I Believe

[Timebuilder]

So I just make a couple quick points. Firstly, I find it hard to believe you equate having statues in churches to idol worship, like the Canaanites worshipping Baal. Dude, did you ever stop to realize that a staute is nothing more than a 3-dimensional photograph? So to be consistent, you'd have to rule out the use of any images of any kind that depict human beings. There are actually some fundamentalist Muslims who adhere to this - the Taliban. So you can see you are in good company. No wedding pictures, no photo album, no t.v., no movies. All are idol worship....you see how ridiculous is your argument?

When somone prays before a statue, as I have seen many times (usually a "bleeding" statue in a backyard in New Jersey) that is idol worship. It is not any more complicated than that.

You expect a long scholarly answer from a "fundy"? I know the Bible, something you are ignorant of. You can recite all of the church history you like, my friend. The church you defend is a church made by men, not God. According to the Bible, WE are the church, the believers, not a structure of misguided people leading the lost to hell.

showing to your picture the affection she should reserve for you alone.... that is basically what you're saying and I think the idiocy of it refutes itself.

You are acting like an idiot. I'm sorry. There is no nice way to describe someone who knowingly behaves in an unintelligent manner. If my wife (had I one) was staring longingly at my picture, she would not be worshipping my picture, since I am not being raised by anyone to the level of a deity by prayers made in my name. If, on the other hand she was staring at a picture of Mary, and reciting a repetitive prayer instead of directing her heartfelt and original prayer to God, she would indeed meet the standard of idol worship, since the Bible directs her to have "no other gods before Me (God)".

I like how you accuse me of making a straw man, when you have enough straw yourself to rebuild the temple. Shall we continue?

that's right out of the Gospel. Now the Lord clearly wasn't talking about faith here....."do the will" implies actions, i.e. works.

Only in your mind, my friend. It is God's will that we study His word dilligently, which is never done in a Catholic environment. Any doubt about the place of works is clearly settled in Ephesians 2:8-9.

"So you see it by his works that a man is saved, and not by faith alone."

Let's see if your quote is accurate, and in context. That's easy.

2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

2:15
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,

2:16
and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?

2:17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

2:18
But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

2:19
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!

2:20
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

2:22
Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

2:23
And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.

2:24
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.


All of this is very clear to the astute student. Faith is the keystone of the New Covenant, and James is exorting fellow Christians to act upon the fact of their faith, not sitting around doing nothing as a consequence of having faith. James, the half brother of Jesus, was the first to record a New Testament scripture, between 45 and 50 AD. He was in complete agreement, and in fact was the leader of the Jerusalem Conference, articulating its findings as being in acoord with Acts 15:1-35 which clarifies that salvation is imparted by grace alone. This is a direct result of faith.

So, James does NOT say that slavation is a result of works, he says that works should be a result of the faith that brings grace. In verse 24, he says the man is justified by works and faith, and any doubt about the preeminent impotance of faith is supported by the totality of scripture. Don't be confused by this, as so many have been. Re-read Ephesians 2:8-9.

So when you say faith is all that matters for salvation...you directly contradict Jesus Christ Himself.

You are drawing conclusions that no one else does. I will be happy to go on with this, but I will insist that you provide scriptural references. You were already wrong about your quote from James, and I am certain that your conclusions are incorrect. If you want to suport them, show me your references and I will be happy to show you where your confusion arises.

Catholicsm contradicts Jesus Christ, since it is He who speaks to us as God, both before and after His incarnation. So if you devise a religion that contradicts the Bible, you are indeed contradicting Christ. You have only to look at what may be the most famous scripture of all, John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." This boldface word means placing your faith in Christ for salvation. No one made this up. It's a Bible fact.

But the deeper question is: why do you assume every belief must be spelled out in the Bible? Where in the bible does it say that? It doesn't say it anywhere...so your very starting assumption is un-Biblical and your entire belief system is self-contradictory.

The very basis of the Bible is what it tells us, not what it does not tell us. It is a whole document, complete and perfect. What does the Bible say about "other doctrines"? Read it, and weep:

Galatians 1: 8-9

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Revelation 22: 19
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Revelation 14:6
Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth--to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people--


More to the point, we need to look at what the Bible says about those who practice beliefs outside the teachings of the Bible, which is God's ONLY scripture to us. All through the Bible we are directed away from any notion of additional, supplemental, or any other source of doctrine that is not the doctrine of the Bible. Sometimes the practioners are merely rebuked or corrected. In more severe cases, they are completly eliminated.

Let me be clear: the Bible was NEVER INTENDED TO BE A CATECHISM OF THE FAITH!! It nowhere claims to be so. And if you think about it...how could it? St. Paul for example wrote his epistles to various Christian communities to address concerns peculiar to these individual cities....he never set out to make a comprehensive catechism of the Catholic faith. And he had no idea any of his letters would be adopted much later into Scripture!! And what about the fact that many different people wrote the N.T.? How could each have known what others would write and so ensure the entire deposit of the Faith entrusted to the Apostles would be covered? I mean, this should be so obvious I can't believe I have to point it out.

What a shame you are not a better student of the Bible. You would not be so confused. Every writer of scripture was directly inspred by God to write every word just as intended. The Bible is in harmony with itself, through many writers over time who could not have know of the other writers, precisely because of this direct oversight. No one was writing a catechism of the Catholic faith. There was no intention of creating a Catholic faith- only a body of believers who would embody the indwelling of the holy spirit, believers saved by faith, and following that faith by means of works. Believers following instructions like this:

Matthew 6:7 says: "And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words." If this is not a prophetic admonition to the use of "our father" and "hail, Mary", then I don't know what is.

 

[Timebuilder]

...then I accuse you of Bibliolatry. You place the Bible above the Church...and that is not only morally wrong and inevitably leads to spiritual anarchy....but it is also COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL. The Church formed the Bible; the Bible did not form the Church!!!

This is completely twisted. Let me help you.

The "church" to whom Christ referred is the body of believers, not an institution. Christianity existed before there was any such thing as a Catholic church. All of the New Testament scripture, according to Second Timothy 3:16-17, is "given by inspiration of God". So, apparently since God gave us this scripture during the timeline that you cite, He obviously was taking exception to the fools who had co-opted His ideas and directives and perverted them into something that was unrecognizeable to the body of believers that He had intended. Look at the entire scripture I cited from Second Timothy:

3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

3:17
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Need I point out that the "every good work" of verse 17 is predicated on adherance to the totality of scripture? I hope not.

Because guess who presided over the Council of Hippo that formalized the canon of the Bible in 400 AD? Yep - St. Augustine.

You mean that Augustine presided over the council, don't you? It was later that someone decided that he should be referred to as "Saint" Augustine. The important part that you need to remember is this: Augustine's words are just that: his words, just like my words or your words. He was expressing an opinion, just like you or I might. His words are not scripture, and do not have the reproof power of scripture. I have no problem at all. But you sure do. Tell me why Catholics tortured all of those people. Inquiring minds want to know. Actually, I already know the answer: they were following EVIL. Now that's a problem.

So every time you read the N.T. you are implicitly affirming the authority of the Catholic Church - since it was the Church that formed the canon and decided which books to keep (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc...) and which to reject (Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Clement, the Didache, etc -- even though many of these books were as ancient as those chosen and were adamantly claimed to be holy by some).

I think I see where we have our misunderstanding. You think that it was a bunch of HUMANS that chose the content of the Bible. It wasn't. God was in sovereign control 100% of the time, and still is. He works through whomever He chooses, and does His bidding perfectly. He even uses people like Luther and everyday parishoners, moving them to come to faith in Christ and to learn His Word. My church alone must have 40 former Catholics, and we aren't even a large church. They are all welcome, and devour the Bible with a hunger that is amazing and glorious. This isn't because of any other reason than God providing truth for His faithful. We give all of the glory to God.

The Catholic Church did not hesitate to make these decisions about which books were canonical...she unabashedly claimed to have the authority to do this...based on the commission given her by her divine founder, Jesus Christ.

If you believe this as truth, you are truly lost.

So your position becomes untenable - you accept the Church's claim to authority (at least implicitly) in regards to settling the canon of the N.T......but reject her authority when it comes to making pronouncements of doctrine and dogma!!

I'm starting to think that you should sit down and do some more study. If I am contradictory, then so is God. There was no authority of the "church" to form the New testament. God did that. The "church" has NO authority whatsoever. Not the church that you mean, and not my "church" either, ie: the building where we meet. The true church is the body of believers, and not a group of people who have made up their own rules outside of God's rules.

If you condemn the Crusades...then logically you must also condemn the Allied invasion of France in 1944....because both were military efforts to drive back an invader that had become an occupying power. And yes, the Crusaders did commit some atrocities along the way (causing the Pope to threaten them with excommunication if they didn't immediately stop the atrocities and repent...betcha didn't know about that)....but that no more invalidates the entire Crusader effort than the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg invalidates the entire Allied effort in WW II.

I condemn the crusades because some misguided "church" said that this was somehow "holy" when it was, as you say, nothing more than a military campaign cloaked in the robes of a priest. I don't think any church group was the official sponsor of the Allied invasion, though.

Don't let your blind hatred of everything Catholic turn you into a traitor to such a glorious and noble cause.

I don't hate anything Catholic, I hate evil. When I see what the so-called Catholic Church has done, even without the massive coverup of the pedophile priests, I am sickened. I mourn the losses of millions of souls to an evil doctrine supported by evil men. The crusades a glorious and noble cause? That's a new one.

My advice to you is to sit down and study the Bible, and then get on your knees and ask God to forgive you for putting faith in men instead of faith in Him.

None of the other "church fathers" you mention are fathers of "God's Church", which is the body of believers, according to scripture. None of the others speak with the authority of God, as the entire Bible does.

You cannot build a church upon a false doctrine. The church was supposed to be built upon a rock, and the church that you speak of is not upon a rock, but instead is on shifting sand. Christ is the only head of the church. Not a man.

And that is the truth.

 

[metrodriver]

Is this the same tread that was going on when the board crashed about 4 month ago? I've been too busy to really spend time here, but it seems sunday school is still going.

100LL: I think most churches are businesses. If not there would be no reason to sell bumper stickers, key chains and other stuff. No reason either to distribute junk mail (in the mailbox or on your door clip with the pizza ads), hang 20x30 ft jesus flags in the flag pole or make tv ads (my church is better than yours, like a chevy-ford pissing contest).
Never seen any of that stuff anywhere else in the world

 

[fLYbUDDY]

I think most churches are businesses. If not there would be no reason to sell bumper stickers, key chains and other stuff. No reason either to distribute junk mail (in the mailbox or on your door clip with the pizza ads), hang 20x30 ft jesus flags in the flag pole or make tv ads (my church is better than yours, like a chevy-ford pissing contest).

That is a stereotype. Not all Christians are involved in marketing a religion. I for one am against it.

And BTW--this is not the old thread it (this one) was started like two weeks ago.

 

[Timebuilder]

I think most churches are businesses. If not there would be no reason to sell bumper stickers, key chains and other stuff.

A business is a profit making organization, for the purpose of making the business owner wealthy. Only a tiny fraction of churches fit into this category.

My church is relatively small, yet we support over 30 missionary families all over the world, and a Christian school right here.

We sell no trinkets. Most bumper stickers and such are not produced by churches, but by Christian families who are tryig to support themselves and avoid welfare. Of course, this isn't always the case.

 

[whereamI]

posted by typhoon1244

Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fear to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death.

--Roman historian Polybius

Can anyone explain to me why every civilization throughout history has derived some form of organized religion? Of course each different religion also purports to be the truth. What seperates the divine truth of your religion from anyone elses? Who is to say the parables and fables in "this" book are the correct ones?

 

[Foobar]

This thread sucks

This will help http://talklikeapirate.com/translator.html

The pirate speaks,"Can anyone explaint'me why every civilization throughout history has derived some formo'organized religion?o'course each different religion also purportst'be t'truth. What seperates t'divine trutho'your religion from anyone elses? Who ist'say t'parables and fables in "this" book be t'correct ones?"

 

[enigma]

Good night again, and stop your bickering because all that matters is Christ on the cross!
-Gary-

Gary, Christ is NOT ON the cross. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I thing that you meant your post differently. BTW, this leads to my biggest gripe with the Catholic Church, their Christ is still hanging there. Jesus died, and rose again; therefore he is no longer dead and hanging, he is alive and the cross is bare. The tomb is empty.

If I have mis-identified the Catholic cross, I apologize, but every time I go past a Catholic place of worship, or see a Catholic friend wearing a cross, it still has Christ hanging on it. To me, that symbol is a denial of Jesus' unique claim to fame, rising from the dead and sitting at Gods right hand.

Kid, I don't have time at the present to respond. I'll try more discussion tommorrow.

regards,
enigma

 

[Timebuilder]

The pirate speaks,"Can anyone explaint'me why every civilization throughout history has derived some formo'organized religion?o'course each different religion also purportst'be t'truth. What seperates t'divine trutho'your religion from anyone elses? Who ist'say t'parables and fables in "this" book be t'correct ones?"

I liken what your pirate friend is saying to many sets of choices we see everyday. Say you're a mouse, considering a maze. Which way is right? You don't know. You have no guide. Which car is the right one? Unless you have a great deal of knowlwege and anecdotal evidence about the designs, you may be lost.

The answer is that the Bible is the word of God. You can choose to accept that, or you can freely take the risk of refusing to choose at all. It's up to you. I hope you find your way, and that the way you choose is the one and only right way.

Choose wisely.

 

[TurboS7]

This is a great way to supplement morning devotions...I love it.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Response to Timebuilder

Timebuilder,

You say that God, not men, formed the Bible. Hmmmm....certainly I agree that the Councils of Carthage and Hippo were guided by the Holy Spirit in their deliberations...but fact remains these were councils of Catholic bishops...men of flesh and blood.

To say "God formed the Bible" is so over-reaching that it really says nothing at all. Since we know from history that the canon of Scripture had been in doubt...and then in early 5th century the Catholic Church called several councils that ended the controversy and formally settled the canon, I guess you're saying that "God" and the "Catholic Church" are interchangeable terms.

OK, maybe I am exaggerating a bit there, put my point remains. You can say "God" formed the Bible all you want...but it remains an undisputed historical fact that the Catholic Church (at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo) settled the question of the canon. So everytime you read the N.T. you are implicitly ackowledging the authority of the Church...whether u want to admit this or not. (And I don't expect you will want to).

If you really want to refute me...then expain USING HISTORICAL FACTS AND STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTIONS how the canon of the N.T. was settled!! To simply use a generalization like "God somehow did it" answers nothing and I think you are aware of that.

One more thing....after the Council of Hippo around 405 AD the question of the Canon of Scripture was resolved and no one questioned it for 1,100 years until Martin Luther came along and, ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY, this de-frocked Augustinian monk and ex-communicated ackowledged heretic took it upon himself to "remove" 6 books from the O.T. that didn't accord to his new theology. BTW, he also wanted to remove a couple books from the N.T. (e.g. Epistle of James, Revelations) but his followers expalined that the common people would never accept that and so talked him out of it. Everything I've stated in this paragraph is not opinion, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED AND ESTABLISHED HISTORICAL FACT NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN QUESTIONS!!

So here's my question to you.... How do you know the canon of your bible is correct? In other words...how do you know all the 60-odd books in your Protestant Bible are really inspired Scripture? You have no authoritative Church body to declare it to you and assure you it is so. And here is the kepper - since your Protestant Bible didn't exist for the first 3/4ths of Christian history, that means for all that time Christians (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox...and even various heretical Christian movements) WERE ALL USING A FALSE BIBLE !! And to this day Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (who make up the vast majority of Christians) use that same ancient Bible since they naturally deny that a de-frocked monk like Luther had the authority to single-handedly change the Bible. In fact, no Pope has ever claimed to have such power!! (nor has one ever attempted to do so).

So if the canon of the Bible could be changed after 1,100 years....it is completely illogical to state that it cannot be changed again in our own time by a modern-day Luther....esp. since only 500 years have passed now, not 1,100!! If you claim that could not happen....that no man in our time has the right to eliminate certain books and change the Bible...then why do you accept that Luther had the power to do it 500 years ago?? Who was Martin Luther to have such tremendous power vested in him? Would he not have to perform tremendous miracles to authenticate such a claim to authority? (Neither he nor his followers ever claimed he worked any miracles...except for the "miracle" of persuading a number of Catholics to abandon the faith of their fathers and embrace Luther's new theology).

And even if he had done wonders...ask yourself again if you would agree with any man today who claimed the power to change the Bible...EVEN IF that man performed some wonders or miracles or whatever.

To sum up, here are the questions for you:

1. When you say "read the Bible".....which Bible are you talking about? The "new" Bible only a fraction of Christians accept (Prot. Bible) or the ancient one accpeted by vast majority of Christians (the Cath. and Orthodox Bible.)? On what basis could a person determine which Bible to adhere to? (Remember the Protestant Bible is vastly different from all Christian Bibles that came before it - it contains 6 fewer books.)

2. Exactly how was the canon of the N.T. settled in the first place, if you deny what all historians ackowledge - namely that it was settled by the Catholic Church at Councils of Carthage and Hippo...(over a millenia before your Protestant religion even existed). Don't try to get away with "God did it"...tell us EXACTLY how it came about using historical FACTS!!

3. Who gave Martin Luther the authority to change the canon of Scripture after it had been settled for 1,100 years?

4. If some modern-day Martin Luther claimed the power to change the canon...how would you decide if he really had that authority or not? Why would you not grant him the same authority you do to Martin Luther? Do all de-frocked and ex-communicated former monks have a God-like power to drastically chage the Bible? Or only German ones? Or what?

5. Finally, try a thought-experiement. What if some traveler from the future came to you and said, "Hey, did you know 6 books in your Bible are bogus! They aren't really inspired like the rest of the Scriptures and someday in the future certain groups of Christians will reject them! Oh, who will decide that these books are un-inspired after all? An ecumenical Church Council? The Pope in Rome? The Patriarch of Constantinople? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Pat Robertson? No, my good man....a future de-frocked and ex-communicated former monk will ON HIS OWN authority decide to enlighten us that all our Bible have been wrong for all these centuries!!"

Now, imagine YOU are that time-traveler and you went back in time to the late Middle Ages - the quote above is exactly what you would have to say to some devout Catholic at the time!! And I'm sure like a good son of the Church he would laugh and think you must be completely unbalanced.

I will await your reply with interest.

P.S. To the guy who quoted Moses in Deuteronomy while making an argument for the self-sufficiency of Scripture: your quote has Moses saying "Do not add or subtract anythoing from these commands." Well, my friend Moses was talking about the Torah he had received from God and was giving to the Israelites....this was "the commands" he mentions. So if you really want to follow that quote...your Bible would consist of NOTHING BUT THE TORAH (first 5 books of O.T.)!!!! Anything else like the rest of O.T. not to mention the N.T. is certainly "adding to the commands" Moses was giving the Israelites!!

I'm not trying to embarrass you, just to get you to think before you speak (or write, in this case). The bottom line is simple and logical...without some outside authority like the Holy Catholic Church to declare what books are canonical...no one can know which books really belong in the Bible...since no book or writer can atest to his own inspiration. And you have proven you don't accept self-attesting "prophets"...that's why you reject Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, among others.

P.P.S. Timebuilder, you slam Catholics for "vain repetition" of prayers. It's not vain if you are praying with a sincere heart, my friend. And remember, the Lord Himself taught us to say the Lord's Prayer...are you saying each Christian can only say it once in a lifetime? If not, that what is the time limit before it becomes "vain repitition"? 2X a year you can say it? Twice a month? Three times per week? Or what? Or can you say it 3 times in a row, but not 5? Please enlighten us....

 

[saabtrash]

Guys, I don't agree with you on the topic of god, I'm not religious, however...you have a right to say what you want. I too have that right, and with that being said I have changed my avatar to forever honor this thread and all threads like it to come.

Word.

 

[skyking1976]

Nice Avatar saabtrash.... wish I had thought of it first...

SK

 

[fLYbUDDY]

To the guy who quoted Moses in Deuteronomy while making an argument for the self-sufficiency of Scripture: your quote has Moses saying "Do not add or subtract anything from these commands." Well, my friend Moses was talking about the Torah he had received from God and was giving to the Israelites....this was "the commands" he mentions. So if you really want to follow that quote...your Bible would consist of NOTHING BUT THE TORAH (first 5 books of O.T.)!!!! Anything else like the rest of O.T. not to mention the N.T. is certainly "adding to the commands" Moses was giving the Israelites!!

No. You are misunderstanding it. The verse (Deut 4:2) wasn't talking about the Torah, it was talking about God's Word, which in Moses and the Israelites case happened to be the Torah. Under the new covenant our Word from God is the Holy Bible. Same rule still applies for it. DO NOT ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM.

As far as you guys forming the Bible it is not true. The church doesn't decide the Bible the church discovers the Bible.



Here are some online sites that answer that.# 1

© 2001 by David W. Daniels
Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?

Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.

Here is a short history of the Bible.

1. Old Testament

The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no "church" of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God's word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.

2. The Inter-Testamental Period

The time between about 400 BC and about 5 BC is usually called the Years of Prophetic Silence. This is because God created a process that lasted 400 years to create a world climate ready for the coming of the promised Messiah. There was no "church" at this time, either. But there was the new creation of the "synagogue," since the Jewish people needed to worship God and did not have the Temple when they were in exile. When many came back 400-500 BC, they already had functional synagogues; and even though the Temple was being rebuilt by those returning from exile, the synagogue idea remained and more were built. This was the beginning of the "congregation" or "church" as we have it today.

But there was no Scripture being written during this period. That was yet to come after one came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17).

3. The Time of Christ

It is likely that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector and later disciple of Jesus took notes of what happened during Jesus' ministry. However, it is also true that were God in the flesh living among you, His words would burn into your soul. I am sure, as the apostles clearly recollected as they wrote the New Testament (2 Peter 1:16-21; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14), they could not escape the image and words of Jesus Christ, God the Son and Son of God, when He spoke into their hearts (Luke 9:44; 24:32).

But it wasn't a "church" that made them write.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


And

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not "inspire" anything.

4. The Church Age

When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."

There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians. Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures--they were not Scripture themselves. Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were "Lutherans" today, learning of God's word only what they find in Martin Luther's writings. Interesting writing, at times "inspirational" writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God's Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction. Now, 120 years after the switch from God's Word to devil's lies (the King James abandoned for the Alexandrian texts), while pretending to "improve" our copies of God's words, they really set up the abandonment of God's words. Now almost every Bible in the English-speaking world (and most other languages) is just another re-translation of the Alexandrian polluted stream.

Another way to view it is that the Scriptures as we find them preserved in the King James is like God's fountain ...

Jeremiah 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

And that's the point: The bible spewed out by the Catholic church, which now almost all Protestants and other Christians use, ... simply doesn't hold water.

and here is another,
# 2

Didn't Christianity consist of the Catholic Church for the first 1500 years?
No. While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, true Christians were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries.

God has always had His people, faithful to Him and His Word. They had no part in the Roman Catholic Church. Through much of history, organized religion has hunted and slaughtered God's people. For an excellent overview of this, read the classic work, "The Trail of Blood," at one of these websites

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Gary, Christ is NOT ON the cross. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I thing that you meant your post differently. BTW, this leads to my biggest gripe with the Catholic Church, their Christ is still hanging there. Jesus died, and rose again; therefore he is no longer dead and hanging, he is alive and the cross is bare. The tomb is empty.

What I meant was Christ on the Cross as the way we were covered from our sin. I don't mean He is still on the cross. I am just trying to follow after what Paul said "preach Christ crucified."

(1 Cor 2:2)
2For I decided to concentrate only on Jesus Christ and his death on the cross.

(Gal 6:14)
14As for me, God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross,[1] my interest in this world died long ago, and the world's interest in me is also long dead. 15It doesn't make any difference now whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we really have been changed into new and different people.

And my point with even bringing that up is because I am sure there are some people out there that understand and receive the concept of the crucifixion and resurrection and maybe they call them-self a Catholic. Then guess what matters most? The Christ crucified part not the Catholic part.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Response to Flybuddy

FlyBuddy,

You, like Timebuilder, use no facts or logic in any of your argument. You make a lot of incendiary or very general statements with no specifics or factual evidence to back them up....

When you say "the church discovered the bible" that's the same as when Timebuilder says "God did it" - you tell us nothing at all. You give no facts or specifics to back up your argument!!

The fact remains that the Catholic Church fixed the Canon of Scripture at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (with St. Augustine presiding). Until that time, there had been much controversy over which books to include. Also, some did not want to include books that were included in the official Canon because it coouldn't be determined with total certainty if their authorship was really apostolic. The book of Revelation is a great example of this - many also objected to it's inclusion because of of its at times bloodthirsty imagery and it's stark difference with the rest of the N.T. books. The crisis over this particular book was resolved when St. Augustine suggested it should be included...but its imagery should be regarded as metaphorical only - an allegory of the eternal struggle between good and evil. I wish Tim LaHaye and the "Left Behind" people would realize that and spare us their doomsday tales based on a literal reading of Revelations.

So little generalities like "God did it" or "the church discovered the bible" do not change the historical fact. You may not like it, but the logic is inescapable...if the Catholic Church is a "false" church, then it was a false church that formed the canon of your N.T. and so you cannot put any weight or credence on your bible!! After all, why would a false and diabolical church want to include the truly inspired books in the canon...and keep out the truly un-inspired ones? Seems to me they'd do the opposite. Yet you accept the ruling of the those Councils!! (at least for the N.T. - I assume you accept Luther's removal of 6 books from the canon of the O.T.) To accept your "logic" one would have to be truly a schizophrenic!

As for the Catholic Church persecuting the so-called "real Christians" - YGBSM!! Where is your evidence for this? In the ancient world it was the Catholics who were persecuted by the Arians - St. Athanasius of Alexandria was forced into exile and almost martyred numerous times during his long life because he defended the Catholic Faith and refused to compromise with those who promoted the Arian heresy!! And where were your Protestant co-religionists at this time? (this was in the 4th century). Where were they when they were needed to help defend the Faith? Remember the Arians denied the divinity of Christ and if they had triumphed over the Catholic Church...Christianity as we know it would not exist today! The Church fought tooth and nail, at great danger to herself since the Emperor and most of the Roman court adopted Arianism, to defend the truth of Christ's divinity. This is pretty strange behavior for a "false" church, wouldn't you say?

In the 1200's it is true Catholics persecuted the Albigensian heretics of southern France - I don't dispute that. But you must remember what they were fighting against. These particular heretics taught all flesh was irredeemably evil and therefore to marry was a sin, and so was pro-creation....but fornication was a much better choice, so they promoted free love. You can imagine the effect this would have on even secular society if it became widespread - the destruction of the family unit, an alarming increase in abandoned children, destitute women and children, etc. Not to mention the Albigensians taught it was a sin to take an oath or make a contract....and since these were the basis of feudal society, commerce and crafts, guilds, etc would collapse as well. I'm only describing the secular effects here, not the spiritual ones, to demonstrate that the heretics were a threat to medieval society and therefore that society had the right to defend itself against these revolutionaries whose teachings seem to openly promote anarchy.

As for persecution in the Reformation, we know both sides (Prots. and Caths.) persecuted each other. Doesn't make it right for either side. I make no apologies there. However, I am aware of no Catholic persecution of Protestants in the post-Reformation period that comes close to the genocidal savagery the English Protestants unleashed against the Catholics of England (and even more horrifically in Ireland) over a period of centuries. So be careful about calling the kettle black....

Again I mention that the Church Fathers always describe Catholic teachings in their letters, never Protestant. You respond with..."Those letters written by Church Fathers aren't inspired Scripture". You see, you refute a point I never made....that is called "setting up a straw man" and any student of debating will easily recognize the technique.

Remember, I never said the writings of the Church Fathers were equal to inspired Scripture...so you repute a point I wasn't making! I was merely trying to show that Catholic beliefs and practices are ancient in age....and go all the way back to apostolic times. Time and time again these ancient writings refer to things like sacramental Confession, prayers to the dead and to saints, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, priests and bishops having authority to annoint the sick or administer Holy Orders, infant baptism, etc. THERE ARE NO ANCIENT WRITINGS SUPPORTING PROTESTANT BELIEFS!!! And for a very good reason...there were no Protestants until the time of Martin Luther 1,500 years after the founding of the Catholic Church with St. Peter at its head.

If you want to say there were Protestants back then...let's hear some proof. Let's name names. After all, I can state there were Japanese living in Florida 1,000 years ago....I can say it over and over and you cannot refute it - unless we get into specifics. Then you can show my position is untenable. Same thing applies here. So tell us who these mythical ancient Protestants were, where were their churches, where was their doctrine, who were their leaders or preachers or what have you, etc.

By the way, if you even suggested to any serious historian there were Protestants in the first 1,000 years of Christianity....you'd get laughed out of the room. You know that as well as I do. So let's stop kidding ouselves, shall we? Thank you.

 

[Timebuilder]

You say that God, not men, formed the Bible.

No, I say that the BIBLE says that.

2Tim 3:16, specifically. This also means that there is NO scripture in the Bible that is NOT inspired by God.

So everytime you read the N.T. you are implicitly ackowledging the authority of the Church...whether u want to admit this or not. (And I don't expect you will want to).

What this means is very clear: God used men to make His inerrant word include exactly the scripture He desired. It does not mean that because they were members of the Rotary Club that this organization should be taken to be the outfit in charge of creating doctrine, any more than this group's religious affiliation should imply that their organization should see itself as being granted special consideration in this area.

To simply use a generalization like "God somehow did it" answers nothing and I think you are aware of that.

I am aware that God, through His Word, tells us EXACTLY what we need to know about how the Bible was created. Aside from the scripture writers, those men who directly formed the words on paper, any so-called "historical" perspective is meaningless, at least to a believer. It no doubt has great meaning to someone who is not a believer. Someone like yourself, perhaps.

So here's my question to you.... How do you know the canon of your bible is correct? In other words...how do you know all the 60-odd books in your Protestant Bible are really inspired Scripture? You have no authoritative Church body to declare it to you and assure you it is so.

Another good question, and from a doubter. I AM impressed.

God does not make mistakes. He is inerrant. He has declared His word as inerrant through the criptures themselves, and explained that ALL scripture is from HIM.

No "authoritative" church hierarchy necessary.

And here is the kepper - since your Protestant Bible didn't exist for the first 3/4ths of Christian history, that means for all that time Christians (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox...and even various heretical Christian movements) WERE ALL USING A FALSE BIBLE !!

While there is no doubt that a great many "church" people were using a set of scriptures (not yet a "Bible", really), there is no definitive evidence that ALL people, particulary those who has trusted in Christ already based on faith, were in fact practicing false doctrine. We can speculate that some may not have even had access to all of the then-available scriptures, but the real point is that God had a plan and brought that plan to bear so that when people in 2003 would discuss the veracity of scripture, we would have an inerrant Bible upon which to rely.

One might ask why God allowed these other books to be floating about. The obvious answer is that is was a part of His purpose. We could ask the same thing about why God allows false religions to continue to exist. One answer is that He wants us to choose wisely and faithfully, discerning His truth and embracing it.

Would he not have to perform tremendous miracles to authenticate such a claim to authority? (Neither he nor his followers ever claimed he worked any miracles...except for the "miracle" of persuading a number of Catholics to abandon the faith of their fathers and embrace Luther's new theology).

First, God does whatever He wants, using whatever people, whenever He chooses. As for the miracles, only a Catholic would insist upon a miracle like Herod the King, begging for Christ to "prove himself".

When you say "read the Bible".....which Bible are you talking about?

Read the Bible that God has made available to you, perfected and inerrant. If you have doubts as to the identity of that Bible, ask in faithful prayer for His guidance. What does "faithful prayer" mean? If you are taunting God, or foolishly trying to taunt Him, you will not be establishing a covenant relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit. If you come to Him in reverance, asking Him to open your heart to His Word, you should be able to find your way.

But somehow I don't think that is what you are after.

Exactly how was the canon of the N.T. settled in the first place,

Only a fool would be concerned about this. It was before I was born, and that's the limit of my concern.

Who gave Martin Luther the authority to change the canon of Scripture after it had been settled for 1,100 years?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". 2Tim 3:16

For other curiosities, ask God.

4. If some modern-day Martin Luther claimed the power to change the canon...how would you decide if he really had that authority or not? Why would you not grant him the same authority you do to Martin Luther? Do all de-frocked and ex-communicated former monks have a God-like power to drastically chage the Bible? Or only German ones? Or what?

Let me know when you find one. I'll then pray the prayer of a faithful believer, and not a prayer of an unrepentant doubter.

5. Finally, try a thought-experiement. What if some traveler from the future came to you and said, "Hey, did you know 6 books in your Bible are bogus! They aren't really inspired like the rest of the Scriptures and someday in the future certain groups of Christians will reject them! Oh, who will decide that these books are un-inspired after all? An ecumenical Church Council? The Pope in Rome? The Patriarch of Constantinople? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Pat Robertson? No, my good man....a future de-frocked and ex-communicated former monk will ON HIS OWN authority decide to enlighten us that all our Bible have been wrong for all these centuries!!"

This isn't a thought experiment, it is the babble of a doubter and a fool. And moreover, it is sad to see.

Well, my friend Moses was talking about the Torah he had received from God and was giving to the Israelites....this was "the commands" he mentions.

Throughout the Bible, God speaks on levels that are not available to the persons of the particular temporal period. God is above time itself, and this has been taken to mean the totality of scripture, since the Bible applies to us in a larger fashion than the people of Moses' time. Through scripture, God speaks beyond time to be relevant to us, just as He was relevant to shepherds and kings.

The bottom line is simple and logical...without some outside authority like the Holy Catholic Church to declare what books are canonical...no one can know which books really belong in the Bible...since no book or writer can atest to his own inspiration.

No human writer could do this, without the help of God. God, being a perfect creator, has no trouble doing this. The only problem is that humans have trouble accepting it!!

Timebuilder, you slam Catholics for "vain repetition" of prayers. It's not vain if you are praying with a sincere heart, my friend. And remember, the Lord Himself taught us to say the Lord's Prayer...are you saying each Christian can only say it once in a lifetime? If not, that what is the time limit before it becomes "vain repitition"? 2X a year you can say it? Twice a month? Three times per week? Or what? Or can you say it 3 times in a row, but not 5? Please enlighten us....

Before I was old enough to read the Bible, I would say the Lord's prayer. I didn't say it five times in a row to satisfy a priest. I said it once per day, as a part of my regular beginning of the day.

The scripture is Matthew, 6:7

"And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. "

So, my wiseguy friend, you are not taking issue with me, instead you are taking issue with God.

I will continue this with any real seeker. I will not continue with Kid Charlemange or anyone else who comes with a thumb in the eye instead of an open heart. For the wiseguys, I will turn the other cheek. It probably hurts less than the martial arts I studied, anyway.

As I have said, this is a matter of two things: the truth of the Bible and faith. You may differ if you like.

Just don't expect me to waste my time in a fruitless attempt to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This part of this exchange is now no more valuable to me than that.

 

[Timebuilder]

That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Hmmm.

Seems like we've been seeing some of this right here.

Satan is strong, and will work in unexpected ways, from places where you would never expect.

Any doctrine that attempts to separate God's Word from God's people can only be described as "evil".

 

[Snakum]

Personally, I ascribe to the Book of Doyle (Hargrave, that is. Of 'Slingblade' fame) ...

"And lo Doyle did sayeth thusly ... 'Well I don't understand any of it. This one begat that one, that one begat this one, and lo and behold someone said some $hit.'"

1st Condominiums, Chapter 6, Verse 3

Minh



Hey ... here's another one for the Christians ... (Jesus on the cross) "This is a hell of way to spend an Easter vacation!"

Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week!