Who told you the Bible was God's word ?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I

IAm3rd

Guest
#81
It informs that you are not a hostile questioner when you challenge faith in the Scriptures.
When did I challenge faith in the scriptures ? I simply asked who told you it was the word of God, and why did you accept the dicisions of those who chose which books would be included. There is no need to explain what I believe prior to the question.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
#83
Wow... I literally laughed out loud at this.

So since they use it, it is a logical conclusion that it is false ??? So, then it follows that since they use the New Testament then it is "false" as well ? As well as the belief in the Trinity, that Jesus is the Christ, etc etc etc ???

The "logic" of your "logical conclusion" is a bit lacking imo...

And may I ask sir, what IS a true Christian ?
Honestly, this is not a laughing matter. This is very serious. The Apocrypha is rejected by true Bible believing Christians. The RCC are not true Bible believing Christians because they reject many things in the Bible and they do not believe the Bible is their final word of authority but also believe in man's tradition within the church as being just as equally authorative. They do not believe in Sola Scriptura which the Bible teaches. Also, a simple Google search on why the Apocrypha is not Biblical will lead you to understand that it is in direct violation of Scripture in many places. Personally, before researching this, I did not need to be told that these manuscripts were false. Scanning thru them at a Christian book store one day, the Spirit had already told me they were bad before I researched it. The RCC is the only major religious group I know that loves the Apocrypha. Yet, Bible believing Christians know better. This should not even be a up for a debate if you have studied the Scriptures to any length and have walked with God. If you are a new believer, I can understand that is why you might be confused on this point, my friend. But please research it for yourself as to why it is not Biblical and pray to God about it and He will show you (Jeremiah 33:3).
 
Last edited:
I

IAm3rd

Guest
#84
Honestly, this is not a laughing matter. This is very serious. The Apocrypha is rejected by true Bible believing Christians. The RCC are not true Bible believing Christians because they reject many things in the Bible and they do not believe the Bible is their final word of authority but also believe in man's tradition within the church as being just as equally authorative. They do not believe in Sola Scriptura which the Bible teaches. Also, a simple Google search on why the Apocrypha is not Biblical will lead you to understand that it is in direct violation of Scripture in many places. Personally, before researching this, I did not need to be told that these manuscripts were false. Scanning thru them at a Christian book store one day, the Spirit had already told me they were bad before I researched it. The RCC is the only major religious group I know that loves the Apocrypha. Yet, Bible believing Christians know better. This should not even be a up for a debate if you have studied the Scriptures to any length and have walked with God. If you are a new believer, I can understand that is why you might be confused on this point, my friend. But please research it for yourself as to why it is not Biblical and pray to God about it and He will show you (Jeremiah 33:3).
The Bible does not teach sola scriptura... Although I myself stick to the scripture alone, but not because the scripture teaches it. Because it doesnt...
While I do not agree with everything the CC teaches, I think they have a pretty good argument for tradition. And, if you would ever actually answer my question we could kind of get to the crux of this matter.

Since the "Bible" didn't exist for the first 400 years of Christianity, what then was the authority if not tradition ?
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
#85
The Bible does not teach sola scriptura... Although I myself stick to the scripture alone, but not because the scripture teaches it. Because it doesnt...
While I do not agree with everything the CC teaches, I think they have a pretty good argument for tradition. And, if you would ever actually answer my question we could kind of get to the crux of this matter.
Sola Scriptura proven from the Bible! Irrefutable proof texts!
(Note: I do not agree with every thing the author of this website believes; Especially their false view on baptismal salvation; However, they do have a great list of Sola Scriptura verses, though).

Also, Revelation says we are not to add or take away from God's Word. Jesus said to the Pharisees that they do not understand because His Word does not abide in them (John 8:37). Jesus said to those who believed that if they continued in His Word then they are his disciples indeed (John 8:30-31). Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). In other words, you can't have faith without the Word. In John chapter 3: Jesus said we must be born of the Spirit and of water. Being born of the Spirit is obvious to most believers. But a lot of other folks get confused as to how we are born again of water, though. Many think this is a reference to baptismal salvation which is wrong. However, Ephesians 5:25-26 provides us with the real answer. It says Christ will sanctify the church with the washing of the water of the Word. In John chapter 4: Jesus said to the woman at the well that He has life giving water (or living water) to give to her that will be like a well spring of water leading to everlasting life (i.e. Having a relationship with Him who is everlasting life) . Jesus said, His words are spirit and they are life. Man shall not live by bread alone but every Word of God. In other words, the Word is how we get our faith and it is essential to how we are nourished and sanctified. In fact, even the defense of our faith is with the Sword of the Spirit (Mentioned in Ephesians 6). It's not the oral traditions or the commandments of men condemned by Jesus.

Since the "Bible" didn't exist for the first 400 years of Christianity, what then was the authority if not tradition ?
When we say "Bible" is merely a collection of written works or collection of books (scrolls). It does not mean a book as we would understand that word today with a front and back cover and numbered pages. In the Bible the word "book" was referring to a scroll. The "Bible" was a work in progress during the time of Paul. It was not complete, but it was being written down until John's Revelation would close the completion of God's written Word to man. For example: the Latin manuscripts existed in manuscript form, but they still can be called a Bible because it is a collection of writings.
 
Last edited:

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#86
When did I challenge faith in the scriptures ? I simply asked who told you it was the word of God, and why did you accept the dicisions of those who chose which books would be included. There is no need to explain what I believe prior to the question.
Yes, and in light of the fact that believers do believe the Bible, that sounds like a challenge to their faith in Scripture.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#87
The Bible does not teach sola scriptura... Although I myself stick to the scripture alone, but not because the scripture teaches it. Because it doesnt...
While I do not agree with everything the CC teaches, I think they have a pretty good argument for tradition. And, if you would ever actually answer my question we could kind of get to the crux of this matter.

Since the "Bible" didn't exist for the first 400 years of Christianity, what then was the authority if not tradition ?
The manuscripts.
 
I

IAm3rd

Guest
#90
Those who had access to the manuscripts got to decide what the faithful heard.
Yes, and those who had "the manuscripts" had all kinds of manuscripts. There was much debate in the early church as to what was inspired, and what was not. Thats why they held councils in the late 4th century to decide on the canon.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#91
Yes, and those who had "the manuscripts" had all kinds of manuscripts. There was much debate in the early church as to what was inspired, and what was not. Thats why they held councils in the late 4th century to decide on the canon.
And through it all the providence of God assured that the faithful received the saving knowledge that was necessary for them.
 
I

IAm3rd

Guest
#92
And through it all the providence of God assured that the faithful received the saving knowledge that was necessary for them.
Yes again, but that doesnt answer the question. What was the authority in the 400 years of not having a bible, or manuscripts that everyone agreed upon ?
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#93
Yes again, but that doesnt answer the question. What was the authority in the 400 years of not having a bible, or manuscripts that everyone agreed upon ?
Perceived authority, or real authority?

Perceived authority would have been the church hierarchy, which the faithful would have accepted.

Real authority would have been the God-breathed Scriptures.
 
Last edited:
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
#94
Yes again, but that doesnt answer the question.
First, I don't think everyone who has gotten saved by a Chick Tract is a Jack Chick follower. I know I am not. I accepted Christ as my Savior with "This Was Your Life" tract in 1992 when I was a teenager. I liked some of his material, but did not come to agree with all of it later. In fact, I do not think every other Christian who has got saved thru his tracts is a die hard follower of his either. I believe he is a true servant of our Lord. So I will not speak ill of him. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind that he has led more people to Christ with his tracts than you can possibly imagine. So please do not discredit him or the work that he is doing for the Lord. Second, I didn't really learn much about Catholicism from him besides reading two tracts. The real meat of my study of why Catholicism is unbiblical (big time) is thru personal study after I renewed my faith in 2010 (After God brought a beautiful Christian woman into my life who lives half way around the world).

What was the authority in the 400 years of not having a bible, or manuscripts that everyone agreed upon ?
What 400 years are you really talking about? What period of time?