaining faithful. A crowd of people condemned Jesus with only a few who stood up to the masses. Most of the world is not Christian, and we would both agree they do not have security in numbers...

ken

[djns9437]

No

Can 1 billion people be wrong? Yes....Islam.

I ask again, why are you here? You're original question was answered, you are now on the border of debating, but obviously being very careful about it.
(1)The reference to safety in numbers was along the lines of the Christian family.Connected by the Holy Trinity form generation to generation.There is a great wittness of christians who have walked the same path before us.Connected by interior
conversion. (Heb 12:1)
(2)I'm trying to understand the position,is all.You could say you and I and everyone else here in a sense is defending a position,those positions were all taught us by man.I can understand how a (Calvinist),or (Baptist),(Catholic) or any other Denomination say that their understanding is correct,but on the sole authority of the Bible?I think I may be thinking of the term (sole authority) differently than you?I will reread the posts to see if I have missed the answer to the question.I may not be able to see it as an answer is all,lol.Thanks for your posts!

[djns9437]

Hmm... I would be careful about relying on the "safety in numbers" argument. Lest you forget, Israel was often in serious sin, with only a remnant remaining faithful. A crowd of people condemned Jesus with only a few who stood up to the masses. Most of the world is not Christian, and we would both agree they do not have security in numbers...

kenIdeologically there are differences between us,but wouldn't you agree the vast majority of humans belive in God?As far as the Church goes,I have 2 thousand years worth of wittnesses,even if only a remnant from every generation remain faithful,it adds up.

[Plan 9]

No

I ask again, why are you here? You're original question was answered, you are now on the border of debating, but obviously being very careful about it.

I think the points djns9437 is raising are interesting to consider, and I don't see him as being out of line. It's just my opinion, of course, but I'd like to hear him out, please. As you pointed out, he's not debating.
Djns, you've all been good about allowing me to ask more than one question at OBOB, I appreciate it, and I feel certain I'm not the only one.

[II Paradox II]

Ideologically there are differences between us,but wouldn't you agree the vast majority of humans belive in God?
I think a majority of them believe in God. However, there are good reasons for belief in God beyond the fact that nearly everyone does. My point was just that that particular argument wasn't really a good one for establishing the religious truth. The scriptures repeatedly show occasions where the majority was wrong and the minority was correct. In light of our common role in this continuing salvation history begun with Adam and Eve and progressing though the Jews and the early church, it is wise to consider the way God has worked with His people. When this is done, it is evident from the OT and NT that being with the majority is not sufficient to estblish the truth.

As far as the Church goes,I have 2 thousand years worth of wittnesses,even if only a remnant from every generation remain faithful,it adds up.
Sure, but we also disagree just how faithful the CC is to that tradition and the validity of various aspects of that tradition. If I thought the historical case was entirely in your favor I would probably be more likely to be a Catholic myself, but I don't think this is the case.

ken

[Mary_Magdalene]

i think the vast majority of humans believe in "A" God.

-Not "The" true God.

[Mary_Magdalene]

I go to a Baptist church. (FYI)

I think the best way to see a "wolf in sheeps clothing" is to know the Word for yourself.

Kinda like how the FBI studies real US currency so anything that is not real is quickly recognized and stands out.

Know the Word yourself. You can know the Word of God without someone having to tell you what it says. Read it-saturate yourself with it-live it.

On another note....
I grew up Catholic. Never knew you could bring your bible to church - nobody else brought one and i didnt even own one. Left the Catholic faith and became a self proclaimed Athiest after going into the confessional at about 13 years old and asking the priest to help me-i was wondering about God and if He was real. "Please help me understand Him" I had said. Then the priest yelled "dont ever ask if God is real again! Say 10 "hail mary's" and "10 our fathers"! :mad:

(The Holy Spirit brought me to Christ about 10 hard years later). :clap:

[djns9437]

I think the points djns9437 is raising are interesting to consider, and I don't see him as being out of line. It's just my opinion, of course, but I'd like to hear him out, please. As you pointed out, he's not debating.
Djns, you've all been good about allowing me to ask more than one question at OBOB, I appreciate it, and I feel certain I'm not the only one.
Thank you Plan 9 for your kindness.

[djns9437]

Hi djns9437,


That is from scripture, you should check it out sometime...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=&version=NIV

:D
thank you for the link!

[djns9437]

[QUOTE=II Paradox II]I think a majority of them believe in God. However, there are good reasons for belief in God beyond the fact that nearly everyone does. My point was just that that particular argument wasn't really a good one for establishing the religious truth. The scriptures repeatedly show occasions where the majority was wrong and the minority was correct. In light of our common role in this continuing salvation history begun with Adam and Eve and progressing though the Jews and the early church, it is wise to consider the way God has worked with His people. When this is done, it is evident from the OT and NT that being with the majority is not sufficient to estblish the truth.

I must say I agree.


Sure, but we also disagree just how faithful the CC is to that tradition and the validity of various aspects of that tradition. If I thought the historical case was entirely in your favor I would probably be more likely to be a Catholic myself, but I don't think this is the case.

Proof for me of CC faithfulness to its tradition is the Catechism.History is entirely on CC side, (IMHO), name a century where there isn't direct evidence too such a fact!I hope I'm not offending anyone,feel I have prob gone over into debate,thank you Ken for your thoughtful responses,and everyone elses.Would love to talk some more,ex specially about history if anyone wants to,let me know! (Your bro in Christ,Dave)

[djns9437]

i think the vast majority of humans believe in "A" God.

-Not "The" true God.
Do you belive they have interior conversions and grow as we do?

[djns9437]

I go to a Baptist church. (FYI)

I think the best way to see a "wolf in sheeps clothing" is to know the Word for yourself.

Kinda like how the FBI studies real US currency so anything that is not real is quickly recognized and stands out.

Know the Word yourself. You can know the Word of God without someone having to tell you what it says. Read it-saturate yourself with it-live it.

On another note....
I grew up Catholic. Never knew you could bring your bible to church - nobody else brought one and i didnt even own one. Left the Catholic faith and became a self proclaimed Athiest after going into the confessional at about 13 years old and asking the priest to help me-i was wondering about God and if He was real. "Please help me understand Him" I had said. Then the priest yelled "dont ever ask if God is real again! Say 10 "hail mary's" and "10 our fathers"! :mad:

(The Holy Spirit brought me to Christ about 10 hard years later). :clap:Did the Holy Spirit bring you to Christ thru a church,or thru a revelation outside of any church?If you would have stayed in the Catholic church,would the Holy Spirit have brought you to Christ?I have to ask,did you say those Hail Marys and Our Fathers?LOL and did you ever ask if God is real agian?Not making fun,just joking with you.Do you think other people from denominations other than Catholic have had similar experiences to your's and blame those denoms as well?Bringing Bibles to Church is all well and good if you can read,but in the last 20 centurys their has been only one century where the literacy rate was above 20%,on the earth,and your in it!On top of that everyone in the Catholic Church knows what the reading is for everyday of every year without the Bible.Do you ever fill a need or want to go to confession now?You can know what the word says,but is that what it means is another story,would you agree?

[Yitzchak]

Just because something has the position of the highest authority does not mean everything else is useless. That is taking things to quite an extreme. We need a lot of things in life. Food, sleep, shelter, adults to help us when we are babies, etc. Some things are absolutely needful for survival and some things add to quality of life.

[Plan 9]

Thank you Plan 9 for your kindness.


You're quite welcome, but I really do find your questions, and the answers members give you in response, thought provoking. :)

[II Paradox II]

Proof for me of CC faithfulness to its tradition is the Catechism.History is entirely on CC side, (IMHO), name a century where there isn't direct evidence too such a fact!
ok, here a few thoughts to start off with:

1) The subject is very complex and disputed, but I think a very good case can be made for the lack of Jurisdictional Primacy of the bishop of Rome in the first 5 centuries. Though his position is certainly powerful throughout history, the grand claims made for the papacy just do not seem to have the strong evidence to match it's strong claim. Of course, one can appeal to development here, but you must be able to defend the legitimacy of development of doctrine every time you assert it.

2) As far as the marian dogmas go, there is quite an uphill stuggle to show their dominance in the early church without resorting to Newman's development of doctrine. Even when you do, the case for the marian dogmas is weak overall and even development theory is highly questionable.

3) Papal infallibility has an even harder road than jurisdictional primacy. Again, without development theory to explain away the lack of historical continuity, papal infallibility becomes a historically untenable theory.

4) Authority of Pope over Council - the Avignon schism causes many problems for a naive reading of the Pope's authority and infalliblity when relating to ecumenical councils. The standard accounts of the papal powers struggles with this episode.

there's a few. On the whole though, the issue is this - Rome has very high claims for herself tht demand equivalent proof in order to be believable. My issue with Rome is not that it is always wrong, for I believe it is right on some issues. However, that is overshadowed by the fact that it claims to be *the* church, with infallible teachings and universal jurisdictional primacy over the whole church of God. When you claim that, your evidence should match up with the extravagance of your claims. I would argue that Rome has not achieved this.

ken

[djns9437]

1) The subject is very complex and disputed, but I think a very good case can be made for the lack of Jurisdictional Primacy of the bishop of Rome in the first 5 centuries. Though his position is certainly powerful throughout history, the grand claims made for the papacy just do not seem to have the strong evidence to match it's strong claim. Of course, one can appeal to development here, but you must be able to defend the legitimacy of development of doctrine every time you assert it.
You mean to tell me that God almighty sent his apostles out without a leader?

2) As far as the marian dogmas go, there is quite an uphill stuggle to show their dominance in the early church without resorting to Newman's development of doctrine. Even when you do, the case for the marian dogmas is weak overall and even development theory is highly questionable.
Mary is the Mother of God.(Historical fact)Mary is the wife of God.(Historical fact)If you were God how would you honor your mother?There is no one who played a larger role in salvation history,(save it be Jesus,son Joseph and Mary)than Mary.Pope Pius IX (1854) proclaimed Immaculate Conception.There is 2000 yrs worth of history,dominance in the early church isn't needed.

3) Papal infallibility has an even harder road than jurisdictional primacy. Again, without development theory to explain away the lack of historical continuity, papal infallibility becomes a historically untenable theory.
Until you read the Catechism.Historical continuity,? I have a list of every Pope , Their name,birthplace,country of origin,date of accension to the papacy,date of the end of reign.It was Jesus who said he would build his church.You would do well to look at recent history, the issue of contraception to see the amazing results of the office of pope.

4) Authority of Pope over Council - the Avignon schism causes many problems for a naive reading of the Pope's authority and infalliblity when relating to ecumenical councils. The standard accounts of the papal powers struggles with this episode.

I don't understand the point?

there's a few. On the whole though, the issue is this - Rome has very high claims for herself tht demand equivalent proof in order to be believable. My issue with Rome is not that it is always wrong, for I believe it is right on some issues. However, that is overshadowed by the fact that it claims to be *the* church, with infallible teachings and universal jurisdictional primacy over the whole church of God. When you claim that, your evidence should match up with the extravagance of your claims. I would argue that Rome has not achieved this.

The facts; Jesus said he would build a church,he did.On the rock,St.Peter,along with the other apostles,Foundation.What did they do,went and taught and added numbers to the kingdom everyday!By the end of the book of Acts they were all over the place.Dispite Martyrdom,dissension,persecution,and false prophets,they grew.They past-on there offices to others who grew the church,just as they had done.Over 300 bishops attended the ecumenical council at Nicaea 325 A.D.What was the Catholic church doing in Avignon in the 1300s?Or Washington D.C. in 2004?Did the Holy Spirit leave when the Apostles died?Has the chief cornerstone become a stumbling block for you?Can't see the forest for the trees?Extravagant claim is Gods!Early church had Baptism,Mass,Ordination,Confirmation,Marriage and Reconciliation and so does the Church in 2004!For indeed his body is real food and his blood real drink!

[II Paradox II]

You mean to tell me that God almighty sent his apostles out without a leader?
No, I mean to tell you that he didn't establish the church with one perpetual jurisdictional head in Rome who could not be challenged by the other bishops in the church on the basis of his infallible decree. The biblical situation and historical situation is quite a bit more complex than you present here. Rome's position is a root of schism and has been a primary cause of at least three major schisms, 1054 with the eastern orthodox which has yet to be resolved, Avignon which was ended by Conciliar decree, not a papal decree and the reformation which is still going as well.

Rome had a primacy of Honor, not of universal jurisdiction.

Mary is the Mother of God.(Historical fact)Mary is the wife of God.(Historical fact)If you were God how would you honor your mother?There is no one who played a larger role in salvation history,(save it be Jesus,son Joseph and Mary)than Mary.Pope Pius IX (1854) proclaimed Immaculate Conception.There is 2000 yrs worth of history,dominance in the early church isn't needed.
My point was about the historicity of the dogma, not speculative theology and philosophy regarding it. Rome claims these things have been believed throughout the history of the church. The historical evidence is less than convincing. As such, the theoligical speculation you present is not particularly convincing either.

Until you read the Catechism.Historical continuity,? I have a list of every Pope , Their name,birthplace,country of origin,date of accension to the papacy,date of the end of reign.It was Jesus who said he would build his church.You would do well to look at recent history, the issue of contraception to see the amazing results of the office of pope.
And how does any of this prove that the infallibility of the pope was always believed and held by the church?

I don't understand the point?
Do a search for "Avignon schism" on google. What you will find is that Avignon caused a lot of trouble for those in the church who advocated the authority of the Pope over ecumenical councils. While it may be a subtle point, an analysis of this period will show that the ecclesiology of the catholic church is more fluid than most people think. Again, this detail of history shows the extravangant claims of Rome about her own dogmas to be questionable.

The facts; Jesus said he would build a church,he did.On the rock,St.Peter,along with the other apostles,Foundation....Early church had Baptism,Mass,Ordination,Confirmation,Marriage and Reconciliation and so does the Church in 2004!For indeed his body is real food and his blood real drink!
The problem is that the details of history don't support Rome's extravangant claims. Rome doesn't turn me off because it claims great things, but because it claims those things without sufficient evidence.

ken

[eldermike]

We are debating here, and off topic. The question is, why have preachers if the bible is sufficient? Back on topic. No debating, the Pre rules apply here.

[II Paradox II]

We are debating here, and off topic. The question is, why have preachers if the bible is sufficent? Back on topic. No debating, the Pre rules apply here.
oops... sorry. =)

I'll try to stay away from it.

ken