Binding and loosing

[Kansasdad]

Wonder away, Fiosh! We will never know. All we do know for sure is what God had Paul write FOR US! He is our model.

Ah, but we DO know! If I may borrow a quote from Ak from another thread:

"So Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandira, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Athanasius, Bardesanes, Eusibias, Justin Martyr, Origen, Polycarp, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Hermias, Aristides the Athenian, and hundreds more are all people who wrote about the first three hundred years of the Church, during the first three hundred years of the Church. It is said that there is more historical evidence and knowledge of what occurred in the first three hundred years of Christianity than from 700-1200. What you said is just ignorant to the hundreds of sources we have from this time."

Peace,

Fiosh

Seems I'm being misquoted more often now, especially on the internet. I never expected it would happen on Worthy though!

The context of what I establishing that in was not for theological purposes, but instead for historical purposes. In other words, though I have read these authors and think of them as great men, I also find flaws in their works and even some hints of the Gnosticism they were fighting. Likewise, in an attempt to fight the heresy of Gnosticism, the often reverted to extremes in theology, instead of sticking to their biblical grounds. Keep in mind that many of these, with a possible exception to Tertullian, were heavily influenced by Plato's philosophy, which led to some twisting of scripture and inaccuracies in doctrine, that especially erred on the Platonic (Gnostic) side of theology. This is why we must take their writings and compare them to scripture, instead of incorporating them into Church doctrine whole-sale.

Warning major side track here!

I found this for an explination of what Gnostic theology is.

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be:

A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.

I do not see where the authors mentioned by Fiosh fit into this philosophy or even hint at it.

Also no one suggested that we accept anything some one says whole-sale. There are two very important ingredients, they must be established to have a direct line to the Apostles and they can not contradict scripture. Nothing whole-sale there.

K.D.

[Floatingaxe]

Why in the world does anything HAVE TO have a direct line to the Apostles? It is absolute folly for someone to say that it is a must. We have the Word of God and that is all we do need. Placing one's faith in an extra-biblical source is dangerous.

[Smalcald]

You mean like Martin Luther?

As to the first point we could establish that, but to the second point? I think some of what he taught contradicted scripture. Both points must be valid. I do not dismiss everything he taught as invalid. There were practices in the church that contradicted the doctrine of the church. Say one thing do another. These issues needed to be dealth with.

I was joking Kansasdad.

Obviously Luther was neither an apostle nor an early Church father, I would disagree that he contradicted scripture, but I have to believe that, if I didn't I would be a Catholic and not a Lutheran!

[Kansasdad]

Why in the world does anything HAVE TO have a direct line to the Apostles? It is absolute folly for someone to say that it is a must. We have the Word of God and that is all we do need. Placing one's faith in an extra-biblical source is dangerous.

What did they do before we had the Bible. How do we determine that the people that put the Bible together were people we could trust to do so. By what authority can you claim that the books in the Bible are indeed sacred scripture. There are hundreds of writings out there that were rejected. Floatinaxe, I am serious when asking if you understand how we have the Bible. If the same men who reviewed all the writings at the time could determine which writings were sacred and which were not, would not these same men also know what they mean.

Which makes more sense. (1) The Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles and what they taught and continue to guide his truth through the generations, or (2) that the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles and then stopped for a time and then jumped back in to establish the Bible. And more importantly of those two possibilities, which does the Bible tells us will happen. It tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us in all generations.

If you continue to reject all these men say you are creating a real problem with the Authority of the Bible. You can not claim they were guided by the Holy Spirit in one breath and then turn around and claim that they were not in the next. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit would guide these men for a few days and then just leave them? I guess I should back up.

Floatingaxe do you believe that the men who put the Bible together were being guided by the Holy spirit? Yes/No

And then second do you think that the Holy Spirit would then just abandon them? Yes/No

[Kansasdad]

You mean like Martin Luther?

As to the first point we could establish that, but to the second point? I think some of what he taught contradicted scripture. Both points must be valid. I do not dismiss everything he taught as invalid. There were practices in the church that contradicted the doctrine of the church. Say one thing do another. These issues needed to be dealth with.

I was joking Kansasdad.

Obviously Luther was neither an apostle nor an early Church father, I would disagree that he contradicted scripture, but I have to believe that, if I didn't I would be a Catholic and not a Lutheran!

Ah but at least it is a debate worth having.

[Floatingaxe]

Why in the world does anything HAVE TO have a direct line to the Apostles? It is absolute folly for someone to say that it is a must. We have the Word of God and that is all we do need. Placing one's faith in an extra-biblical source is dangerous.

What did they do before we had the Bible. How do we determine that the people that put the Bible together were people we could trust to do so. By what authority can you claim that the books in the Bible are indeed sacred scripture. There are hundreds of writings out there that were rejected. Floatinaxe, I am serious when asking if you understand how we have the Bible. If the same men who reviewed all the writings at the time could determine which writings were sacred and which were not, would not these same men also know what they mean.

Which makes more sense. (1) The Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles and what they taught and continue to guide his truth through the generations, or (2) that the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles and then stopped for a time and then jumped back in to establish the Bible. And more importantly of those two possibilities, which does the Bible tells us will happen. It tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us in all generations.

If you continue to reject all these men say you are creating a real problem with the Authority of the Bible. You can not claim they were guided by the Holy Spirit in one breath and then turn around and claim that they were not in the next. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit would guide these men for a few days and then just leave them? I guess I should back up.

Floatingaxe do you believe that the men who put the Bible together were being guided by the Holy spirit? Yes/No

And then second do you think that the Holy Spirit would then just abandon them? Yes/No

First of all, I believe the Holy Spirit guided the men who wrote the scriptures to write. Second of all, I believe that God used fallible men and women to produce the written texts. God then anoints the compilation and preserves His Word for generations up to this time.

I do not understand your second question at all.

Whatever these men ever said may have had validity and even spiritual strengths, but as some of it was error, and diverged from truth in some places, I would much rather take my instruction from the Holy Spirit's definitive work--the Bible! It is enough...believe me.

[Smalcald]

You mean like Martin Luther?

As to the first point we could establish that, but to the second point? I think some of what he taught contradicted scripture. Both points must be valid. I do not dismiss everything he taught as invalid. There were practices in the church that contradicted the doctrine of the church. Say one thing do another. These issues needed to be dealth with.

I was joking Kansasdad.

Obviously Luther was neither an apostle nor an early Church father, I would disagree that he contradicted scripture, but I have to believe that, if I didn't I would be a Catholic and not a Lutheran!

Ah but at least it is a debate worth having.

[Kansasdad]

Why in the world does anything HAVE TO have a direct line to the Apostles? It is absolute folly for someone to say that it is a must. We have the Word of God and that is all we do need. Placing one's faith in an extra-biblical source is dangerous.

What did they do before we had the Bible. How do we determine that the people that put the Bible together were people we could trust to do so. By what authority can you claim that the books in the Bible are indeed sacred scripture. There are hundreds of writings out there that were rejected. Floatinaxe, I am serious when asking if you understand how we have the Bible. If the same men who reviewed all the writings at the time could determine which writings were sacred and which were not, would not these same men also know what they mean.

Which makes more sense. (1) The Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles and what they taught and continue to guide his truth through the generations, or (2) that the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles and then stopped for a time and then jumped back in to establish the Bible. And more importantly of those two possibilities, which does the Bible tells us will happen. It tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us in all generations.

If you continue to reject all these men say you are creating a real problem with the Authority of the Bible. You can not claim they were guided by the Holy Spirit in one breath and then turn around and claim that they were not in the next. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit would guide these men for a few days and then just leave them? I guess I should back up.

Floatingaxe do you believe that the men who put the Bible together were being guided by the Holy spirit? Yes/No

And then second do you think that the Holy Spirit would then just abandon them? Yes/No

First of all, I believe the Holy Spirit guided the men who wrote the scriptures to write. Second of all, I believe that God used fallible men and women to produce the written texts. God then anoints the compilation and preserves His Word for generations up to this time.

I do not understand your second question at all.

Whatever these men ever said may have had validity and even spiritual strengths, but as some of it was error, and diverged from truth in some places, I would much rather take my instruction from the Holy Spirit's definitive work--the Bible! It is enough...believe me.

Yes I realise that you do not understand the second question. There in lies part of the difficulty.

In your statement above you state that some of their teaching was in error and diverged from truth. I agree that we should always be cautious about what anyone teaches. But take the verses in question. The teaching of these men, who studied under the Apostles, takes a literal interpretation of the scriptures. Their actions and teachings show the scripture to mean exactly what it says. So you can not say it diverges from scripture at all. All the other interpretations, including yours, diverge from the literal words in some way. So we know these men were not heretics, We know they were being guided by the Holy Spirit, We know they studied under the Apostles, and we know they took a very literal interpretation of these verses. What further confirmation do you need to understand these scripture verses. The Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth. Can you not see the guidance here. It is not based on personal revelations, or opinions. We have done exactly as Paul instructed us to do. Hold on to both the written, and the oral. We have scripture, the written, and documented teachings, the oral, which agree with each other completely.

[Floatingaxe]

What verses? Refresh my memory, please.

If it isn't in the Bible, then we are taking other men's opinions, and their interpretation of what they think the Holy Spirit has divulged to them---just what you have warned against.

[Kansasdad]

What verses? Refresh my memory, please.

If it isn't in the Bible, then we are taking other men's opinions, and their interpretation of what they think the Holy Spirit has divulged to them---just what you have warned against.

Running to my sons ball games right now. Please go back to the op and to a few post there after that show related verses. It is all over this thread. If you can't find them I will post them tomorrow.