Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BipolarBob
The books of Didache,Ignatius,Barnabas,Justin and Tertullian are not in my Bible. Therefore they do not count as the Word of God.

Bob. Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?"  No.  The Bible Itself states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25).  These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition."  This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves.

And it would have helped if Christ, while He was here on earth, put this “new law” into practice since He is our example. Pretty careless of Him, don’t you think?

The Bible is not to be taken literally - "word for word".  The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally.  The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages.  Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind.  The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook." Jesus Christ did not write down any part of the New Testament with His own hand. As you just noted, if the Bible was to be the sole authority of the Church, shouldn't Jesus have written down His Own teachings?  Shouldn't He have at least stated something similar to the following:  "the written works of My disciples will be the authority upon which My Church is based?" Did Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct His disciples to "write down" His teachings?  No - with the possible exception of the Book of Revelations. Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity?  No.  Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament.  In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).

This is the problem with Sola Scriptura. To have the Bible as the only and sole authority of Christianity is to invite chaos into His Church.  There are at least 5 Protestant denominations created every year based on a different interpretation of the Bible.  Theoretically, anyone who owns a Bible can create their own denomination based on their own interpretation of Scripture.  Taken to its logical conclusion, chaos is what happens when the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is applied.  And Christ stated "A tree is recognized by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33) and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura produces "bad fruit" (disunity, confusion and separation).

The Bible Itself never states that It is the sole and only authority of Christianity.  The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in Scripture.  However, I totally agree that It is one of the authorities in Christianity, but where does It state that It alone is the only authority?

71 posted on 11/11/2007 4:12:25 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: NYer
I refer you to post #54 by DouglasKC, who I do not know by the way. Take special note of Acts 17:11 in which the scriptures were to be the test of whether a teaching was "kosher" or not. Here's another gem found in Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.I do not know how else to say it but that the Bible has to be the standard, and not any church made up of people who are by our very nature sinful. I include myself in that of course. We cannot supersede what God has ordained to be true and just. When we eliminate the scriptures as our litmus test we have given the devil an opportunity to entice us to partake of the forbidden fruit.
72 posted on 11/11/2007 4:40:33 PM PST by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
The Bible is not to be taken literally - "word for word". The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally.

Fine let's go to your quote of Mathew 16:19. This vague text could easily be symbolic instead of literal but it is one your church uses to claim validity. Christ was contrasting Peter (Cephas the stone) with Himself the cornerStone of the church. Christ is the Foundation of the church not Peter. Peter denied his Lord three times but Christ stood the test and fulfilled His promise of redemption.

73 posted on 11/11/2007 4:59:35 PM PST by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Let us call an end to this, shall we? I have lobbed you a softball - The change from Saturday to Sunday. It should have been easy one for an experienced person as yourself. I could have just as easily went a different route such as different popes positions on Galileo, torture, slavery, the inquisition and other such unpleasantries. I did not because I like you. I know you are sincere person. In return you did not call upon your ping list to flay me. We are even, are we not? Let us return to our corners and praise God because He is worthy of praise and worship. Amen.


75 posted on 11/11/2007 7:37:50 PM PST by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson