Replies

Acts 1:11
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Sounds like whatever needed to be preserved in sacred Scripture, HAS been preserved in sacred Scripture.

If your church teaches anything that contradicts Scripture, then it is NOT a pillar and support of the truth. Being a pillar and support of the truth does not mean it has carte blanche to INVENT the truth - something the Roman Catholic Church has done repeatedly, though they certainly aren't alone in that error. Without the Scriptures, we would have NO assurance about what is or is not the truth. Human beings are notorious for playing power games and history is rife with it in the "church". When Scripture talks about the church, it doesn't mean one, institution that calls itself "THE" church, but it is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ composed of ALL believers from every part of the world at all times AND not even one member is unsaved. You certainly can't say that about the RCC, can you? No church can say that, either. So, no matter who someone follows or doesn't follow, the Scriptures ARE the record of Christ's teachings on earth and the further revelation he gave after through the Holy Spirit.

It is a strawman to pretend that, because some people "interpret" Scripture incorrectly, it means Scripture is insufficient. Sure, the church is supposed to be where the truth is found and taught, but it takes far more than an insistence of being the church. We were given the Scriptures so that we could KNOW what the truth is and God preserved it for us so that anyone who claims to be teaching God's truth can be confirmed by Scripture. God said through the prophet Isaiah:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa. 8:20)

And Paul stated:

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (I Cor. 14:7)

The Apostle John said:

Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. (I John 2:7)

To imply that, since Jesus never "commanded His Apostles to write a single word", that it means the written word has no power or purpose or that the Apostles who God used to write the New Testament were not doing so under the command of God, is ridiculous. What do you think the history of the OLD Testament's example meant to them? Unto the Jews were given the "oracles of God", Paul said, but that didn't guarantee that they could preserve the truth of God without those oracles (writings). No, we have the sacred writings for a SPECIFIC reason, and that is so that we may know the truths God has revealed. NO church, no matter its purported history, can be in authority over God's word.

You mentioned Paul's admonition to the Thessalonians to follow his "traditions" and to stay away from those who don't, yet in that very same chapter he said:

And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (II Thess. 3:14,15)

Sounds to me like there was authority in the WRITTEN word. Have a blessed Lord's day.

Did you read this closely before you posted it? He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Again, the Word of God isn't a book, It is Christ Himself. The Apostles were given power through the Holy Spirit to continue Christ's Mission of calling all people to Himself. To suggest that the Apostles were to rely on the written word for the propagation of the faith (which would not be completed until at least 42 years later!) is illogical. They brought their own testimony and referred back to this testimony in their followup letters to the churches they built. These letters were written through the authority given them to keep the churches in unity of faith with the Church established through the Apostles by Christ.

Sounds like whatever needed to be preserved in sacred Scripture, HAS been preserved in sacred Scripture.

Yes. However, Scripture Itself records that not everything is written (John 20:30 and John 21:25).

If your church teaches anything that contradicts Scripture, then it is NOT a pillar and support of the truth.

True.

Being a pillar and support of the truth does not mean it has carte blanche to INVENT the truth - something the Roman Catholic Church has done repeatedly, though they certainly aren't alone in that error.

An example for our discussion, please?

Without the Scriptures, we would have NO assurance about what is or is not the truth. Human beings are notorious for playing power games and history is rife with it in the "church".

Then it's a darn good thing this Church which plays fast and loose with the truth did away with Scripture so they wouldn't be found out! Oh wait. That didn't happen? You mean this Church is actually the one institution in the whole world which faithfully preserved the Scripture intact throughout the ages. Could it be, then, that that which seems contradictory may simply be the result of disagreement from those who reject the teaching authority of the Church? Likely.

When Scripture talks about the church, it doesn't mean one, institution that calls itself "THE" church, but it is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ composed of ALL believers from every part of the world at all times AND not even one member is unsaved.

Christ prayed that we might be one in faith. We are in the Catholic (universal) Church and maintain that unity with 13 other Churches who maintain communion with Her and with the historical Church back to Christ in unchanging doctrine and dogma. Where we are not one in faith is in the fractalized Protestant denominations where they reject the authority of the Church and claim unity against all obvious observations. There isn't one body and one bride where the members of the body and the bride are not in one accord.

It is a strawman to pretend that, because some people "interpret" Scripture incorrectly, it means Scripture is insufficient.

It is indeed! But it isn't my straw man. I never said this. Scripture is sufficient in its role. However, to give it sole authority is to deny the Holy Spirit Who Christ promised would teach us all things (John 14:26). If you close revelation with Scripture then we have been adrift for nearly 2,000 years with no further revelation of God. This isn't in keeping with Christ's promise. Scripture is like a textbook. It is correct and unerring. However, we still need a teacher to fully comprehend the subject matter (Acts 8:30-31). Christ promised us the Holy Spirit and the Church has been taught and led from the beginning. Remember that St Peter did not cite Scripture when pronouncing that the gentiles did not have to circumcised under the Law in order to partake of the New Covenant with the Jews (Acts 15). He did this of the authority given him by Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is a model for the Church... to recognize the truth and teach through the Spirit even on issues for which there is no Scripture to directly consult.

I agree! Good thing I didn't imply that...

No, we have the sacred writings for a SPECIFIC reason, and that is so that we may know the truths God has revealed.

More specifically, we have the sacred writings because they tell a specific story... the story of our fall and redemption. Again, there is more that Jesus said and did than what was recorded. What was recorded was so we would know of the revelation of God.

Sounds to me like there was authority in the WRITTEN word.

Yes... but WHOSE? St Paul's. St Paul is writing through the authority given to him as an Apostle of Jesus. Look at the Epistles and you should see a common trend among them... they are not a catechism of the faith. They don't touch on every subject... not even close. They are narrow in focus and deal with areas of concern where the churches needed reproof, encouragement, or clarification. In them, you witness the authority of the early Church for by them the Apostles kept unity of faith to a common witness. Their testimony of faith was comprehensive... their Epistle was narrowly instructive.