The Christian


#1

Just because a person professes to be a Christian does not mean that he or she is truly a Christian. A Christian is a person who is a follower of Christ (Acts 11:26).

There are many people who profess to be followers of Christ, but are they? Many people who believe that they are Christian will be told to depart from Jesus (Matthew 7:21-23). There are many people who honor Jesus, but with lip service only; their hearts aren’t true (Mark 7:6).

So how can we tell who is truly a Christian and who is not? We can tell by their works (Matthew 7:18-20, 1John 3:10).

A true Christian is one who abides in Christ (John 15:4), and those who abides in Christ does not sin (1John 3:6), because they are walking (living) as Jesus walked (1John 2:6).

If you want to be a true Christian repent; turn away from your sins (Ezekiel 18:1-32) and obey God’s commandments if you want to have the right to the tree of life (Matthew 19:16-27, Revelation 22:14).

In the name of Jesus,

Ken


#2

:hmmm:
Um, i might be missing something here, but why did you post this?


#3

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Because of false teachers, and false doctrines there are many people who believe they are saved, and will go to heaven, but instead they will hear Jesus tell them to depart from Him (Matthew 7:21-23).

So why did I post this? Perhaps one person will read this post, and have their blinded eyes opened to the truth.

In the name of Jesus,

Ken


#4

ImOdd4God,

The verse in your signature doesn’t even say what you claim it to say. Just letting you know…


#5

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The Bible (Scripture) is the only doctrine we need. Now, what do I mean by that? What that means is that we don’t need books written by man for instruction in righteousness. I don’t need to read a book written by Dr. Phil to see how I should live. I don’t need to read a book written by Charles Stanley for spiritual guideance. All I need is the Bible.

It appears as though your intention here is to argue? If I post something that is wrong and you can prove me wrong with Scripture, then do so. If the Bible isn’t the “ONLY” doctrine we need, show me in Scripture where God instructs us to look elsewhere for instruction.

In the name of Jesus,

Ken


#6

The verse in your signature doesn’t even say what you claim it to say. Just letting you know.

Very true … It says Scripture is “inspired,” “helpful,” and “good,” never that it is the only doctrine we need to know Truth. I can read “This is my Body, this is my blood–do this in memory of me,” and conclude something similar to memorialism, but without knowing the Greek behind the text, what good is such a faulty interpretation?

“Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.” Touto poieite means one of two things: 1) “do this” or 2) “offer this.” In Malachi 1 rests a prophecy which speaks of a future time when a pure Offering to the Lord will be offered all over the world, and the first century Christian community was quick to claim the Eucharist as the fulfillment of such a prophecy. Yes, these two words in the Septuagint are used in a sacrificial context numerous times, especially in Torah. The last word, anamnesin, means more than to “remember.” It is much stronger than that, and we don’t really have a perfect English equivalent to it. Truthfully, it means something more in line with “re-present.” Hence, when someone suffers an anamnestic reponse they refer to the following: Let’s say, for example, that a bee stings a person and the sting-mark swells. They are stung again in a different place, and the first sting reacts! In same way, the historic Church believed in the Eucharist as a re-presentation of Christ’s one and only Sacrifice at Calvary, not as a distinct one (make sense?). By looking at the text, however, all this isn’t apparent.

show me in Scripture where God instructs us to look elsewhere for instruction.

Well, there are several places in Scripture where Paul tells the believers to hold on to and practice the traditions and teachings they received from him (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, for example), but as Paul reaffrims in that first passage, the traditions the Church was to adhere to to were not merely in written format, but also the spoken Word, as well. The Word of God is not merely some inanimate thing, it is living and breathing–it is spoken as well. Sadly though, Protestants only accept half of Our Lord’s Word!

You can’t justify your view by Scripture, though. See? It merely calls Scripture “profitable” (“useful,” “helpful,” what have you), but consider the following: What was the early Church built upon? The Bible? There was none. Then what? The Teaching (or “Tradition”) of the Apostles, of course! Is the Church built on the Word of God? Hopefully: If not, we’re in trouble! If the Church is built upon the Apostles’ “human words,” she’s built on sinking sand. We must conclude that their doctrine was, and is, synonymous with the Word of Christ, in order that we acknowledge the Church as being firmly planted in Truth. Therefore, the Bible, while totally inspired, is not SOLEY inspired: So was (and is) the Apostles’ doctrine, upon which the Church was built.

By the way, is my signature authoritative to you? Is it inspired? Is Tobit profitable for teaching, correction, etc.? If not, why? And, who decides anyway? Luther, or the Church, “pillar and support of the Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)?

Shalom, friend!

(Think about it!) :thumbsup:


#7

I don’t need to argue with you. You still have yet to show us where scripture backs up your claim.


#8

What was the early Church built upon? The Bible? There was none.

There was the Old Testament, and that is precisely what this passage is refrencing. Paul is reminding us that while we have the New Covenant, that does not mean chuck the old because it is inspired, useful and profitable. And as you alluded to, it doesn’t tell us which books are inspired. Non-Catholics argue as if God dropped a compiled KJV from space directly into the Reformer’s hands.

If the Bible isn’t the “ONLY” doctrine we need, show me in Scripture where God instructs us to look elsewhere for instruction.

Thessalonians 2 Thes 2:14

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by epistle.


#9

There was the Old Testament, and that is precisely what this passage is refrencing. Paul is reminding us that while we have the New Covenant, that does not mean chuck the old because it is still useful and profitable

Sorry 'bout that! I got exoflare’s comment mixed up with IamOdd4God’s.

You’re right; there was an Old Testament, but that wasn’t clearly defined at the time. Truthfully, the Septuagint, which included Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and the Greek additions to Daniel and Esther, was the closest thing to a decisive Canon as they had. It wasn’t until Trent that the Canon was finally closed (remember, Revelation was just being squeezed in there at that time, so no Protestant can deny it was still open). Regardless of whether or not Janveh rejected the deuterocanon is irrelevant, as well, as they also rejected the entire New Covenant series.

So, in a word: While the Jews of the day had a certain sense of a Canon of Scripture in regards to the Old Testament, it wasn’t a decided matter yet.


#10

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.

The Bereans would take what the Apostle Paul “said” and compare his statements to Scripture to see if what he was saying was true. What if we are taught a tradition that is against Scripture, should we hold fast to it? Of course not, and I highly doubt that the Apostle Paul being a spokesman for Jesus would tell anybody to hold fast to any traditions that were ungodly.

So, when the Apostle Paul said in his letter to those in Thessalonica to hold on to the traditions that they have learned, it must be assumed that the traditions they learned were not traditions that went against God’s expectations.

The same principle applies to written letters or in the case of this post, books. I’m not saying that books written by others are all bad, but what I am saying and will stand by is that the Bible is the ONLY doctrine we need. Again, I don’t need a book written by Charles Stanley or anybody else to instruct me on how to live a Godly life; I have the Bible, and that is all I need.

Now, as far as being a non-Catholic; I do not contend that God compiled the KJV Bible and dropped it from the sky. I am full aware that the Catholic church put together the “cannons” believe me, a Catholic priest made sure that I knew that. So this brings me to another false teaching…

People teach that in order to understand the Bible you have to know the ancient Hebrew and Latin languages, which is where the KJV Bible was translated from. If that is true, then the Catholics who translated the Bible and put together the “cannons” did so incorrectly? I mean they mistranslated it to the point making it so that the average person would have to know the ancient Hebrew and Latin language in order to understand what they read?

See, I don’t believe that, and here’s why. We are warned to beware of false teachers (Matthew 7:15) now, being that I don’t know the ancient Hebrew and Latin language, how can I beware of false teachers? The only way that I can know a false teacher is to know what he is teaching is false. The only way I can know what he is teaching is false is to know what the truth is. Well, where do I obtain the truth? If I go to the Catholic church and ask the priest if he is a false teacher he will say no. If I go to a Baptist church, and ask the preacher if he is a false teacher, he will also say no. Wanna take a jab at what the preacher in the Adventist church will say? How about the Methodist church? So, because everyone will claim to be “TRUE” there has to be a way for ME to tell who is true and who is not. There is, and that is comparing what any person states to what the Bible says, and seeing if what they say is true. Just like the Bereans did with the apostle Paul.

In the name of Jesus,

Ken


#11

It looks like the title should’ve been:

The Christians are those who follow only Scripture not Traditions. :smiley:
Did Jesus ever follow Traditions or He broke every one of the Traditions? :wink:


#12

Am I missing something? I don’t see anything in the OP that a Catholic would disagree with, except for the signature line.

So, on that topic, what did Christians do in the first 5 centuries before the Canon was set? :confused: Were all of the Christians who were martyred by the pagans, yet never read the New Testament, not really Christians?


#13

I can’t help but laugh at this. I suppose we were overdue for a visit from an Evangelical and/or Fundamentalist to teach us the “error of our ways.”

In Pax Christi
Andrew


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.