NOT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURES.

Misfit

Well-known member
so? Christians gather together in many different denominations and in nondenom groups. as a nondenom I've been part of groups of several different denominations of believers.
It seemed to me that the poster was in essence saying that a particular denomination has no relevance - all the while he is a member of a particular denomination. They (AOG) of course have their own doctrine, their own take on things. As for "non-denom" churches, well they too have their own label, their own set of beliefs and practices. They are no more in tune with the Lord than anyone else.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
No, we don't use scripture alone by ourselves to determine the correct interpretation of God's Holy Word.

Therein lies the problem with the RCC.
It is the ecclesiastical authority manifested in the Universal Christian Church which Jesus set up upon this earth that we turn to for the truth.

Therein lies the problem with the RCC--it has added much that is unbiblical and even contradicts the Bible. It doesn't have the truth. It left the truth hundreds of years ago, until an Augustinian monk rediscovered it within the pages of Romans--and lived to spread the word about it.
Once again, it must be pointed out that Jesus did not just write a book by Himself, nor did He instruct others to write a book and then tell us all to figure things out by ourselves.

God the Holy Spirit instructed men--either eye witnesses or close associates of eye witnesses--to write down the words of the NT. Period.
Nope, He did not do that. He set up the Church and you would be wise to listen to it.
You would be wise to listen and learn from the holy Word of God, not from the corrupted leadership in your church that has taught false doctrines for many centuries, "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men", thus, worshiping God in vain.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Too many wars have been fought over these theological differences, and with the utmost zeal from both sides. Catholic priests (as well as well as parishioners) were routinely darn and quartered in England. No one side holds the high ground here.

What we both described is the actions of man, not the actions of God nor His representatives. When do you not follow an institution that says it is God's institution but does in no way walk that talk? Because none of these wars were fought for anything other than pure, unadulterated power. Power to control the Biblically ignorant through ecclesiastical authority, monetary enrichment and enforcement of their religious rules.

Which is a good thing.

See my comment above.

Luke 9:49-50. “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.” 50“Do not stop him,” Jesus replied, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

Your Scriptural quote, someone accomplishing a miracle with the authority of Jesus Christ, does not absolve us from also testing what anyone professing to be for Christ is teaching or proclaiming or admonishing. We are in danger when we are unable or unwilling to discern God's truth written in His inerrant Word against what we are told. Just because a man with a reverse collar or name tag that says pastor proclaims he speaks for God in no way means he does.

Jude 1:3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

1 Peter 3:15 but honor the Messiah as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.

2 Corinthians 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

1:9 He must be devoted to the trustworthy message we teach. Then he can use these accurate teachings to encourage people and correct those who oppose the word.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.

Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


Things like the concept of the Trinity, fighting heresies, the Canon of Scripture - all done by the various synods and councils that were held in the early Christian Church.

How do we know these concepts are true given these councils and synods happened many centuries ago? Be testing them through the written word. Not the words of a priest, or preacher, or pastor, or elder, or deacon or religious institution but on what His Holy Spirit, though His Word, tells us.

Well, there was indeed this institutional church. It had its leaders in those early days and then after them the Church evolved as it did, the same Church that was then led by those Bishops whom we now call the Early Church Fathers. This new Christian Church was not stagnant, it grew as one. There is a definite historical record of this Christian Church.

We see this church today and it is in the hearts of the followers of the Way. Either we serve Christ or the world.

Good retort! ☺️ (We probably should not if they speak of Christ). It is the confusion that can result from this sort of thing with the myriad of Christian sects coming into existence, with all claiming that they have hit upon the absolute "truth". I guess the question to answer is can we find Christ in different ways?

There is only one Christ. There is only one path to Him. There are no different ways. As He has told us:

John 14: 6 "Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

Acts 4:11 "This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

1 John 4:2 "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."


2 Thess 1:7 "and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

This gives me great pause when it comes to ecumenism and what that really is. What fruit does it bear? Compromise to find common ground? I think so.

Even though we might have a different interpretation concerning some of His written word, in the end I know that you love Jesus as I also do. He is my Savior and advocate before the Father, my only chance to get into the Promised Land.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
 
Last edited:

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Too many wars have been fought over these theological differences, and with the utmost zeal from both sides. Catholic priests (as well as well as parishioners) were routinely darn and quartered in England. No one side holds the high ground here.

What? Who started the wars? Who was constantly scheming to takeover England and start the bloody reign again? You can't say well we both got persecuted when Guy Fawkes was on your side. The Catholics were persecuted in Protestant lands to stop the murderous tendencies of some Catholics. Have you heard of the 30 years war? Catholic aggression started that conflict which killed like 8,000,000. You don't have the same going the other way. Britain was Protestant; there is still a sizable Catholic minority. France was Catholic, there are almost no Protestants left even though in the early 1500s like 20-30% of France was Protestant. The reason why families like DuPont moved to America because they were being literally exterminated in France. Remember, it took a couple a hundred years for the Catholic Church to get use to the idea of Protestants. They only really dropped their attack on Protestants when the enlightenment arrived in force at the end of the 18th century.

Yes both sides sinned, but they are not comparable.


God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
So you are saying that they had the authority to declare whether a writing is scripture or not?

No, I'm not saying they had that authority, but neither did Trent. On the other hand, they are authorities for you, yet they agree with me. According to Vatican II, Pope Gregory had the authority and went around proclaiming Judith wasn't conical as if it was common knowledge. I wonder why Trent condemned every major theologian between Jerome and Luther as being in error with respect to the canon? Oh yeah, they wanted to attack the Protestants.

God Bless
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
The Magisterium from 400 - 1530 a.d. generally agreed with us.
Who is 'us'?

Non-Catholic western Christians who are commonly called Protestants.

The deuterocanonical were not canonical until Trent, hence the name.
The Catholic Church makes things 'official' when they are attacked

Attacked? Who attacked anything? This is was majority opinion among Catholic Theologians at the time. Trent Changed Catholic dogma out of spite.

Trent only changed this to add a weapon for Catholics to use against the protestants.
Love to hear your proof on this one....

That Trent purposefully changed Catholic dogma condemning the vast majority of Catholic theologians between 400-1530 is a fact of history. And perhaps, you should read this paper. It states "While there are many other reasons for Apocryphal use, perhaps spiritual and traditional, it cannot be denied its use helped to safeguard Catholicism in the 16th century." Whether it be an offensive or defensive weapon, it was still added to use against the protestants. My opinion is not controversial, unless you are hiding in your basement with your prayer beads and CCC. If that's you, come out into the light and deal with reality like your mature Catholic brother's and sisters.

God Bless
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Non-Catholic western Christians who are commonly called Protestants.
yes, protesters
This is was majority opinion among Catholic Theologians at the time. Trent Changed Catholic dogma out of spite.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
Who is 'us'?

The Catholic Church makes things 'official' when they are attacked.

Love to hear your proof on this one....
Thats a canard or an excuse. Its not true in the least. What was the 'attack' that led to pius #12 to make marys assumption dogma? Or pius 9th marys IC? And the apocrypha was considered just that for 1500 years before trent. If your church is 'the' church why did it let those 'attacks' continue for over a millennia and a half before making it dogma? Youre not making any sense here.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
I appreciate you admitting as much. I have a friend who is AOG, she is a nice person and she prays for me as I also pray for her.
And the interesting thing is that the Assemblies of God in 2022, bears little or NO resemblance to the Assemblies of God in 1965. Back then we were a hyper-legalistic "ONE STRIKE and you're OUT" denomination (But the music was a whole lot better).
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Not everything Jesus said is in scripture. This is a common saying from RCs trying to defend their false beliefs. This is true but not about what God wants us to know. I mean the modern scientific discoveries are not in scripture, plane travel not in scripture etc. Of course not every conversation Jesus had is recorded, I am sure people said what would you like to eat and he answered. These types of conversations do not relate to what we need to know for our salvation.

However that is not what scripture says, it says:

John 20

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The passage is referring to all the things Jesus did. The healings He performed where not all recorded for example. However, RCs go well beyond scripture when they use that excuse for their false doctrines. There is no recording in scripture that we should pray to the dead anywhere in scripture. The prayers to Mary and other saints go well beyond what is in scripture. They use it to add to scriptures.

Just because something is not written in scripture does not mean it should be taught as coming from God. Why is Jesus not enough for RCs? He was enough for the apostles. Why the need to go beyond scripture? The warning in scripture not to go beyond it is to safeguard us from false teachings. The RCs cannot provide evidence of one apostle who prayed to Mary after she died. NOT ONE. Yet they try and pretend their institution is apostolic, it obviously isn't. Why break the commandment not to go beyond scripture?

Silence does not mean it can be added to scripture, just because something is not written in scripture does not mean it can be added if there is no evidence of the apostles doing it. That is just an excuse to go beyond scripture and to add to scripture. Both of those things are forbidden in scripture. This is one clear sign that the RCC is not His church at all.
Which is why as a Roman Catholic I do not make the argument that not everything Jesus said or did is in the Scriptures.

I believe that all Christian Truth is contained either implicitly or explicitly in the Scriptures. I believe that the Scriptures are the supreme authority in the Church.

My position is different from the Protestant in three ways:

1) That ONLY the Scriptures are infallible. I believe ONLY the Scriptures are God Breathed, but not ONLY Scripture is infallible. The Protestant in my mind jumps to conclusions when the Protestant tries to argue that because only the Scriptures are God Breathed it means only the Scriptures are infallible. Show from Scripture where Scripture teaches that ONLY that which is God Breathed is infallible.

2) Scripture is the supreme manifestation of God's authority in the Church but not the sole locus of God's authority in the Church. Lesser manifestations of God's authority are in Church councils and when the Church defines doctrine and Tradition. Here also, the Protestant jumps to conclusions. The Protestant seems to jump from "Only Scripture is God Breathed" to "Therefore ONLY Scripture speaks with God's authority or is the locus of God's authority

3) Catholics do not believe that the certainty of the Christian Faith is derived from the Scriptures alone. Catholics believe that Tradition is also another mechanism by which the one and the same Gospel handed on in the Scriptures is preserved. Tradition is infallible, but not God Breathed. The authority of the Church is infallible, but not God Breathed.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
Which is why as a Roman Catholic I do not make the argument that not everything Jesus said or did is in the Scriptures.

I believe that all Christian Truth is contained either implicitly or explicitly in the Scriptures. I believe that the Scriptures are the supreme authority in the Church.

My position is different from the Protestant in three ways:

1) That ONLY the Scriptures are infallible. I believe ONLY the Scriptures are God Breathed, but not ONLY Scripture is infallible. The Protestant in my mind jumps to conclusions when the Protestant tries to argue that because only the Scriptures are God Breathed it means only the Scriptures are infallible. Show from Scripture where Scripture teaches that ONLY that which is God Breathed is infallible.

2) Scripture is the supreme manifestation of God's authority in the Church but not the sole locus of God's authority in the Church. Lesser manifestations of God's authority are in Church councils and when the Church defines doctrine and Tradition. Here also, the Protestant jumps to conclusions. The Protestant seems to jump from "Only Scripture is God Breathed" to "Therefore ONLY Scripture speaks with God's authority or is the locus of God's authority

3) Catholics do not believe that the certainty of the Christian Faith is derived from the Scriptures alone. Catholics believe that Tradition is also another mechanism by which the one and the same Gospel handed on in the Scriptures is preserved. Tradition is infallible, but not God Breathed. The authority of the Church is infallible, but not God Breathed.
Youre making a number of assumptions that you offer zero proof for. Namely that what youre calling infallible actually is infallible. Its infallible because you need them to be, not because they are. Of course Gods word is God breathed, it says so. Nothing else is, you've admitted that. Good. But offer no proof for anything else being infallible let alone equal to Gods word.

"The Protestant seems to jump from "Only Scripture is God Breathed" to "Therefore ONLY Scripture speaks with God's authority or is the locus of God's authority"

No, anyone speaking the truth of the scriptures are speaking with Gods authority because they are His words not ours. 2 Cor 5 says we are ambassadors for Christ. Meaning we are taking His word and His mission to the world speaking for Him.

"Tradition is infallible, but not God Breathed. "

Catholics talk about tradition as though they know whats all in it. You don't. We've asked numerous times for catholics to quantify it for us. They never do. You assume because your church tells you, that tradition is this or that. But its by faith in your church, not because you can prove it.
 
Top