Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?

Post Reply
tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?

Post by tom » Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:10 am

Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?


Christ came to give us a Kingdom/Church. Luke 22:29-30; "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

John 20:21-23; "So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on [them], and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Matt 21:43+45; ""Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. "


We see Christ giving the Church to Peter and the Apostles. Matt 16:18+18:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."


Christ said "take it to the Church". Mat 18:15-18; ""Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

We see this in practice in Acts 15.


Paul tells Timothy that the Church is the Truth. 1Tim 3:15, "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."


We see the offices in the Church. Ephesians 4:11-13; "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, "

Titus 1:7 "For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,"


1Tim 3:1 "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work."



The Church keeps the offices going. Acts 1:20; "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. "



Acts 6:6; "whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. "



This follows the OT Church all the way back to Moses. Exodus 18:25 "And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. "


Deut 17:8-9; "If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge [there] in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. "



I think this is reasonable to go to the Church. Nowhere do I see take it to the Scripture!

User avatar
christopher
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:50 pm

Re: Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?

Post by christopher » Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:30 am

So Tom, what does it mean that ....

Acts 17:10-11
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV


Shouldn't Paul and Silas, as leaders in the church, been offended that their preaching was being verified in scripture? Why do you think the Bereans were commended for this?

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?

Post by tom » Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:13 am

christopher wrote:So Tom, what does it mean that ....

Acts 17:10-11
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV


Shouldn't Paul and Silas, as leaders in the church, been offended that their preaching was being verified in scripture? Why do you think the Bereans were commended for this?
What you're missing is that Paul and Silas are the Church and the congregation is checking out if what they have said is right. The Bereans aren't using the Scriptures to change a doctrin, they are only checking if Paul and Silas are telling the truth. If they had the Scripture why didn't they already know what Paul and Silas had to say. Paul and Silas must have brought up something new they hadn't considered! Did Paul and Silas get their reasoning from Scripture that Jesus was the Christ? It doesn't look that way. It looks like they are trying to prove it to the Jews using Scripture.

I don't question that we need Scripture but the Church didn't come out of the Bible, the Bible came out of the Church!

Tom

User avatar
christopher
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:50 pm

Re: Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?

Post by christopher » Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:10 pm

I guess I don't get the thrust of your argument. I assume that you're arguing for the progressive revelation of God through the authority of the Catholic church?

So then, what ought the Bereans have done if they found Paul and Silas' arguments inaccurate or inconsistent with scripture already revealed ?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?

Post by steve » Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:47 pm

Tom,

You cited:
Titus 1:7 "For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,"

1Tim 3:1 "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work."
It is interesting that you left out the qualification, given in both passages— "The husband of one wife." (1 Tim.3:2 and Tit.1:6). Why do you suppose you left out the verses immediately adjacent to the verses you quoted? Is it not that this qualification would disqualify every bishop and priest of the Roman Church, including the bishop of Rome? Would not these verses prove that not one man in the hierarchy that you recognize is qualified to be in the position he holds in the Church, according to Paul? Doesn't that raise questions about the authority of those leaders and their decisions—and about the legitimacy of the organization that ordained them, contrary to the apostolic instructions? Surely it should do so!

Where does the Bible say to consult the scriptures, you ask? That's like asking where, in this present post of mine, is there found any assumption that you should read this post and take its contents seriously? Obviously, the fact that I take the trouble to write it means that I wish for it to be read and heeded. When the scriptures were written, we may safely assume, they were written to be read, believed and followed. Thus every line of scripture beckons us to "go to the scriptures" for guidance and knowledge of the truth.

Upon any topic about which the scriptures are silent, we may safely consult the best extra-biblical authorities available for our answers. But to the extent that the scriptures do address any subject, they imply that we are to gain knowledge of that subject from what they tell us. If not, why would they bother to present the information?

The disagreement between out respective positions is not one of whether we ought to take a doctrinal dispute to the church or to the scriptures—since you believe in taking it to both. That is ostensively why you cite the scriptures in an effort to resolve our present dispute. Are you not, then, "taking it to the scriptures?"

In our present dispute, the real question is: When there is a disagreement between the scriptures and the church leaders, and they cannot both be right or believed, which of the two are we supposed to trust? According to Paul, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim.3:16-17). Paul's vote appears to be with the scriptures, since neither he nor any other apostle said that all church leaders are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"—and since church leaders have often been wrong, and have had to change their minds about numerous issues, I think that even you would not wish to impute infallibility to them.

You think that Protestants are arrogant in thinking they can understand the scriptures even to the point of rejecting what the ancient fathers and teachers of the church have thought about them. Was David, then, also arrogant in writing, in Psalm 119:

97 Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.
98 You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; For they are ever with me.
99 I have more understanding than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation.
100 I understand more than the ancients, Because I keep Your precepts.

Certainly this asserts that our teachers and the ancients may possess and confer less understanding than that which the believer might receive directly from his perpetual meditation on the scriptures. This is a very "Protestant" idea, isn't it?

Sadly, it is not fruitful to argue scripture with you, Tom, because you actually do not honor the scriptures. I suspect you do not study them. You quote verses without context that Catholic apologists have put into your hands, and you do not care about their meaning enough to check whether they are being used correctly or not. In fact, you would hold every one of your beliefs, just the same as now, even if there were no scriptures in existence to which you could refer. The teaching of scripture is superfluous to your epistemological approach. You only cite scriptures in the debate because you know that Protestants require scriptural proof in order to be convinced.

Your apologists, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, know that the average Protestant churchman is as biblically illiterate as is the average Catholic (or the average Jehovah's Witness). Therefore, some illiterate Protestants may be convinced that there is a biblical case for the Catholic (or the Jehovah's Witness) beliefs by a mere citation of a few lines from a few Bible verses taken out of context. Most Christians, like yourself, do not look at context and are altogether unfamiliar with the way a single verse may fit into an author's train of thought. (This deficiency, with its attendant gullibility, can be remedied by the simple expedient of one's making a serious effort to study and meditate upon the scriptures).

The problem is, in this forum, and on the radio program, you are communicating with Christians who actually care about the meaning of scripture enough to study and observe the context, and to seek an understanding of the authors' intentions. Your presentation of verses blatantly out of context in such a situation seems almost irreverent. That is, if you do not have enough respect for the scriptures to actually read, study and properly understand them, your integrity would be more impressive by your not pretending look to scripture for support of your doctrines.

I do not see why you continue to link 1 Timothy 3:15 with Matthew 18:15-17, nor the latter passage with Acts 15. Any person who reads these passages, giving words their normal meanings, and lacking a theological agenda to defend, will easily see that these passages are not addressing the question you are seeking to defend—nor are they all addressing the same subject among themselves. I have pointed this out to you times without number, and you have never even come close to showing me that they are talking about the same subject. You simply repeat them (I hate to add "mindlessly", like a cultist—but that is what appears to be the case) as if your position has never been refuted and does not need to be demonstrated to be correct. The bottom line is, of course, that you don't really much care whether these verses really make your point—nor even what the Bible teaches on this subject—since you are going to believe the biblically-disqualified leaders of your religious organization, regardless what the scriptures actually teach. If you have not demonstrated much else by your arguments, at least you have demonstrated this.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?

Post by steve7150 » Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:16 pm

Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?







Jesus said "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God" , which can only be found in scripture.

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Where does the Bible say to take it to the Scripture?

Post by tom » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:53 pm

Steve,

As you know 2 tim 3:16-17 is talking about OT writings. And if it's OT writings we run into all sorts of problems. Just on a practical point of view, Moses didn't just leave it up to the people to interpret Scripture on their own. He gave his authority to others and then to him to have the final authority (Ex 18:15+ 25-26). The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 18:27-35 had to have Philip show him what the Scriptures had to say. Even though it doesn't say anything about Jesus in the text Philip interpreted it to him that way. I know you've said that the eunuch didn't yet have the Spirit in him and that's why he didn't know what the Scripture said. So after the eunuch was baptized he could interpret Scripture correctly? I don't buy it!

We see in Acts 15 the real legitimate question was brought up by fellow Christians that we have to keep the OT law given by God through Moses. The Apostles may have been in agreement but they had to give reason for such a radical change from past to present. You seem to think this was a no brainer for the early Church but no doubt it was HUGE! They are changing what God instructed from Moses himself.

Steve, I'm a practical kind of guy. I see the OT Israel and the NT Christians not that different. They still had the physical side of their worship and I don't see them just going cold turkey into a spiritual kind of worship. But that's just me.

Peace,

Tom

In our present dispute, the real question is: When there is a disagreement between the scriptures and the church leaders, and they cannot both be right or believed, which of the two are we supposed to trust? According to Paul, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim.3:16-17). Paul's vote appears to be with the scriptures, since neither he nor any other apostle said that all church leaders are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"—and since church leaders have often been wrong, and have had to change their minds about numerous issues, I think that even you would not wish to impute infallibility to them.
I

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”