question for christians

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The endorsement of Hebrews does not limit revelation to the Bible either.

Not to get too nitpicky with you, but...

Jesus' statement to Cephas is taken by Catholics to support the advent of a pope; by Protestants as a play on words to support the supposition of faith being the rock upon which the church is built. The latter seems more in agreement with the rest of Scripture, in addition to the exchange between the Lord Jesus Christ and Peter very shortly after this, when Jesus harshly rebukes Peter's 'suggestion.'

In addition, we do not see Peter in a leadership role in the formation of the early church relative to doctrine, as much as we see Paul in this position.

Paul's letter to Timothy is not recognizing the church's authority in forming truth, but in upholding the same. Calvin:

"The reason why the Church is called the "pillar of truth" is, that she defends and spreads it by her agency."

For more on Calvin's take on this passage:

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol43/htm/iii.v.iii.htm

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not to get too nitpicky with you, but...

Jesus' statement to Cephas is taken by Catholics to support the advent of a pope; by Protestants as a play on words to support the supposition of faith being the rock upon which the church is built. The latter seems more in agreement with the rest of Scripture, in addition to the exchange between the Lord ...[text shortened]... n this passage:

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol43/htm/iii.v.iii.htm

I have to point out that you had nothing to say on the fact that the Hebrews passage did not say anything about Revelation being limited to Scripture.

As to Papal Infallibility, there's a nice, detailed thread out there which looks at it in detail (and also brings in references from other early Christian literature):

Thread 32117

Start towards the bottom of page 2.

You'll also need to reference Nemesio's linguistic analysis of Jn 20:19-23, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18 (Thread 32008).

The Infallibility thread also addresses some of the Paul vs. Peter arguments.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Does it say anywhere in the Bible that everything about the Christian faith is to be found in the Bible? If so, where?

Let me ask you a question. If the Catholic church states a doctrine that is contrary to scripture, who then do you follow?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I have to point out that you had nothing to say on the fact that the Hebrews passage did not say anything about Revelation being limited to Scripture.

As to Papal Infallibility, there's a nice, detailed thread out there which looks at it in detail (and also brings in references from other early Christian literature):

Thread 32117
...[text shortened]... /threadid]).

The Infallibility thread also addresses some of the Paul vs. Peter arguments.

It says more by saying less in this case. My point was that there are no passages which affirm extra-(canon)biblical sources as authoritative for revelation outside of the teachings of the apostles, most notably Paul.

I'll look at the other threads referenced.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I think the deeper question is that if we are "commanded " to , what is the reason for being commanded to?

Good question. Who benifits from organized religion? Is it me? Is it you? Is it the people they may have an outreach for? Is it the organization? Is it God?

I would think that the ones that benifit would be the ones that the organization focuses on benifiting. If the organization focuses on helping the poor, then they will benifit. If they are focused on enhancing the kingdom in general then the kingdom of God will benifit. However, if the majority of the focus is self centered then the majority of the benifit will go to a few people. Keep in mind that if the focus is enhancing God's kingdom then we all benifit is some form or another. That should be the focus.

It is painfully apparent that Christ only lashed out at the religious leaders of his day. They knew the scriptures from front to back but only had an inward focus for the most part. They loved to be called rabbi and the acclaim that came with the title. They distanced themselves from the "common man" and lived in luxuary for the most part. The source of Christ's wrath was because they were on earth to represent God. They were suppose to be the shepards of his flock. They, however, dropped the ball. In effect, they were giving God a bad wrap and letting his people perish along the way as well.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I have to point out that you had nothing to say on the fact that the Hebrews passage did not say anything about Revelation being limited to Scripture.

As to Papal Infallibility, there's a nice, detailed thread out there which looks at it in detail (and also brings in references from other early Christian literature):

Thread 32117
...[text shortened]... /threadid]).

The Infallibility thread also addresses some of the Paul vs. Peter arguments.

The thread between you and Nemmy is specifically addressing powers given to the apostles at a given point in time and--- while not overly relevant to this issue--- nonetheless certainly does not deny what I have put forth so far. Namely, it is my contention that the Bible as the Word of God, is the final authority in life during the Church Age.

Further, I also contend that Scripture does not confer divine relevatory authority on any specific person or position, beyond the apostles' teachings and writings.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Does it say anywhere in the Bible that everything about the Christian faith is to be found in the Bible? If so, where?

Genesis 1:1- Revelation 22:21

Originally posted by RBHILL
Genesis 1:1- Revelation 22:21

Is that with or without the Deuterocanonicals?

Originally posted by whodey
Let me ask you a question. If the Catholic church states a doctrine that is contrary to scripture, who then do you follow?

Truth cannot contradict truth, whodey.

In what sense would the Catholic Church state a doctrine that is contrary to Scripture?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It says more by saying less in this case. My point was that there are no passages which affirm extra-(canon)biblical sources as authoritative for revelation outside of the teachings of the apostles, most notably Paul.

I'll look at the other threads referenced.

In fact, I contend that the Pauline verses on Tradition I cited earlier do precisely that - affirm extra-biblical sources of revelation; viz, Tradition. What's more, the Hebrews verse you cited does not say that revelation is limited to Scripture. So, the most reasonable view to take would be that revelation is to be found in both Scripture and Tradition.

If you consider Christian history, it becomes more obvious. For a few decades after the death of Christ, there are no Christian Scriptures. Even the Pauline Epistles will take their time getting around. Some of the Gospels have yet to be written. The only source of revelation for these early Christians would be the oral traditions and teachings of the Apostles. Even when the various books of the NT (along with others like The Shepherd of Hermas, Didache and St. Clement's epistles) get widespread circulation, a Christian canon is not decided on for another century or two. And when the Church eventually gets round to agreeing a canon, it is precisely based on their agreement with oral Tradition that they decide which books are divinely inspired and which ones are not.

Sorry, sola scriptura just doesn't go around logically or historically.

Incidentally, which canon?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The thread between you and Nemmy is specifically addressing powers given to the apostles at a given point in time and--- while not overly relevant to this issue--- nonetheless certainly does not deny what I have put forth so far. Namely, it is my contention that the Bible as the Word of God, is the final authority in life during the Church Age.

Furth ...[text shortened]... tory authority on any specific person or position, beyond the apostles' teachings and writings.

I want to direct your attention specifically to Nemesio's translation of the "power to forgive" verses in Jn 20, Mt 16 and Mt 18. As I show later in my discussion with vistesd in the 'Infallibility' thread, those verses can only mean infallibility.

Also, don't mix up revelation and authority. I'm not claiming we have new sources of revelation. I agree that General Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. What I am talking about here is teaching authority - the authority to definitively interpret revelation as it has come down to us by Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

To use an analogy, I am not talking about the Constitution; I am talking about the Supreme Court. You're mixing the two.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Truth cannot contradict truth, whodey.

In what sense would the Catholic Church state a doctrine that is contrary to Scripture?

Why did Martin Luther break off from the Catholic church in the first place? If I recall, the Catholic church was allowing people the oppurtunity to buy their way out of purgatory in order to finance work within the Vatican. This was such an outrage Biblically that Martin Luther felt compelled to act. He in no way wished to break from the church. After all, he faced a hard and difficult road for doing so.

My point is that man is fallable and sinful. We therefore need checks and balances to offset such erroneous teachings that sometimes spring within the church. The word of God should be used continually to ensure that what man is telling you is what God has said.

Originally posted by whodey
Why did Martin Luther break off from the Catholic church in the first place? If I recall, the Catholic church was allowing people the oppurtunity to buy their way out of purgatory in order to finance work within the Vatican. This was such an outrage Biblically that Martin Luther felt compelled to act. He in no way wished to break from the church. After all, he faced a hard and difficult road for doing so.

Martin Luther broke off because of certain abuses of indulgences by certain clerics within the Church. An abuse is, by definition, exceeding one's allowed bounds of action.

Nevertheless, it is true that indulgences could be obtained for financial contributions to Church projects. How would this be an "outrage" Biblically?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Martin Luther broke off because of certain abuses of indulgences by certain clerics within the Church. An abuse is, by definition, exceeding one's allowed bounds of action.

Nevertheless, it is true that indulgences could be obtained for financial contributions to Church projects. How would this be an "outrage" Biblically?

The teaching was nothing short of heresy. It reminded me of the story of the apostles encountering a magician who saw them heal people of their infirmaties and such. The magician then asked if he could be given the power to do similiar acts and offered them money for their help. The apostles rebuked him and told him he needed to repent for his wickedness. God's power is not used for personal gain. It is used to fulfill God's will and his kingdom on earth. His kingdom is all about pursuing his lost sheep who would perish otherwise. In other words, God's kingdom is not for sale, or at least, it should not be. However, the god of this world, or Satan, works through money and the lust thereof. All that God has to offer us is free. At least on a monetary level. God is not after our money, he is after our heart. Satan, however, is also after our hearts because he is at war with God. Monitary gain is a nice substitute at times for our God shaped void in our hearts.

To sum up, you cannot buy your way out of hell or purgatory. Their is only one payment for that which has been payed by Christ. This is the whole focus of Christianity and its purpose for existing. Anything short of this is heresy.

Originally posted by whodey
The teaching was nothing short of heresy. It reminded me of the story of the apostles encountering a magician who saw them heal people of their infirmaties and such. The magician then asked if he could be given the power to do similiar acts and offered them money for their help. The apostles rebuked him and told him he needed to repent for his wickedness. ...[text shortened]... whole focus of Christianity and its purpose for existing. Anything short of this is heresy.

The teaching was nothing short of heresy.

Which "teaching" are you referring to? The teaching on purgatory? On indulgences? On obtaining indulgences for acts of charity?

God's power is not used for personal gain.

I agree.

In other words, God's kingdom is not for sale, or at least, it should not be.

It never was.

To sum up, you cannot buy your way out of hell or purgatory.

I never said you can buy your way out of Hell. Nor can you "buy" your way out of purgatory either (who would you give your money to - God?).

Their is only one payment for that which has been payed by Christ.

Don't get too caught up in the "payment" analogy. 🙂

Anything short of this is heresy.

Read up on the doctrine of indulgences some time. It certainly isn't "short" of this.