Posted on 03/16/2023 6:51:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Of course, and to be extra-Biblical means that what is taught was not predicated on what preceded it and was promised and in confirmatory conflative fulfillment or expansion of it, such as the promised Christ (Mic. 5:2) being the suffering atoning scapegoat (Lv. 16, Is. 53) so that men and Peter preached, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43) by which the promised New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-33) began, and thus thousands of devout Jews and then Truth seeking Gentiles believed. Glory to God.
For an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) And the Hebrew Scriptures testify to Jesus being the promised scapegoat and perfect atonement, and thus Scripture provided the **doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.
Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture.
For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15 And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11)
In addition that God could inspire men to write His word and provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written) has its precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The effeminate cuckold Noel Olsteen.
Man that ‘guy’ gives me the creeps
RE: The effeminate cuckold Noel Olsteen.
I think you meant JOEL Osteen.
Do you really think the teachings of the Apostles needed testing against the scriptures? As if the they would ever be in opposition?
They learned from the feet of Jesus.
The cancer of Sola Scriptura creates this kind of arrogance.
[[Let me know where and when you find this “perfect” church.]]
The first place I would suggest to look is the New Testament.
Note those verses that describe the church structure and practice during the time of the apostles, those who were given the special gift of the Holy Spirit and those who were witnesses to the events of the time.
Those persons could “self-sharpen” the description of the church; therefore, we can trust what we read about the church.
With that information you are able to make two decisions:
You are empowered to correctly recognize a church denomination that is modeled after the New Testament church, the one Jesus built on the rock.
You are empowered to correctly recognize a church denomination that differs from the New Testament model and is therefore a counterfeit church, one likely founded by a man.
Some claim that their church was founded in 33AD. yet it differs markedly from the model in the New Testament.
How is it run? By a hierarchical committee, a person, or elders, or pastors, priests, ministers, etc.? See Paul’s letters to Timothy.
Why do they celebrate the Lord’s Supper? As a remembrance? Something else?
How often do they celebrate the Lord’s Supper? As often as the New Testament church?
What is their answer when you ask them to tell you how to become a Christian? Is it biblical — entirely, not just partially?
Why do they baptize you?
How do they baptize you?
Do they baptize babies?
Is baptism necessary to be saved?
Is their music in line with the music of the New Testament church?
Congregations who are doing their best to be like the New Testament church are out there. They are also on TV — it might take some research to find them. The signal to noise ratio is quite low.
Caveat: Check for the outside culture creeping into the fabric of the church. See 1 Corinthians 1.
The Lord’s church is out there; you will know when you find it.
This essay speaks truth.
There is no point whatsoever in cherry-picking which parts of the gospel one will believe, and which not, and still thinking oneself a Christian.
All sin and fall short of the glory of God. All need repentance and salvation to enter the Kingdom of heaven.
Jesus came not to bring peace, but the sword; at some point, every true believer must distinguish himself from unbelievers, and separate himself however possible, whether it is choosing one’s companions, or determining without fudging that which is “Caesar’s” and that which is God’s.
Jesus came to bring truth to those who can hear the truth.
You mean did first century souls need to ascertain (by Scriptural substantiation) the veracity of itinerant preachers whom the historical magisterium rejected, or should they have followed the Catholic model for assurance of doctrine, and trusted the judgment of the latter?
Rather, the Spirit commends ("noble") those who ascertained the veracity of the apostles in the light of Scripture, and who established their truth claims upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, vs. pedigree and self-exaltation, as per Rome.
You really have no other choice in this dilemma. You as a first century seeker of Truth either judge the doctrine, holiness, power and character of these men of as being Scriptural and thus follow them, or you rest upon the judgment of those whose function it was to certify or reject such.
Which is why they demanded of Christ,"By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28) Which the Lord responded to by demanding they confess "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me." (Mark 11:30) Which they responded to by lying, since unlike them, it was the common people who rightly "counted John, that he was a prophet indeed," (Mark 11:32) and heard Jesus gladly, (Mark 12:37)
Thus the NT began upon dissenters, not upon the premise of faith in magisterial veracity, which is effectively your alternative to SS (not false conceptions of it), in which the word of God only consists of and means what she defines it as being. Or used to for TradCaths. . The cancer of Sola Scriptura creates this kind of arrogance.
The arrogance is diminishing the only wholly God-inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed is all one you, as a supporter of the cancer of Catholicism - though not without some healthy aspects.
So which denomination do you think is the right one? And how do you think you’ll ever really know? Churches are full of people who think they’re in a “biblical” church. Are they deluded or purposely choosing the wrong church?
And the whole question of if the church is biblical is ridiculously. There wasn’t even a cannon of the bible until the 4th century (which we compiled) do the gospel was transmitted by hearing and traveling preachers as Jesus commanded.
So once again is the right denomination:
Baptist
Methodist
Church of Christ
Church of God
Unitarian
Presbyterian
Anglican
Episcopalian
Fundamentalist
Lutheran
Pentacostal
Seventh Day Adventist
Eastern Orthodox
Quaker
Mennonite
Or any of the other tens of thousands out there that think they’re right?
One, holy, Catholic Church.
Which is not an argument against the fact that the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As stated, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings (most of the Bible in fact) had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) And thus Scripture came before the church, and provided the **doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for it.
So which denomination do you think is the right one? And how do you think you’ll ever really know? Churches are full of people who think they’re in a “biblical” church. Are they deluded or purposely choosing the wrong church?
That also is simply not an argument against the manifest truth that it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the apostles were established as being of God, and not according to the Catholic means under its the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, which is essentially what cults promote.
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources)
And the reality is even under that model for assurance of belief then it still does not prevent the problem of variant interpretations of the Interpreter. Thus not only have those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basic literal hermeneutic long testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death, despite divisions on issues most RCs care little about - but Catholicism exists in schisms (besides with the EO) and sects.
I recently had a a debate with a follower of Pope Michael of Kansas, while plenty of your comrades here have no living pope. With opinions such as,
"Bergoglio the Heretic;"
"preaches and authors heresy;"
"the material and formal heretic;"
this fraud of a pope;
“an apostate,”
"he's not a Catholic;"
"Pope Frank..protestant;"
"The Impopester;"
"The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell;"
"...for which our poor, beleaguered pontiff is nothing more than the ultimate poster boy."
For rather than creating unity, the Roman magisterium fostered division in the ranks. As one poster stated: "The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ”
Thus as a poster here stated a while back: 1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner Thus we have threads,
Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
And since Rome manifestly considers proabortion, prosodomy public figures (Ted Kennedy Catholics) as members in life and in death, then you must own them as brethren, and would essentially have us do that same by joining Rome, or become part of one of your fractured groups. All claiming to represent the true members of a imaginary one (and unholy), Catholic Church.
The only one true church is the mystical body of Christ which the Spirit baptizes one into (1 Co. 12:13) upon regeneration by heart-purifying faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and to which Christ is married, (Ephesians 5:30-32) for it alone only and always consists only of true believers, while the organic fellowships which believers are normally part of end up being admixtures of wheat and chaff.
We are thus in the days akin the declension of Israel, in which a relative remnant stands unified in heart toward God and in essential salvific Truths. One testimony to that is that by the grace of God I have about 30,000 audio tapes (broadcasting day and night in our apt over FM) of sermons covering about 300 years, but the grace of God. Very little disagreement, with predestination being the main one, such dispute even the pope could not settle.
I call it ‘processed’ Christianity - like ‘processed’ food. It’s devoid of healthy doctrine, instead it’s mixed with, Social Justice, racial reconciliation, and sprinkled with MSNBC talking points.
Unbiblical Christianity
Right up there with Jumbo Shrimp, military intelligence, pretty ugly, seriously funny...
You get the idea.
Did the devil make you do this?
Why am I suddenly reminded of my long-lived tagline?
WE started off with them seven churches (all Catholic I’ve heard) in asia.
They was pretty messed up from the getgo.
Paraphrase of 2 Chronicles 7:14
HMMMmmm...
What a ridiculous argument.
Is it??
It appears the word 'biblically' has caused some disagreement here...
Acts 17 kjv1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
While Jesus illustrated the fact that many of the Jewish leaders of His day were practicing a lot of stuff NOT found in their scriptures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.