Quote from signature line

Oh....................

 

Which I think also explains the knee-jerk "Roman Catholic!" accusation that seems to be repeatedly hurled at those of us like Agnus Dei, Matt Black, and myself who aren't RCs but who take seriously the issues of Church authority, Church history, Apostolic Tradition, the formation of the Canon, and the problems of 'solo scriptura'. (Which in turn is also why I only sporadically post here nowadays :smilewinkgrin: )

 

They knew what was in and what was out from the beginning, Matt. The letters, for example, were sent to churches; these were part of the early formation of the NT because these were written by apostles. The church used these as scripture.

 

If this isn't so, then we have to deny 2 Tim 3.16, 17:

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

How else would God pass on what he wants us to know? Secret handshakes?

Either scripture is sufficient or it isn't.

 

The early Christians used the writings that were being passed to the churches; these were written by apostles or had apostolic authority. They were accepted as scripture. It was not a guessing game and it didn't begin 300 years after Christ.

Have you never read a detailed account of how we got the Bible?

I recommend Norman Geisler's A General Introduction to Bibliology, or From God to Us: How We Got The Bible.

The canon of scripture is markedly different from other "holy books" such as the Koran or The Book of Mormon which were allegedly given all at once by an unknown "divine being."

Also, there is real history in the Bible. In the Koran, not much that I know of. And in the BOM, history that has no basis in history or archeology.

 

Agnus Dei says that the bible has authority only within the context of the church (i.e, the Eastern Orthodox Church). This is essentially the same thing.

So are you aruging for someone in the "church" to say what the interpretation of scripture should be? If not, then what do you mean by the authority of scripture cannot be separated from the authority of the church?

Yes, I know all that. I had a course in Bibliology in seminary. However, the reason that an official canon was named much later was due to false writings (gnostic gospels) that attacked the truth. I realize that a few of the books were disputed as you say, but these were the minority compared to the non-disputed books.

 

There are Anglicans on the BB as well as SDA people.

I don't know if a Copt ever was on here or wanted to be.

The name of the forum is "Other Christian Denominations," which is why no Bahai can post here. As for the RC people, you'd have to ask the mods about that.

 

What's a Copt?

 

Yeah, but which church?? You are not all with the same one.

And I must say that I have problems with the statement that only you guys take church history and the formation of the canon seriously.

 

Coptic Christians from the Coptic Christian church in Egypt (there might be others using this term but I am aware only of the one in Egypt). It is another of the Orthodox type churches, I think.

 

Coptics are Catholics, in full communion with the Rome. Their liturgy is different but their beliefs are the same.

 

The interpretation LeBuick gave is sound biblical doctrine and that espoused by all Baptists and like minded evangelicals.

A literal historical grammatical reading and understanding of the text makes it clear that it is Peter's confession of Christ's identity.

 

Okay...

One more time for all you who apparently missed it the last 20 or 30 times it has been discussed:

We used to allow RCC members to join the Baptist Board and post in the section that is open to all Christians. However, we started to get a bunch of radical RCs who came here trying to teach that you were not saved unless you were a member of the RCC. They focused in on new believers who were posting here and began to brag about how they were converting Baptists etc. to Catholics. We asked them to stop proselytizing here on the BB. They refused to comply with the request. Therefore, they were banned. Then the same posters tried to re-join the BB using different names and church info on their BB membership applications. When we found them out we banned them again and the webmaster said that no more RCs were allowed to join the site. The actions of a few messed it up for the many. Now there are still a few RC folks that were members here before any of this took place and who were not involved in the proselytizing. They are still welcome to post in the section that is open to all Christians.

 

I don't know who you spoke with about this but the story you have told here is greatly over exagerated. It is false to say "Former members of the BB were dropping like flies, converting to Roman Catholicism." There were, to my knowledge (and I was here when it all happened), only a very limited few Baptists who claimed to have converted to Catholicism. Additionally, I beleive that most were professed new believers, babes in Christ, who were led astray by false teachings of some radical Roman Catholics. A little honest and correct BB history for you...

 

Matt Black,

This was posted...

And you then responded...

By causing every word of instruction that he wants us to have to be inscripturated.

:laugh:

Matt, what in the world does the "table of contents" have to do with anything? Do you actually believe that God miraculously chistled the "table of contents" in stone, like the 10 commandments???

Do you actually think the Table of Contents is inspired???

Of course not.

Why would you think it all took place in the 2nd century? The old testament scriptures had been in existence for thousands of years and the New Covenant scriptures were recognized as scripture almost immediately. Peter referred to Pauls writings as "scripture" during their lifetimes.

My goodness, its amazing the confusion that exists in the liberal Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox worlds.



:godisgood:

 

The Coptic church refused to subscribe to the Chalcedonian Creed.

They were rejected by the proto-Orthodox/proto-Catholic church. They are Monophysites, meaning that they believe Jesus Christ had solely a divine nature during His earthly life.

 

Matt,

This was posted....

And you said...

You find it in multitudes upon multitudes of scriptures, Matt. One of the clearest is this....

Hope that helps to shed some light on it for you.


:godisgood:

 

Agnus,

You said...

Bless your heart. You never cease to amaze me sometimes, Agnus.

And I post that with great sadness.


:godisgood:

 

CORRECTION
In Post #91 above, I said Coptics are Catholics, in full communion with Rome. That was mostly wrong. Darron Steele had the better answer. In fact, the majority of Coptics are Orthodox with their own pope and only a small minority of them are Catholics with loyalty to the Bishop of Rome.

 

I have inferred nothing. I have exegeted the text as the Holy Spiirt has given me understanding. Has the Holy Spirit led you into ALL truth Matt? Are you perfect in your knowledge of the Scriptures?

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

This was a promise given to the Apostles when Christ was speaking to the Apostles. That is the context. Or do you beleive in context? He is telling them what the ministry of the Holy Spirit, especially in regards to them, will be. He, the Holy Spirit, will guide them (the apostles) into ALL truth.

I don't know of anyone else that can apply to--no, not anyone.
It applies to the writers of Scripture. He led them into all truth as they wrote down the words of Scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--This not only includes OT prophets but is perfectly applicable to the NT authors as well. They wrote down the Scriptures as they were moved by the Hloly Spirit--as the Holy Spirit led them into all truth.

Thus, Paul could say with all assurance:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

There is no question that God commanded the apostles (and their associates) to write a book--God's book!