Compiling of the New Testament

[jriccitelli]

Jon wrote; " There is definitely danger in thinking that you are free from deception with your own thoughts about God's word"
True, I will not be able to use the excuse; "God I was led astray by false teachers, it was not my fault". Or "I only believed what my Grandmother taught me". Instead I am guilty of choosing to believe Gods Word. When I first became a believer, I was led to find a printed copy of a Dead Sea scrolls page of Isaiah, at the Library downtown, and find the verse where it says; "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8). I don’t read Hebrew but I could take the letters one by one and compare them with the languages to determine that this verse was, at least to my own satisfaction, persevered. And also evidence that God would divinely keep His Word available to man, and me.

I think I explained earlier that, as Jesus said, those who have ears to hear would believe.
The Words are in common language and right on the page in front of me, why should I have another human 'tell me' what the words mean? The Words themselves teach the 'basic principle' to not trust another mans interpretation (without miracle or authority from God), especially when I can see the words right here in front of me.
I am doing everything scripture asks; Trust His Words, learn them, write them on my heart, search them, study them, examine them, gain understanding, show yourselves approved, do not be led astray, beware of false teachers who come to you in wool coverings, "Take my instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather than choicest gold". These things I find we are to do, and if we do God will guard our hearts, thats all we can do. It is as simple as that 'Trust Him'. I do not find anything that tells me to put my trust in man, in fact scripture (as I pointed out) says over and over not to put 'trust' in anothers interpretation, 'especially' when they themselves are teaching me that 'i must trust in them', rather than hold to the scriptures. Is not the Talmud, and other collections of Rabbinical midrash what Jesus Himself denounced as without authority?

We cannot demand that "our personal thoughts are free from error or diversion" and this is exactly why we cannot trust another man to think for us (in these matters).
But God promises that if you; "Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck, when you walk about they will guide you; when you sleep, they will watch over you; And when you awake, they will talk to you. (Prov.6:21-23)
Therefore the Biblical command is to trust that only Gods Word can keep us from sin and deception. (Is there not 'hundreds' of scriptures, stories and illustrations to this effect?) (And is there not 'hundreds' of examples of what happens when they did 'not' hear, fear and trust in His words and Prophets?)

1 My son, keep my words And treasure my commandments within you.
2 Keep my commandments and live, And my teaching as the apple of your eye.
3 Bind them on your fingers; Write them on the tablet of your heart.
4 Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," And call understanding your intimate friend;
5 That they may keep you from an adulteress, From the foreigner who flatters with her words. (Prov. 7:1-5)
I have never read a verse, in any translation, that instructs me to tie a Pope, or the Roman Catholic church around my neck.

[darinhouston]

Darin,

It sounds like you are implying that the RCC teaches that their Tradition is greater than Scripture. They teach that Scripture and Tradition are equal in authority and do not contradict. Based on your comments it seems like you believe Scripture is the only authority.

No, I'm implying that the RCC teaches that their Tradition is equal to Scripture. I find no basis for that unless, as I indicated above, one can point to a Tradition and show that it has Apostolic attestation. You believe your bishops have apostolic authority and so their teachings require only their own attestation. That is where we depart. Also, Scripture is not the only authority, but it is supreme, and any Tradition not finding support in Scripture is at least suspect. Others are quite contrary to Scripture (such as intercessors besides Christ, or Mary's lack of original sin, the list is long...)

Clearly if something is passed down by Tradition it is not necessarily in Scripture. Yet, you turn to scripture to judge the Tradition. Using this method you will probably never consider the RCC position.

That isn't necessarily true -- there is overlap.

If I accepted your judgement that the RCC is contradictory and I decided to look for the true Church, where would you have me turn? Is there any Christian group that does not contract themselves or scripture by the same standard you are judging the RCC by?

All men are prone to contradiction. I don't judge them by that standard because it isn't a Hallmark of their authority. I also look to "authorities" within the church (elders/teachers) for wisdom/teaching/judgment -- I don't accept their theological positions as authoritative. They don't suggest they are -- if they did, I would hold them to the same standard as the RCC or any cultic organization. But, as Steve pointed out, there isn't a "true Church" as you seek it in the form of an organization or congregation. The true church is the organic whole of all believers. We should commune with them all and seek no authorities among them. Individual congregations and denominations aren't the "church."

[Jon]

If I accepted your judgement that the RCC is contradictory and I decided to look for the true Church, where would you have me turn? Is there any Christian group that does not contract themselves or scripture by the same standard you are judging the RCC by?

Why must you turn to a group? All groups are flawed. Why not just walk with Jesus and enjoy the company of others who do so?

You would have to define what you mean by "flawed" and "walk with Jesus" for me to give you an appropriate answer to your question.

[Jon]

John,

Your logic does not follow. You say to not trust any man, that God can give the Truth to you personally. But you also say God tells us not to trust ourselves. If both are true then there is no path for you to find the Truth.

If God DOES lead us all to the Truth personally, then why can't we meet, talk about it, and have the same ideas about God and the Truth and salvation? Since we all have differences of opinion, yet there is only one Truth, then God cannot be giving all of us those idea, as God would not contradict himself.

2 Keep my commandments and live, And my teaching as the apple of your eye.

So does a man need to keep the commandments for salvation? This sentence would seem to imply so.

[Jon]

All men are prone to contradiction. I don't judge them by that standard because it isn't a Hallmark of their authority. I also look to "authorities" within the church (elders/teachers) for wisdom/teaching/judgment -- I don't accept their theological positions as authoritative. They don't suggest they are -- if they did, I would hold them to the same standard as the RCC or any cultic organization. But, as Steve pointed out, there isn't a "true Church" as you seek it in the form of an organization or congregation. The true church is the organic whole of all believers. We should commune with them all and seek no authorities among them. Individual congregations and denominations aren't the "church."

How can you have an organic whole of all believers who believe all different things about God and Jesus and salvation? It can't be one flock one shepherd if nobody believes the same truths.

If you commune with other believers then you ARE forming a group, whether you call it a congregation or denomination or commune. It's still a group, and as you and Steve have said, all groups are flawed. So, when you meet with other Christians to "walk with Jesus" in a group your gathering and discussion must also be flawed. It does not follow logically that God reveals to truth to all men as individuals yet when they meet to help spread the Word that suddenly the group becomes flawed. By your logic it is better for a man to find God on his own without any direction from other men. It seems like some distributist view of Christianity - nothing organized, everything local. If that was true of Christianity through the ages then the Bible would likely have long since disappeared from existence.

I disagree that you have the correct definition of "true Church". I would say the true Church is the organic whole of all believers who believe in the one, same, Truth. This cannot exist in your model of Christianity. There is a true Church, you just choose not to accept it.

[Paidion]

The basis of unity of the Body of Christ is not philosophical or theological agreement, but rather is submission to Christ. This expresses itself in willingness to follow Christ's teachings, for example, as He expressed them in the "sermon on the mount." After giving these instructions for living, Jesus said:

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7:24-27)

Catholics do not agree concerning the teachings of their church, any more than the Protestants. For example, many Catholics believe their church is wrong concerning its edicts against the use of birth control.

Throughout the centuries, the church leaders did not agree in their interpretation of scripture and their understanding of the atonement, Christology, and eschatology.
I have already pointed out that the church in the first centuries taught that the atonement was essentially Christ's victory over Satan and sin. The Orthodox branch continues in that view to this day, whereas the Roman Catholic branch interprets the atonement in the sense of penal substitution.

The early church taught that the Father begat His Son as a single act, before all ages. This is stated in the original Nicene creed. But when it was realized that this historic Christian belief was inconsistent with the Trinitarianism which began to be widely propagated in the fourth century, the church then changed the Nicene creed to read "eternally begotten."

If you believe the decisions of the Catholic Church are infallible, then you would have to believe that the earlier position was incorrect, and the later one was correct. But then, what will you do if the Catholic Church reverses its position in the future? At least one of the two positions is incorrect. In any case, the Catholic Church had to be WRONG, either when they affirmed the first position, or when they affirmed the second. There are dozens of other doctrines which have been changed also. Of course, you might take the position that God's revelation to the Church has continued to increase gradually over the years so that former errors have been corrected. But this seems to be a dangerous position to take. For this implies that whatever decisions the Church councils make, they are infallible, for God "preserves His 'One True Church' from error." In practice this can mean that Church councils can make any decision they wish, expecting the Church as a whole to accept these decisions without question. In the past there have been popes whom the Catholic Church has realized were not men of God at all, but scoundrels, and whom they have labelled as "anti-popes". Clearly God did not preserve the Catholic Church from being ruled by such evil popes.

[Homer]

Jon,

You wrote:

It sounds like you are implying that the RCC teaches that their Tradition is greater than Scripture. They teach that Scripture and Tradition are equal in authority and do not contradict. Based on your comments it seems like you believe Scripture is the only authority.

You have indicated concern that those posting here are not saved because thay are not members of your church. But are you in Christ? Consider the "Great Commission", literally translated:

Matthew 28:19
19. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, immersing (Grk baptizo) them into (Grk eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

So I ask you have you been immersed into Christ? Or did a priest sprinkle a few drops of water on you as a infant so you think you were "baptized"?

You say your church tradition does not contradict scripture but sprinkling is not immersion, which Jesus commanded. There are disagreements among Christians ("protestant") whether sprinkling is in the meaning of the Greek baptizo but this is highly doubtful. But the Catholic church doesn't feel the need to bother with this argument; they have simply asserted they have the authority to change the ritual. So here your tradition intentionally contradicts the explicit command of Christ.

Not only that, but in baptism we make a conscious commitment to God:

1 Peter 3:21
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal (Grk eperotema) to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The Greek word eperotema is variously translated appeal, pledge, answer, etc. Did this occur, on your part, in your "baptism"? Or was "baptism" simply something done to you? Do you, as Peter said, "obey God rather than men"? Could it be that your church is an impediment to following Jesus?

It seems to me that your church teachings and practices are an impediment. In my years at work before I retired I noticed that the Catholic men did not seem noticeably different than unbelievers. And just yesterday my wife and I stopped at a garage sale and I noticed a Christian book for sale. Hopeful that I might find some Christian books I kept looking, but then I found a soft-porn DVD. That seemed incongruous, but then I found some Catholic books and thought "that explains it". Do you think it possible that your church teaching on penance instead of emphasizing biblical repentance has anything to do with the incongruity? Is my impression wrong? Could it be an anti-Catholic bias? I worked with a number of Mormons and must say their lives were noticeably above reproach, and I am certain I do not favor their church over the Roman church.

I wish the Roman church was what it claims to be but I just can not find it credible.

[verbatim]

Jon wrote:

It sounds like you are implying that the RCC teaches that their Tradition is greater than Scripture. They teach that Scripture and Tradition are equal in authority and do not contradict. Based on your comments it seems like you believe Scripture is the only authority.

Homer wrote:

You have indicated concern that those posting here are not saved because thay are not members of your church. But are you in Christ? Consider the "Great Commission", literally translated:

Matthew 28:19
19. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, immersing (Grk baptizo) them into (Grk eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

So I ask you have you been immersed into Christ? Or did a priest sprinkle a few drops of water on you as a infant so you think you were "baptized"?

In KJV version Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
They were told o go and teach or baptize them in name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
If baptism refer to immersing by water (even water is not mention in context) how could one be cleanse when it is written in Jer 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
"Water" may refer to natural birth,
It is my belief that "water" of John 3:5 refers symbolically to the Word of God, as is borne out by other Scripture. Compare Scripture with Scripture.
The principle truth here is "You must be born again!" What does the Scripture teach about being born again? How is one born again?

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--One becomes a son (child) of God by believing on the name of Christ. Verse 13 goes on to say that we are born of God. It also tells us that we cannot be born of the blood, the flesh, or the will of man. Baptism is an act of the will of man. You decide if you want to be baptized. It is a choice you make. You are not born of the will of man. You are not born of baptism. You are born of God. That is the first thing one needs to note in this context.

Secondly: In the study of water we find that it is a cleansing agent. Though this is ought to be obvious to even the most casual of readers.
Take as much water as you like, and the strongest possible soaps that you can find, scrub as hard as you will, but you will never, never wash away your sin with water. Jeremiah uses this illustration because both water and soap are cleansing agents, otherwise the illustration would not make sense.
Water is a cleansing agent. So is the Word of God.
Homer wrote:

Not only that, but in baptism we make a conscious commitment to God:

1 Peter 3:21
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal (Grk eperotema) to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The Greek word eperotema is variously translated appeal, pledge, answer, etc. Did this occur, on your part, in your "baptism"? Or was "baptism" simply something done to you? Do you, as Peter said, "obey God rather than men"? Could it be that your church is an impediment to following Jesus?

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--Jesus uses the Word to cleanse His disciples. He says to us, that we are clean through the Word. The Word, like water, is a cleansing agent. The water is symbolic of the Word. Both are cleansing agents. Water does not symbolize baptism; rather the Word of God.

Acts 10:43 Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

1Jn 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

Thanks and God bless.

[Paidion]

Hey Verbatim,

You forgot to quote the words of Ananias to Paul (who was then Saul):

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

[verbatim]

Hey Verbatim,

You forgot to quote the words of Ananias to Paul (who was then Saul):

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

Thank you Bro.Paidion.

Yes! it is a great instruction that we must continue, stand up and clean away our sins by calling the name of the LORD. (?)