Featured A Jehovah's Witness is at my Door!

You are perverting this also! That is simply not true. There are two basic approaches to every text of scripture. There is the immediate isolated context and there is the overall inclusive context. I challenged your immediate isolated contextual interpretation by the overall inclusie context of scripture dealing with that subject.

My approach was quite simple and clear:

1. The overal teaching of Scripture on Divine external ordinances deny they literally remit sins; regenerate or literally save anyone - Heb. 10:1-4; Lk. 5:12-15; Acts 10:43.

2. They are ceremonial in nature designed to convey a truth that corresponds with the designe form of the ordinance - Heb. 10:1; Col. 3:16; 1 Pet. 3:21

3. The specific doctrinal passages and precepts forbid your interpretation (Rom. 3:24-5:2; Gal. 3-4; etc.)

 

Again, where in the bible did God EVER say that we must adhere to what a church body holds to , other than what has already been established in the Word of God?

You say that you and the RCC have those authorities to properily understand/interprete the scriptures, but why do both of your groups teach error and mistakes, sometimes heresy?

 

Christ commanded in his word to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
The command is always to go; never to stay home. Unless you have a direct call of God to stay home he has commanded you to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

He has commanded you to "forsake all that you have and follow him," if you are to be his disciple, his follower, which every Christian is--a follower of Christ.

That being the case, which country has God called you to? When do you intend to go? Are you going to sell all that you have; forsake it? The neediest places on the earth, those that need the gospel most are Islamic and Communist nations such as Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, etc. When will you be going, and to which nation? How will you know? How will you determine God's will for your life?
There is no excuse for not obeying the Great Commission.

Finding out the will of God for your life is not a "private revelation." It comes through God's Word and prayer. God does lead a person. If you have never experienced God's leading in your life then you are missing out on something that is very basic in the Christian life, and it would leave one wondering if the Holy Spirit has indeed taken up residence in your life.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
--Does God's Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?
How do you know? How does he bear witness with your spirit? What evidence do you have?

What nation are you going to again.
Have you forsaken all that you have?
Submission to the word of God--The Bible is our supreme authority. We need to obey it; not the traditions of man. Are you prepared to obey it?

Not nearly divided as you think. I believe you are deluded into thinking like this.

This paragraph really makes me laugh.
The ECF were so far divided among themselves they hardly had any agreement at all. How could anyone possibly look to any guidance from them that was of any unity.

Origen was a heretic even by the RCC standards. Some call him the father of Arianism.
Tertullian changed his stance on baptism, so which part of his life are you going to believe: the former, or the latter when he became a Montanist?
Irenaeus believed that Christ lived to 80.
--And that is just a few. Why would you trust fallible men's interpretation over what the Berean's did:

Acts 17:11 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.
--Their standard was to check everything that was said by the Word of God.

 

To go back to the OP, debating with Jehovah's Witnesses will often not accomplish much. They attend a weekly meeting where they are prepared to go out door knocking. Even if you can show them that the Scriptures clearly contradict their doctrines, they will not believe you and trust in the Watchtower Society because they are brainwashed.

The best thing we can do for them is to pray for them.

 

Either way you read it you still have a responsibility to obey it. Are you obeying it? The Bible is your supreme authority you claim. Then you need to be obeying it, and, at the very least, witnessing not only to those in your community but having a responsibility to those in other nations as well.

The ECF are meaningless since they are a source of error and not truth.
What did the early churches do as recorded in the book of Acts and in the epistles.
Very early on we read:
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

Everyone, but the apostles, went everywhere preaching the Word. They all obeyed the Great Commission. Persecution was the norm then, as Paul told Timothy that it would be, that is persecution would come for ALL who live Godly in Christ Jesus.

There were far more passages directed to the disciples about "forsaking" then the one isolated incident with the rich young ruler that you are thinking of:

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
--This command is given to all the disciples.

I don't depend on my feelings. But the Lord has led me to the foreign mission field to serve in various nations for almost 30 years now. I have been in Islamic nations, third world nations, etc. The Lord has led me; not my feelings, but the Lord. I have been where very few people have ever been. But it has been the Lord that has led me. I don't live my life by my feelings. My final authority in my faith and in my practice is the Word of God.

I trust the Word of God in all things, but that does not prohibit God from leading me.
Where is God leading to you?
The Great Commission has not been rescinded. It is still active for this day and age. In the light of the command to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," what are you doing?
Obedience to the Bible is not just lip work.

This was a decision made by the apostles. Such meetings were not to be duplicated. The apostles would never meet again.

In the future when decisions needed to be made they would be made by individual churches. For example, when a man committed fornication and discipline needed to be taken, Paul told the Corinthians that they themselves had to discipline the man out of their church. It was the Corinthian church's duty, not the duty of the apostles' or any other church. (1Cor.5:1-5).

Early believers dealt with heresy through the Word of God on a church by church basis with the Word of God as their basis. Read the first epistle to the Corinthians. There was plenty of wrong-doing in the church, and no church council. There were some that even denied the resurrection (15th chapter). That local church took care of it with Paul's help. They didn't need church councils, and churches that have stood on the Word of God never have.
The false church of the RCC have relied on them.

And yet Montanism itself was far closer to the truth then the RCC was. Just think; if you call Montanism heresy, then what would you call the RCC? a double-double heresy?? :laugh:

No they did not. There was no "whole church." They met at "the church which was at Jerusalem," where James was the pastor, and James made the final decision. It was not a model for future councils. It was a one time act made by the apostles, when Christianity was still new, to confirm that salvation was all of grace and not of works. Remember, they did not have all the NT written when that decision was made. We do have the entire Word of God, and thus do not need such councils.

There were never any apostolic councils after that. The Bible teaches nothing more than a local church. There are no Biblical "church councils." Every local church is independent and responsible to God alone. No church has any authority over another.

Those false doctrines started at the end of the first century, when Paul, Peter, and John said they would.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

The real question is can you admit the ECF's interpretations may be wrong and if so, then where are you???

There is really not that big of issue on the rules of hermeneutics as they are common sense rules which without there could be no communication possible. As I said before, false doctrine is ALWAYS a consequence of one of two things or both. Basic rules are ignored and/or scripture is not the final authority.

In regard to your last question about if I could be wrong. There are things in the scriptures I have no idea about. There are things in the scriptures I do have an idea about but could be wrong. There are things in scriptures that I am fairly certain of but could be wrong. However, there are some things in scripture I have firm convictions about because I have objectively tested them over and over again and I will never admit to being wrong about simply because I have no doubts whatsoever.

 

That is actually not the question. I'll give you the reason why. No one has suggested that the ECF are without mistakes or places their writing above scripture. What makes the ECF important and not just the ECF btw but other supporting historical documents is what they testify to. They are direct witnesses to events, ideas, thought processes that occured thousand plus years ago.

Let me give you an example. Homer is known to be the oldest writing we have of the Greeks. Look at the process of the attempt to date Homer's writings. Historians take documents of known antiquity that mention Homer and when they believe Homer to be writen and compare notes.

So to verify something as ancient as Homer or even Plato one looks at the evidence and statements about those from supporting Documents

It is in this fashion that the ECF are looked at. What are they testifying to? And the next question is the simple question are there any consistencies in what these documents are saying ? Basically between all the writings we are looking for a consensus gentium. And if there is what do they agree on?

So when determining the Historicity and views of people long ago we look at all the documentation to their testimony about the subject and the subject matter. For instance Pliny the Lessor is not a Christian. He is a pagan, however, he is also the Roman Governor for a Northern Provence in Turkey. As you know Turkey had an early strong Christian presence. Now I don't rely on Pliny to personally give me a doctrinal statements but we can learn something about how he viewed Chrisitan practices by which we can learn of what those practices are. We know he interigated Christians

So we suppose his data comes from those willing to be further tortured for their faith and even be put to death for their faith in Christ thus a good indicator the data is good. And we learn

1) they had a singular special day of special worship (the day not mentioned) 2) they viewed Jesus Christ as God. and 3) they recited a creed (Oath) of their faith. We also learn

that after this ceremony where they sang hymns to Christ and recited a creed they departed to have a special meal. So from the testimony of Pliny the Lessor we have learned a few things of Christian belief. Not because he is inspired but because of what he witness to the event of his day. In such a manner do we look at the ECF. Any by looking at such documents and archeological finds and documents by witnesses of the time a picture of early Christianity comes into focus and what we find is not an infant baptist church but a church closer to the practices and belief of the Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic Churches. In fact, we find no such supporting documentation or archelogical evidence for something distinctly baptist. We may find a group that may hold to a singular aspect of baptist belief such as the communion meal is only symbolic but when you look at all the evidence of that group you will find no other baptist distinctives and in fact you may find modern baptist may be horrified to be associated with such groups because of the difference in the rest of their belief structure. Montanist are one such example. They believe that they were the prophetic voice of the Holy Spirit and predicted that there would be an

Further Montanus made his prophetic visions and statements equal with the inspiration of the Scriptures. A baptist would be indeed have to be very critical of this movement. This is what Wittenburg and myself are saying in regards to the ECF and historical evidence with regard to early Christianity.

 

You missed my point! If the ECF's interpretation of scriptures are the primary (not solitary) foundation upon which the magisterium comes to its doctrinal conclusions and if that foundation is WRONG then so are the structures/conclusions that are built upon it.

Like the writings of Homer and Plato, they are UNINSPIRED traditions and thus never can attain the level of INSPIRED writings and thus are NEVER as dependable as the scriptures especially when it is a magisterium of equally UNINSPIRED men with equally UNINSPRIED decisions and UNINSPIRED writings REPLACING the scriptures as authority for the indivdiual. Uninspired means in regard to practical application - incomplete, erroneous, untrustworthy authorities.

Rome places UNINSPIRED AUTHORITIES between God's INSPIRED Word and the individual. It is like licking an ice cream cone through a plastic sack. It is like looking into a mirror with a piece of plastic placed between you and the mirror. It is like the bondage of Mormons and JW's who are told their "governing body" their "apostolic prophets" are the only capable interpreters of scripture or the "mouth peice" of God thus removing the direct Word of God from the individual mind and heart. In short, it is absolutely cultic and evil as Rome attempts to replace both the Word of God and the Spirit of God in the heart and minds of the people of God.

 

Again you are wrong. This isn't true. You misunderstand how Catholic Tradition works and this comment is a perfect example of it.
Your first error is your belief that in order to determine what Catholic Tradition is that it must be discovered anew and therefore must be reconstructed by review of the ECF. This is not the case. That is not how the ECF are viewed. Like with the Rosetta Stone the ancient Greek Translates what the Hyrogliphics mean on the stone. The Egyptian language that the Greek Translates is no longer spoken or written. However, because the language was faithfully taught and the reading of it faithfully handed down to this day was maintained we can read the Greek Writing on that stone and perfectly undersand it. This is how Tradition works. For instance there is a tradition that Billy Sunday said

Now He died back in 1935 (I think). This quote has been faithfully quoted since he first said it by different pastors quoting him. I don't have to reconstruct exactly what he said because it has alwas been faithfully passed down. That is tradition. So when we look at the Catholic use of the ECF it isn't to determine a doctrine but to verify that it was always believed. Like with Billy Sunday. If I don't believe that my pastor acurately quoted Billy Sunday what I can do is verify that he said it and there are witnesses to the event that he said this line in writing from the people who heard it at the time that he said it. In which case I can tell my pastor that yes in fact he is correct Billy Sunday said it. Thus the Catholic Church doesn't create a Tradition but has always followed a Tradition and it can be verified by the documents of the ECF. And not only that The Catholic Church says that for Christians that has always been the normal mode of Transmition as we can see in scriptures

Because in essense that is what Tradition means: handing down something to another person. That is the difference between Baptist and Catholics. Baptist try to reconstruct early beliefs of Christians by reconstructing the faith from what scriptures alone have to say about it. Catholics say the entirety of the faith was handed down by Traditions established by the apostles and apostolic writings or scripture both of which have continued faithfully to this day.

You err in your argument here because #1 I never attest to the inspiration of Homer. You second flaw in the argument is you clearly misunderstand my approach to Homer. In my approach to Homer it is clear the Dating of Homer's writings are the subject and how to determine the dating of his writing follows a methodology in which we see what the ancient writers attest to. It is the methodology I wanted to expose you to, to help you understand how one verifies dating an ancient document, or held ancient belief, and their practice. Applying the same methodology to determine a particular doctrine of Christian belief I can assertain some things about the early Church not just by people who themselves claim to be Christian (ECF) but also those who came in contact with Christians and witnessed their belief and practice (Ie Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan). In either case I am niether holding up the inspiration of the ECF nor Pliny the Lessor. So to claim that I have is false. But it is a good scientific approach to determine what a belief structure was at one time. Note that this process doesn't give me a doctrine. I already have a doctrine all it does is verify that it was at that time believed.

As I've explained to you this statement is entirely untrue. The Roman Catholic Church has always maintained scripture and has always held that it is the inspired word of God. What they do say in regard to "Uninspired Authorities" is not hold that they are inspired or even an authority to make a declaritive dogmatic statement but they hold them up as "Authorities" about the events and thoughts to which they have written about in the time period that they have written it. Thus when the Catholic Church teaches that the real presence of Jesus Christ is in the eucharist it isn't because Justin Martyr has said it but because it has always believed it and the Church not only can point to scripture to uphold that view and the writings of Paul but they can say well we know in 150 AD Justin Martyr holds this belief, we know that Augustine held this belief in 405 AD we know Bede held this belief in 713 we know that Thomas Aquinas held this belief in 1244 AD and we know that the Bishops of Trent held this belief in 1545 AD and we know we currently hold this belief today. Therefore there is a trail of this belief going all the way back to the begining. But that doesn't mean we ask people not to listen to scripture or scripture teaching but that when Jesus said "this is my body" in scripture he really meant it as the long line of people holding that belief attest to.

 

[/QUOTE]

No, they can be used as "references" but NEVER as an "authority" any more than you comments or my comments can be used as "authority" as the greatest scholar to the untaught layment are EQUALLY uninspired and are giving their opinions. Their opinions are only as good as they fit with the scriptures and as the scriptures support their opinion -thus scripture is the only real "authority."

 

Wrong! You have no evidence that TRADITION is true any more when it was first given until now! Concerning Billy Sunday, if you have his original writing (or exact photocopies) you have an authorized basis to confirm what some are saying then or now any more than hearsay. Oral tradition of Billy Graham is worthless as final "authority."


Like with the Rosetta Stone the ancient Greek Translates what the Hyrogliphics mean on the stone. [/QUOTE]

The Rosetta Stone is an ORIGINAL source not some HEARSAY oral tradition passed down mouth to mouth. It is written in unchangable rock. It comes directly from the period the languages found written on it. Tradition has no resemblance to this. The original autographs are analogous to the Rosetta stone but not tradition.

Tradition offers nothing "authentic" or reliable then or now.

Never said you did! However, it is your analogy of Homer that is flawed BECAUSE Homer is not inspired any more than Plato.

Will finish this when I get back from town.:wavey: