WHO IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY? DID GOD GIVE AWAY HIS AUTHORITY? Romans 3:4 & Acts 17:11

[Jude3b]

GOD DECLARES THE BIBLE TO BE PERFECT: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160).

THE BIBLE BOLDLY DECLARES THAT IT IS THE ONLY FINAL AUTHORITY:

"Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH." (John 17:17).

Paul even admonishes true Christian believers to avoid anyone who teaches doctrines contrary to the written Scriptures:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
(Galatians 1:18)

GOD'S WORD IS SETTLED FOREVER:

"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119:89)

"...let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

Not to long ago, pastors and teachers spoke God's Words with complete conviction.

"THUS SAITH THE LORD!" was often stated by the Preacher, or

"HEAR THE WORD OF THE LORD!" Would be how the Preacher would start out his sermon, by reading and quoting the passage of scripture that he would preach or teach about.

It seems that Christians used to believe their Bible and critique their teacher.

But that all seems to have changed now. People seem to think backwards now: they criticize the Bible and believe the teacher.

In reality, they say "Thus saith my TEACHER!"

Local congregations trust their priest or preacher, and college students trust their professors. Are they to be our "final authority?"

Jesus Christ publicly rebuked the Religious crowd of his day: "Howeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men..."
(Mark 7:7-8).

Jesus was obviously upset that the Religious leaders had elevated their tradition above God's Word. He even said to them:

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33).

The Apostle Paul didn't demand that people believe him.

Instead, they "searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

The members of the apostolic church of God - the body of Christ, would look and check to see if Paul was right or not.

According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, church tradition and the magisterium of that religion are just as much the Word of God as are written Scriptures.

In fact:

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE FINAL AUTHORITY! According to the teachings of that religion: "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit." (Page 26, #81 of the Roman Catholic Catechism).

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." (The 1994 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Page 29, #95).

So, Roman Catholicism is telling the world that their church traditions and their magisteium are just as much the Word of God, as the written Scriptures are. In essence they make themselves the FINAL AUTHORITY!

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the (Roman Catholic) Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrused to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." (Page 27, # 85 of the Roman Catholic Catechism).

Therefore, the Catechism of Romanism concludes that the one final authority is not the Bible, but the current teaching of the Roman Catholic religious leaders, since they are the only one qualified to provide an "authentic interpretation" of God's Word.

QUESTIONS:

1) Does the Bible agree with Roman Catholicism? In other words, if the Bible, tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are all, in fact, the Word of God, then the Bible should concur with this teaching. Does it?

2) Can we depend on the Bible being perfect?

3) Should we listen to the magisterium of Romanism or to Christ?

4) God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6) because He is perfect. His Son, Jeus, doesn't change (Hebrews 13:8) because He is perfect. Why, then, should God's perfect Word keep changing?

5) Should we sid with the Word of God or the traditions of Roman Catholicism?

[Jude3b]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: SpinyNorman

Back to back posting is not permitted.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[apostoli]

Oh Jude3b,

Why are you want to imitate the opposes of Christ? The priests of the temple, in their ignorance of scripture, asked Jesus a similar question: "By what authority, do you these things? And who gave you this authority?" (Matt 21:23-27).

What caused this confrontation? Jesus taught the spirit of the scriptures not the letter. Whereas, his opponents were so fanatical in their literal understanding of scripture, that they did not know the Messiah was in their presence.

The Pharisees, Saducees, Scribes and priests interpreted scripture incorrectly and preached their own understanding. An aspect of the preaching work that Jesus sent his disciples to do with all authority, was to teach the spirit and correct interpretation of the scriptures. (Mark13:34; Luke 9:1). A.Paul in his letters admonishes that sound doctrine should be taught and requires those he appointed as the shepards of the flock to gaurd that doctrine.

It is in this context that I will attempt to answer your questions.


Q1a. WHO IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY?

An interesting question. Whose interpretation of the scriptures should one receive? I would suggest a teaching that isn't contradicted when scripture is cited in full and in context and not in isolation of the message of scripture.

Q1b. DID GOD GIVE AWAY HIS AUTHORITY? Romans 3:4 & Acts 17:11

According to the scriptures, the Father delegated authority to his Son (Col 1:16-19; Phil 2:9-11; 1 Cor 15:27-28) and the Son invested the disciples with his authority and they did likewise to those who came to lead the churches (John 5:27,43; 2 Cor 10:8; Titus 2:15)

YOUR QUESTIONS:

1) Does the Bible agree with Roman Catholicism? In other words, if the Bible, tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are all, in fact, the Word of God, then the Bible should concur with this teaching. Does it?At least in one respect it outshines most other "christian" churches. It ensures a unity of belief as opposed to the mess of beliefs found elsewhere. It gaurds against false doctrine - such as those modalist baptists that preach another Christ.

The traditions you antagonise about are based on biblical interpretation. The understanding of the spirit of scripture. This has to be tested against the scriptures, but as Jesus taught, it is the spirit of scripture not its literism that is to be tested.

2) Can we depend on the Bible being perfect?A.Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture is inspired of God and is beneficial but in this context he was not referring to his own writings. It is a matter of faith that the church perceives the canon of the NT as inspired. To this day, there are "christian" groups that only accept Matthew, and/or reject various books of the NT especially Revelation. So, whose bible are you considering. If you mean the NT & OT combined then remember that this was collated by the combined church which in 10th century formally split into the RCC & the EOC. In all probability you preach the filoque, so you preach an RCC doctrine, which is not a doctrine of an orthodox Christian.

3) Should we listen to the magisterium of Romanism or to Christ?Undoubtedly to Christ! The greater question, is: Does the RCC teach against Christ? I find no evidence that it does.

One of the benefits of the RCC & EOC organisations is that it ensures protection of doctrine. Admittedly, when Rome was controlled by the Frankish emperors corruption existed in the church, both at a temporal and spiritual level. A.Paul complained of upsurpers in his own time as did A.John. And yet the church survived. It is the internal discipline of the church that cleansed the church. The opposite can be found in the independent churches where every manner of false doctrine is found.

4) God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6) because He is perfect. His Son, Jeus, doesn't change (Hebrews 13:8) because He is perfect. Why, then, should God's perfect Word keep changing?Valid point! Paraphrases such as the NIV, do corrupt the word and enforce particular interpretations. The KJV was mostly based on the RCC Latin bible and though it contains translation errors and a few interpolations from unreliable mss, it is reliable. One big problem is that the English language keeps changing. So many of the words in the original KJV are now archaic or have changed meaning.

5) Should we side with the Word of God or the traditions of Roman Catholicism?This is just a rephrase of your first question. A better question is should we go against A.Paul's advise and be independent in our understanding. Or allow such things as a traditional understanding of scripture to guide us. Of course, over time, some traditions of the early church have been modified, so it is always best to go back to the benchmark, the scriptures, to see if they are valid.

As you have decided to call your personal Sanhedrim together to judge, it may be timely to remind you of scripture and the words of Gamaliel: "Now I say to you...let them alone; for if [their] councel or [their] work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it be of God, you [will be found] to fight against God." (Acts 5:38-39)

[stabalizer]

THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE THREE "FINAL AUTHORITIES" OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM DISAGREE????

The three "fnal authorities are (according to Roman Catholicism) (1) the Scriptures, (2) church tradition, (3) the Magisterium.

Are they right?

I have a question that might answer your questions

Who signs your name in the book of life? You, God, or perhaps an angel.

My answer for myself is, "I do".

iow I work out my salvation with fear and trembling!

run the race as though to win.

Are you His ambassador?

[Jude3b]

Oh Jude3b,

Why are you want to imitate the opposes of Christ? The priests of the temple, in their ignorance of scripture, asked Jesus a similar question: "By what authority, do you these things? And who gave you this authority?" (Matt 21:23-27).

What caused this confrontation? Jesus taught the spirit of the scriptures not the letter. Whereas, his opponents were so fanatical in their literal understanding of scripture, that they did not know the Messiah was in their presence.

The Pharisees, Saducees, Scribes and priests interpreted scripture incorrectly and preached their own understanding. An aspect of the preaching work that Jesus sent his disciples to do with all authority, was to teach the spirit and correct interpretation of the scriptures. (Mark13:34; Luke 9:1). A.Paul in his letters admonishes that sound doctrine should be taught and requires those he appointed as the shepards of the flock to gaurd that doctrine.

It is in this context that I will attempt to answer your questions.


Q1a. WHO IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY?

An interesting question. Whose interpretation of the scriptures should one receive? I would suggest a teaching that isn't contradicted when scripture is cited in full and in context and not in isolation of the message of scripture.

Q1b. DID GOD GIVE AWAY HIS AUTHORITY? Romans 3:4 & Acts 17:11

According to the scriptures, the Father delegated authority to his Son (Col 1:16-19; Phil 2:9-11; 1 Cor 15:27-28) and the Son invested the disciples with his authority and they did likewise to those who came to lead the churches (John 5:27,43; 2 Cor 10:8; Titus 2:15)

YOUR QUESTIONS:

1) Does the Bible agree with Roman Catholicism? In other words, if the Bible, tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are all, in fact, the Word of God, then the Bible should concur with this teaching. Does it?At least in one respect it outshines most other "christian" churches. It ensures a unity of belief as opposed to the mess of beliefs found elsewhere. It gaurds against false doctrine - such as those modalist baptists that preach another Christ.

The traditions you antagonise about are based on biblical interpretation. The understanding of the spirit of scripture. This has to be tested against the scriptures, but as Jesus taught, it is the spirit of scripture not its literism that is to be tested.

2) Can we depend on the Bible being perfect?A.Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture is inspired of God and is beneficial but in this context he was not referring to his own writings. It is a matter of faith that the church perceives the canon of the NT as inspired. To this day, there are "christian" groups that only accept Matthew, and/or reject various books of the NT especially Revelation. So, whose bible are you considering. If you mean the NT & OT combined then remember that this was collated by the combined church which in 10th century formally split into the RCC & the EOC. In all probability you preach the filoque, so you preach an RCC doctrine, which is not a doctrine of an orthodox Christian.

3) Should we listen to the magisterium of Romanism or to Christ?Undoubtedly to Christ! The greater question, is: Does the RCC teach against Christ? I find no evidence that it does.

One of the benefits of the RCC & EOC organisations is that it ensures protection of doctrine. Admittedly, when Rome was controlled by the Frankish emperors corruption existed in the church, both at a temporal and spiritual level. A.Paul complained of upsurpers in his own time as did A.John. And yet the church survived. It is the internal discipline of the church that cleansed the church. The opposite can be found in the independent churches where every manner of false doctrine is found.

4) God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6) because He is perfect. His Son, Jeus, doesn't change (Hebrews 13:8) because He is perfect. Why, then, should God's perfect Word keep changing?Valid point! Paraphrases such as the NIV, do corrupt the word and enforce particular interpretations. The KJV was mostly based on the RCC Latin bible and though it contains translation errors and a few interpolations from unreliable mss, it is reliable. One big problem is that the English language keeps changing. So many of the words in the original KJV are now archaic or have changed meaning.

5) Should we side with the Word of God or the traditions of Roman Catholicism?This is just a rephrase of your first question. A better question is should we go against A.Paul's advise and be independent in our understanding. Or allow such things as a traditional understanding of scripture to guide us. Of course, over time, some traditions of the early church have been modified, so it is always best to go back to the benchmark, the scriptures, to see if they are valid.

As you have decided to call your personal Sanhedrim together to judge, it may be timely to remind you of scripture and the words of Gamaliel: "Now I say to you...let them alone; for if [their] councel or [their] work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it be of God, you [will be found] to fight against God." (Acts 5:38-39)

Dear apostoli:

Are you saying that you believe the "current teaching of the Roman Catholic" religion is your "Final Authority?" It also sounds like you think all of the doctrines of Roman Catholicism are correct and right, since their "Magisterium" is protecting all of us from error? Is that your position?

Does the Bible agree with you???

God declares that His written Word always has been, and always will be - perfect:

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7).

apostoli, the Bible - the book that God gave to us, boldly declares that IT IS THE ONLY FINAL AUTHORITY:

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17).

As far as Roman Catholic Doctrine being pure and true and correct. I will be very happy to list 15 or 20 aberrant doctrines of Romanism that are absolutely not Bible based and are wrong, including the all important ones that deal with salvation.

What do you think that God thinks of those like yourself, who put traditions of fallible men above His Word?

"But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach ANY other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8)

Thus when your Magisterium gives Roman Catholic doctrine that contradicts God's written Word, those like yourself who side with them against the Holy Scriptures will be "accursed." No, I am not the one saying that, it is the Word of God!

Yes, I know that is stong language and if you are mature, you can take strong meat. If not, you'll be accursed anyway, so what have we got to lose by my telling you the truth!

"Every Word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. ADD THOU NOT UNTO HIS WORDS, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

[apostoli]

Hi Jude3b,

Dear apostoli:

Are you saying that you believe the "current teaching of the Roman Catholic" religion is your "Final Authority?" It also sounds like you think all of the doctrines of Roman Catholicism are correct and right, since their "Magisterium" is protecting all of us from error? Is that your position?

Does the Bible agree with you???

God declares that His written Word always has been, and always will be - perfect:

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7).

apostoli, the Bible - the book that God gave to us, boldly declares that IT IS THE ONLY FINAL AUTHORITY:

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17).

As far as Roman Catholic Doctrine being pure and true and correct. I will be very happy to list 15 or 20 aberrant doctrines of Romanism that are absolutely not Bible based and are wrong, including the all important ones that deal with salvation.

What do you think that God thinks of those like yourself, who put traditions of fallible men above His Word?

"But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach ANY other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8)

Thus when your Magisterium gives Roman Catholic doctrine that contradicts God's written Word, those like yourself who side with them against the Holy Scriptures will be "accursed." No, I am not the one saying that, it is the Word of God!

Yes, I know that is stong language and if you are mature, you can take strong meat. If not, you'll be accursed anyway, so what have we got to lose by my telling you the truth!

"Every Word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. ADD THOU NOT UNTO HIS WORDS, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Do you read ancient Hebrew, kione Greek or Aramaic?

It is unfortunate that we do not have the prototype mss. However, despite the variations in the manuscripts we do have, the message is 99% consistent in all manuscripts.

The same cannot be said of modern english translations. Especially, the likes of the NIV that interpolate opinion with proper translation. If you happen to be a KJV only type, then be warned it is based on RCC manuscripts. You live in RCC tradition.

I do not agree with all RCC teachings, and the Magisterium doesn't require me to. In fact there are denominations which recognise the authority of the Pope that teach doctrines opposite to those held by the Roman Church. The important thing, is that none of these doctrines are considered core to the Christian faith.

A.Paul called for unity in the "body of Christ". Anyway, who holds himself, his teaching above the gospel is not part of that body. Anyone who excludes himself from the doctrine of love that both A.Paul & A.John taught in imitation of Jesus is not part of that body.

As for tradition: the church spent several hundred years arguing against apostates, who through their own wisdom invented doctrines contrary to apostolic tradition. No need to reinvent the wheel. The debates are well documented, as is the reasoning.

If you want to prove the RCC in error, understand the scriptural reasoning that the church holds, then correct that reasoning with scripture.

[Jude3b]

Hi Jude3b,

Do you read ancient Hebrew, kione Greek or Aramaic?

It is unfortunate that we do not have the prototype mss. However, despite the variations in the manuscripts we do have, the message is 99% consistent in all manuscripts.

The same cannot be said of modern english translations. Especially, the likes of the NIV that interpolate opinion with proper translation. If you happen to be a KJV only type, then be warned it is based on RCC manuscripts. You live in RCC tradition.

I do not agree with all RCC teachings, and the Magisterium doesn't require me to. In fact there are denominations which recognise the authority of the Pope that teach doctrines opposite to those held by the Roman Church. The important thing, is that none of these doctrines are considered core to the Christian faith.

A.Paul called for unity in the "body of Christ". Anyway, who holds himself, his teaching above the gospel is not part of that body. Anyone who excludes himself from the doctrine of love that both A.Paul & A.John taught in imitation of Jesus is not part of that body.

As for tradition: the church spent several hundred years arguing against apostates, who through their own wisdom invented doctrines contrary to apostolic tradition. No need to reinvent the wheel. The debates are well documented, as is the reasoning.

If you want to prove the RCC in error, understand the scriptural reasoning that the church holds, then correct that reasoning with scripture.

Dear apostoli:

I do not know who you have been listening to, but the King James Version of the Bible, the Saxon (English) Bible was based on God's preserved Old Latin, not the later Roman Catholic perversion by Jerome. (for further research see The History of the New Testament Churcyh by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman and A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt)

Nobody needs to reinvent wheels to see that Roman Catholicism is a false Cultic type religion with a false religious works based system of salvation. All one needs to do is read their Bible and compare it with a Roman Catholic Catechism. The aberrant doctrines and dogma of Romanism become evidently quite clear to anyone who can read with an open mind and heart:

Romanism holds false doctrines, such as:

1) Who it their final authority.

2) Celibacy.

3) Statues.

4) Purgatory.

5) Maryolatry. (Mary Worship, praying to Mary)

6) Eucharist (wafer god worship).

7) Salvation through Roman Catholic sacraments (religious good works).

8) Infant Baptism (so-called).

9) Roman Catholicism's claim to being the one true church.

10) Salvation through the Roman Catholic church.

I could name more, but ten should be a good start for anyone wanting to research and discover the truth for themself.

[apostoli]

Hi Jude3b,

Dear apostoli:

I do not know who you have been listening to, but the King James Version of the Bible, the Saxon (English) Bible was based on God's preserved Old Latin, not the later Roman Catholic perversion by Jerome. (for further research see The History of the New Testament Churcyh by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman and A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt)

Nobody needs to reinvent wheels to see that Roman Catholicism is a false Cultic type religion with a false religious works based system of salvation. All one needs to do is read their Bible and compare it with a Roman Catholic Catechism. The aberrant doctrines and dogma of Romanism become evidently quite clear to anyone who can read with an open mind and heart:

Romanism holds false doctrines, such as:

1) Who it their final authority.
2) Celibacy.
3) Statues.
4) Purgatory.
5) Maryolatry. (Mary Worship, praying to Mary)
6) Eucharist (wafer god worship).
7) Salvation through Roman Catholic sacraments (religious good works).
8) Infant Baptism (so-called).
9) Roman Catholicism's claim to being the one true church.
10) Salvation through the Roman Catholic church.

I could name more, but ten should be a good start for anyone wanting to research and discover the truth for themself.

Firstly, where were the manuscripts preserved that Erasmus used? Where have most mss been found?

1) Who is their final authority.
A.Paul consider his teachings more authoritive than those of whom James sent. James says "Faith wouthout works is dead", if I recall correctly in other posts you have said there is no need for works. Who is your final authority?

2) Celibacy.
Is a voluntary thing. If I recall enforced only about 500years ago, to safe gaurd the church against unscrupulous priests.

A.Paul thought celbacy the preferred state of a Christian believer. Marriage was something for thos weak in the spirit.

3) Statues.
A.Paul instigated many statutes for the congregations, including the order of presbyters and deacons. All the apostles appointed heads over the congregations.

4) Purgatory.
As you know I don't accept this doctrine. The RCC accepts some of the books of the OT Apocrapha. Macabees supports the doctrine.

Of interest in this regard, the early church didn't have our NT. Some congregations accepted fewer and/or extra books. Revelation was once consider to be authored by a gnostic and was widely rejected. Only Matthew seems to have been accepted by all. The point is, for 400 years the canon didn't exist as we accept it today.

5) Maryolatry. (Mary Worship, praying to Mary)
A doctrine I have issue with. If I recall it didn't take its current form until the 19th century. I must investigate what prompted its instigation.

6) Eucharist (wafer god worship).
We have discussed this before. The wafer is not worshiped.

7) Salvation through Roman Catholic sacraments (religious good works).
The church teaches salvation is a free gift. But copies A.Paul and A.James in encouraging pious works as a means of preserving oneself in the faith.

8) Infant Baptism (so-called).
We have discussed this previously also. The pro arguments are valid. Jesus himself referred to a baptism that wasn't with water, nor of the spirit.

9) Roman Catholicism's claim to being the one true church.
If so, how is it that so many denominations that do not hold fully with Latin doctrine attach themselves and are accepted into fellowship. The church has a policy of universalism. The see themselves as the rallying point for the many members of the one body.

10) Salvation through the Roman Catholic church.
The church preachers salvation through christ. But sees itself as responsibile for spreading the message and helping people to remain firm in the hope.

The church only needs to appeal to A.Paul to backup many of the things you criticise it for. The church has its flaws temporal and doctrinal, point out their failures but in a way that immitates Christ. These are your brothers in the hope, you should guide them in brotherly love.

[Jude3b]

Hi Jude3b,

Firstly, where were the manuscripts preserved that Erasmus used? Where have most mss been found?

1) Who is their final authority.
A.Paul consider his teachings more authoritive than those of whom James sent. James says "Faith wouthout works is dead", if I recall correctly in other posts you have said there is no need for works. Who is your final authority?

2) Celibacy.
Is a voluntary thing. If I recall enforced only about 500years ago, to safe gaurd the church against unscrupulous priests.

A.Paul thought celbacy the preferred state of a Christian believer. Marriage was something for thos weak in the spirit.

3) Statues.
A.Paul instigated many statutes for the congregations, including the order of presbyters and deacons. All the apostles appointed heads over the congregations.

4) Purgatory.
As you know I don't accept this doctrine. The RCC accepts some of the books of the OT Apocrapha. Macabees supports the doctrine.

Of interest in this regard, the early church didn't have our NT. Some congregations accepted fewer and/or extra books. Revelation was once consider to be authored by a gnostic and was widely rejected. Only Matthew seems to have been accepted by all. The point is, for 400 years the canon didn't exist as we accept it today.

5) Maryolatry. (Mary Worship, praying to Mary)
A doctrine I have issue with. If I recall it didn't take its current form until the 19th century. I must investigate what prompted its instigation.

6) Eucharist (wafer god worship).
We have discussed this before. The wafer is not worshiped.

7) Salvation through Roman Catholic sacraments (religious good works).
The church teaches salvation is a free gift. But copies A.Paul and A.James in encouraging pious works as a means of preserving oneself in the faith.

8) Infant Baptism (so-called).
We have discussed this previously also. The pro arguments are valid. Jesus himself referred to a baptism that wasn't with water, nor of the spirit.

9) Roman Catholicism's claim to being the one true church.
If so, how is it that so many denominations that do not hold fully with Latin doctrine attach themselves and are accepted into fellowship. The church has a policy of universalism. The see themselves as the rallying point for the many members of the one body.

10) Salvation through the Roman Catholic church.
The church preachers salvation through christ. But sees itself as responsibile for spreading the message and helping people to remain firm in the hope.

The church only needs to appeal to A.Paul to backup many of the things you criticise it for. The church has its flaws temporal and doctrinal, point out their failures but in a way that immitates Christ. These are your brothers in the hope, you should guide them in brotherly love.

Dear apostoli:

Do you have any scripture to back up your refutation of the ten false doctrines of Romanism that I mentioned? Do you have any Roman Catholic Catechism verses to validate your opinions about the teachings of Romanism? You see, opinions of men, don't impress me much. Where is your verse that shows that Roman Catholicism is the one true church? Where is the verses to validate so-called infant baptism?

Nevermind, until you read your own Roman Catholic Catechism and undertand what Rome teaches on the 10 issues that I mentioned, you are only giving me your opinions about what you think Rome is teaching. Why not get a Roman Catholic Catechism and look up the 10 issues I mentioned and see what the Catechism says about them. After that you will see that the Holy Bible and the Roman Catholic teachings are different. My issue in this thread is not with your opinions about what you think Romanism teaches, it is what Romanism actually teaches, compared to the Word of God.

[Joe Gofish]

Oh Jude3b,

Why are you want to imitate the opposes of Christ? The priests of the temple, in their ignorance of scripture, asked Jesus a similar question: "By what authority, do you these things? And who gave you this authority?" (Matt 21:23-27).

What caused this confrontation? Jesus taught the spirit of the scriptures not the letter. Whereas, his opponents were so fanatical in their literal understanding of scripture, that they did not know the Messiah was in their presence.

The Pharisees, Saducees, Scribes and priests interpreted scripture incorrectly and preached their own understanding. An aspect of the preaching work that Jesus sent his disciples to do with all authority, was to teach the spirit and correct interpretation of the scriptures. (Mark13:34; Luke 9:1). A.Paul in his letters admonishes that sound doctrine should be taught and requires those he appointed as the shepards of the flock to gaurd that doctrine.

It is in this context that I will attempt to answer your questions.


Q1a. WHO IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY?

An interesting question. Whose interpretation of the scriptures should one receive? I would suggest a teaching that isn't contradicted when scripture is cited in full and in context and not in isolation of the message of scripture.

Q1b. DID GOD GIVE AWAY HIS AUTHORITY? Romans 3:4 & Acts 17:11

According to the scriptures, the Father delegated authority to his Son (Col 1:16-19; Phil 2:9-11; 1 Cor 15:27-28) and the Son invested the disciples with his authority and they did likewise to those who came to lead the churches (John 5:27,43; 2 Cor 10:8; Titus 2:15)

YOUR QUESTIONS:

1) Does the Bible agree with Roman Catholicism? In other words, if the Bible, tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are all, in fact, the Word of God, then the Bible should concur with this teaching. Does it?At least in one respect it outshines most other "christian" churches. It ensures a unity of belief as opposed to the mess of beliefs found elsewhere. It gaurds against false doctrine - such as those modalist baptists that preach another Christ.

The traditions you antagonise about are based on biblical interpretation. The understanding of the spirit of scripture. This has to be tested against the scriptures, but as Jesus taught, it is the spirit of scripture not its literism that is to be tested.

2) Can we depend on the Bible being perfect?A.Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture is inspired of God and is beneficial but in this context he was not referring to his own writings. It is a matter of faith that the church perceives the canon of the NT as inspired. To this day, there are "christian" groups that only accept Matthew, and/or reject various books of the NT especially Revelation. So, whose bible are you considering. If you mean the NT & OT combined then remember that this was collated by the combined church which in 10th century formally split into the RCC & the EOC. In all probability you preach the filoque, so you preach an RCC doctrine, which is not a doctrine of an orthodox Christian.

3) Should we listen to the magisterium of Romanism or to Christ?Undoubtedly to Christ! The greater question, is: Does the RCC teach against Christ? I find no evidence that it does.

One of the benefits of the RCC & EOC organisations is that it ensures protection of doctrine. Admittedly, when Rome was controlled by the Frankish emperors corruption existed in the church, both at a temporal and spiritual level. A.Paul complained of upsurpers in his own time as did A.John. And yet the church survived. It is the internal discipline of the church that cleansed the church. The opposite can be found in the independent churches where every manner of false doctrine is found.

4) God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6) because He is perfect. His Son, Jeus, doesn't change (Hebrews 13:8) because He is perfect. Why, then, should God's perfect Word keep changing?Valid point! Paraphrases such as the NIV, do corrupt the word and enforce particular interpretations. The KJV was mostly based on the RCC Latin bible and though it contains translation errors and a few interpolations from unreliable mss, it is reliable. One big problem is that the English language keeps changing. So many of the words in the original KJV are now archaic or have changed meaning.

5) Should we side with the Word of God or the traditions of Roman Catholicism?This is just a rephrase of your first question. A better question is should we go against A.Paul's advise and be independent in our understanding. Or allow such things as a traditional understanding of scripture to guide us. Of course, over time, some traditions of the early church have been modified, so it is always best to go back to the benchmark, the scriptures, to see if they are valid.

As you have decided to call your personal Sanhedrim together to judge, it may be timely to remind you of scripture and the words of Gamaliel: "Now I say to you...let them alone; for if [their] councel or [their] work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it be of God, you [will be found] to fight against God." (Acts 5:38-39)

If there is no set authority?
If there is no set authority, than whom should we trust in scripture teaching.

For the most part both Catholics and Protestants read the same bible, with the same versus, ect............

But the truth is that we both have different ideas of what the bible teaches us. And within the Protestant churches each church teaches something a little bit different.

My question to all protestants is if we have no set authority, than whom should we believe, the Baptist preacher down the street, the non denom minister who confesses that they are just a bible believing church, the methodist, jude, the church of christ, or what about those Mormons that all claim are not christian yet are really nice people who have big loving families?

If there is no authority, than how does one choose to believe the Mormon or Jehova Witness that knocks on my door, or the Baptist group who invites me to a bannana split social at their church?

And finnally wouldnt it be reasonable that Jesus did indeed set up a way thay we could have that authority so that I could fall back to a Church that is as strong as a rock, a church that I could rely on no matter what culture I come from?

It seems to me that the Catholic Church is the only reasonable way when you sit down and really look at all the facts.

[Fizban]

QUESTIONS:

1) Does the Bible agree with Roman Catholicism? In other words, if the Bible, tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are all, in fact, the Word of God, then the Bible should concur with this teaching. Does it?

In part, I'd say. Being an evangelical protestant, I do believe that the Catholic church places too much of an emphasis on tradition, but I don't think they've missed the boat entirely. I've met some very knowledgable and biblical catholics, personally. Also, I'd be hard pressed to name specific denomination who gets everything right. We all have our little heresies.

2) Can we depend on the Bible being perfect?

Should we depend on it being perfect? I'm an inerrantist, but inerrancy only states that the original manuscripts were perfect. What's that do for us who hold the very accurate copies? The question should be "is the bible trustworthy?" and the answer to that, in my opinion, is a resounding yes.

3) Should we listen to the magisterium of Romanism or to Christ?

Christ. That's why I believe the Bible has precedent over tradition, although I depart from my typical baptist tradition completely divorcing myself from my Christian Heritage.

4) God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6) because He is perfect. His Son, Jeus, doesn't change (Hebrews 13:8) because He is perfect. Why, then, should God's perfect Word keep changing?

It shouldn't. The bible is already written and we shouldn't change it. Unfortunately, its not so much that other groups are out to change what it says, but they just get something wrong all the while thinking they are right. Everyone does this, again.

5) Should we sid with the Word of God or the traditions of Roman Catholicism?

We should side with the Bible over a very old tradition. But we shouldn't throw tradition out completely. Its a good guide at times.

[Jude3b]

In part, I'd say. Being an evangelical protestant, I do believe that the Catholic church places too much of an emphasis on tradition, but I don't think they've missed the boat entirely. I've met some very knowledgable and biblical catholics, personally. Also, I'd be hard pressed to name specific denomination who gets everything right. We all have our little heresies.



Should we depend on it being perfect? I'm an inerrantist, but inerrancy only states that the original manuscripts were perfect. What's that do for us who hold the very accurate copies? The question should be "is the bible trustworthy?" and the answer to that, in my opinion, is a resounding yes.



Christ. That's why I believe the Bible has precedent over tradition, although I depart from my typical baptist tradition completely divorcing myself from my Christian Heritage.



It shouldn't. The bible is already written and we shouldn't change it. Unfortunately, its not so much that other groups are out to change what it says, but they just get something wrong all the while thinking they are right. Everyone does this, again.



We should side with the Bible over a very old tradition. But we shouldn't throw tradition out completely. Its a good guide at times.

Dear Fizban:

Traditions are ok, if they agree with the Word of God, are Biblical that is.

[Joe Gofish]

GOD DECLARES THE BIBLE TO BE PERFECT: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160).

THE BIBLE BOLDLY DECLARES THAT IT IS THE ONLY FINAL AUTHORITY:

"Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH." (John 17:17).

Paul even admonishes true Christian believers to avoid anyone who teaches doctrines contrary to the written Scriptures:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
(Galatians 1:18)

GOD'S WORD IS SETTLED FOREVER:

"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119:89)

"...let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

Not to long ago, pastors and teachers spoke God's Words with complete conviction.

"THUS SAITH THE LORD!" was often stated by the Preacher, or

"HEAR THE WORD OF THE LORD!" Would be how the Preacher would start out his sermon, by reading and quoting the passage of scripture that he would preach or teach about.

It seems that Christians used to believe their Bible and critique their teacher.

But that all seems to have changed now. People seem to think backwards now: they criticize the Bible and believe the teacher.

In reality, they say "Thus saith my TEACHER!"

Local congregations trust their priest or preacher, and college students trust their professors. Are they to be our "final authority?"

Jesus Christ publicly rebuked the Religious crowd of his day: "Howeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men..."
(Mark 7:7-8).

Jesus was obviously upset that the Religious leaders had elevated their tradition above God's Word. He even said to them:

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33).

The Apostle Paul didn't demand that people believe him.

Instead, they "searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

The members of the apostolic church of God - the body of Christ, would look and check to see if Paul was right or not.

According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, church tradition and the magisterium of that religion are just as much the Word of God as are written Scriptures.

In fact:

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE FINAL AUTHORITY! According to the teachings of that religion: "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit." (Page 26, #81 of the Roman Catholic Catechism).

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." (The 1994 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Page 29, #95).

So, Roman Catholicism is telling the world that their church traditions and their magisteium are just as much the Word of God, as the written Scriptures are. In essence they make themselves the FINAL AUTHORITY!

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the (Roman Catholic) Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrused to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." (Page 27, # 85 of the Roman Catholic Catechism).

Therefore, the Catechism of Romanism concludes that the one final authority is not the Bible, but the current teaching of the Roman Catholic religious leaders, since they are the only one qualified to provide an "authentic interpretation" of God's Word.

QUESTIONS:

1) Does the Bible agree with Roman Catholicism? In other words, if the Bible, tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are all, in fact, the Word of God, then the Bible should concur with this teaching. Does it?

2) Can we depend on the Bible being perfect?

3) Should we listen to the magisterium of Romanism or to Christ?

4) God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6) because He is perfect. His Son, Jeus, doesn't change (Hebrews 13:8) because He is perfect. Why, then, should God's perfect Word keep changing?

5) Should we sid with the Word of God or the traditions of Roman Catholicism?

Paul even admonishes true Christian believers to avoid anyone who teaches doctrines contrary to the written Scriptures:---- JUDE Can you see that 2000 years ago the Bible was talking about people like you.
Why do you keep using your private interpretations of the Bible " ? Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy
of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21 for no prophecy ever came through human

[Jude3b]

I have a question that might answer your questions

Who signs your name in the book of life? You, God, or perhaps an angel.

My answer for myself is, "I do".

iow I work out my salvation with fear and trembling!

run the race as though to win.

Are you His ambassador?

Dear stabalizer:

As Christians we are to live right, Lord the Lord and Love people, but please keep in mind that Justification by faith in Christ is the only remedy for sin.

Religious acts, sacraments, religious works do not save..!

[stabalizer]

Dear stabalizer:

As Christians we are to live right, Lord the Lord and Love people, but please keep in mind that Justification by faith in Christ is the only remedy for sin.

Religious acts, sacraments, religious works do not save..!

Did I post anything contrary to your response?

I suggest you might read Mal 3:16-18.

We ,as believers , do follow that unction of the Holy One as well as scripture..

The real issue is ; The baptism of the Holy Spirit; is it a decision or an event?

Who are you really contending with? The truly saved ? or the truly think they're saved? or Both?

imo, you're dealing with the spirit of anti-christ .

(this is not a personal attack)

How could one be justified before Christ without having met conditions necessary to be justified?

Acts 8:19 Give me this power also that on WHOMSOEVER I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.

Only God can pour out of His own Spirit and this doesn't happen unless conditions of righteousness have been met.