Bible only kills

[seekingthemindofChrist]

The rule of thumb is whatever revelation we have must be in agreement with scripture.

Amen.

This is seen clearly here:

2 Peter 1:16-21

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Despite what Peter saw and heard when he was with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, he said that we have a more sure word of prophecy whereunto we do well to take heed to because he understood that no prophecy of the scripture was of any private interpretation or of the will of man, but rather that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What is written in scripture always trumps any personal revelation that contradicts the written and revealed word of God.

 

[Aaron56]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness are the things that complete the person of God, not simply the reading of the Bible.

 

[seekingthemindofChrist]

Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness are the things that complete the person of God, not simply the reading of the Bible.

I agree, but the doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness are found within the pages of the Bible, so we need to read it.

 

[Aaron56]

I agree, but the doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness are found within the pages of the Bible, so we need to read it.

Of course!

But, without elders (who have been trained by suffering and the application of the word) watching over our souls, we will make the scriptures say whatever we want.

 

[rogerg]

Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness are the things that complete the person of God, not simply the reading of the Bible.

"and is profitable for"? Are you separating the Bible as being the sole source of true "doctrine, correction and instruction in
righteousness", or do I misunderstand you?

 

[Aaron56]

"and is profitable for"? Are you separating the Bible as being the sole source of true "doctrine, correction and instruction in
righteousness", or do I misunderstand you?

Actually, the scriptures say that someOne is the source of these things. But, since He is the source of scripture there is no schism.

The proof of the Word is its life within the people… it must be applied and seen. Such is the role of the elders among the saints. It is the responsibility of the elders to care for the young ones; and the responsibility of the young ones to obey the elders.

17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

 

[seekingthemindofChrist]

Of course!

But, without elders (who have been trained by suffering and the application of the word) watching over our souls, we will make the scriptures say whatever we want.

By saying "we", that's a pretty broad accusation that could be taken as a judgment against all professing believers. I'm not saying that out of any sort of personal offense, but merely as an observation.

Personally, I have no desire whatsoever to make the scriptures say anything except what they truly say. Our safeguard, if we choose to truly avail ourselves of the same, is that we have access to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, who inspired the writing of the scriptures themselves. In other words, we can go to the author of the book himself to find out what the book truly says.

Of course, a lot of people are not sincere in their reading of the Bible, and that is where the many problems within the church originate from. Also, although I would not personally deny the importance of elders, just about every elder I have ever met was a terrible wrester of scripture. Although I know nothing about you personally, I would venture to guess that you too have met those who called themselves "elders" who had terribly swerved from the faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[Aaron56]

By saying "we", that's a pretty broad accusation that could be taken as a judgment against all professing believers. I'm not saying that out of any sort of personal offense, but merely as an observation.

Personally, I have no desire whatsoever to make the scriptures say anything except what they truly say. Our safeguard, if we choose to truly avail ourselves of the same, is that we have access to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, who inspired the writing of the scriptures themselves. In other words, we can go to the author of the book himself to find out what the book truly says.

Of course, a lot of people are not sincere in their reading of the Bible, and that is where the many problems within the church originate from. Also, although I would not personally deny the importance of elders, just about every elder I have ever met was a terrible wrester of scripture. Although I know nothing about you personally, I would venture to guess that you too have met those who called themselves "elders" who had terribly swerved from the faith once delivered to the saints.

You’re missing the picture that is provided clearly for us in the scriptures: the epistles, as a whole, are from elders writing to the ones they watch over. They call them their children, their sons, they speak of households, the uniqueness of roles, etc. Of course the words are important, they are words of life, but the manner in which they are delivered is from one who has been proven by the Word to those who are learning to walk in it.

This is easy to ferret out: ask another who watches over their soul, as the scriptures instruct, and see what they say. Many will say “It’s just me and Jesus”. Save for the disciples (who are now asleep) this cannot be true. Yet, God is building His house by the same model Jesus showed us and by the same model followed by those instructed by Him. God intends to build multigenerationally, passing wisdom down from the elders to the young. Instead, “Just me and Jesus” is a recipe for a nation of orphans. And that explains the current state of much of the church.

 

[seekingthemindofChrist]

You’re missing the picture that is provided clearly for us in the scriptures: the epistles, as a whole, are from elders writing to the ones they watch over. They call them their children, their sons, they speak of households, the uniqueness of roles, etc. Of course the words are important, they are words of life, but the manner in which they are delivered is from one who has been proven by the Word to those who are learning to walk in it.

This is easy to ferret out: ask another who watches over their soul, as the scriptures instruct, and see what they say. Many will say “It’s just me and Jesus”. Save for the disciples (who are now asleep) this cannot be true. Yet, God is building His house by the same model Jesus showed us and by the same model followed by those instructed by Him. God intends to build multigenerationally, passing wisdom down from the elders to the young. Instead, “Just me and Jesus” is a recipe for a nation of orphans. And that explains the current state of much of the church.

I'm not denying that there is truth in what you shared here. Also, I am not missing the picture, but instead saying that the picture has been greatly distorted. Does God have a blueprint, so to speak, that he wants us to follow? Yes, I believe that he does, but what happens when those "at the top" go astray? I mean, the Bible also warns us repeatedly of false prophets, false apostles, false teachers, false brethren, wolves in sheep's clothing, etc., etc. Just because someone has reached the place or status of an elder in the church, this does not necessarily mean that they were ordained of God. We must prove all things, and that includes those within leadership positions. Ideally, I don't have a problem with anything that you said, but the conditions within much of Christendom are anything but ideal.

 

[Aaron56]

I'm not denying that there is truth in what you shared here. Also, I am not missing the picture, but instead saying that the picture has been greatly distorted. Does God have a blueprint, so to speak, that he wants us to follow? Yes, I believe that he does, but what happens when those "at the top" go astray? I mean, the Bible also warns us repeatedly of false prophets, false apostles, false teachers, false brethren, wolves in sheep's clothing, etc., etc. Just because someone has reached the place or status of an elder in the church, this does not necessarily mean that they were ordained of God. We must prove all things, and that includes those within leadership positions. Ideally, I don't have a problem with anything that you said, but the conditions within much of Christendom are anything but ideal.

I agree. Any order, worth its salt, must permit the leaders to be examined. Any leader, likewise, should welcome examination. The celebrity culture that pervades much of the US church is not such an order. It insulates its leaders from scrutiny, much like the older churches do. This pattern is not what the Lord, nor the first elders, showed us.

 

[Cameron143]

There are always going to be abuses in "the chiurch". That should never be a cause to set aside the directives of God. In other words, just because it's difficult and time consuming to find a good church with good elders doesn't mean you stop trying and settle for less than God has called for.

 

[seekingthemindofChrist]

I agree. Any order, worth its salt, must permit the leaders to be examined. Any leader, likewise, should welcome examination. The celebrity culture that pervades much of the US church is not such an order. It insulates its leaders from scrutiny, much like the older churches do. This pattern is not what the Lord, nor the first elders, showed us.

Speaking of the first elders, this is what Peter had to say in regard to this matter:

1 Peter 5:1-3

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

True elders are to willingly feed the flock of God, and not for filthy lucre's sake. Also, they are not lords over God's heritage or people, but they are to be ensamples or examples to the flock. In line with being examples, we also need to consider the following admonition from scripture:

Hebrews 13:7

"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."

When it comes to those who truly have the rule over us, they had better be speaking unto us the true word of God, and they had better be living godly lives themselves because we are called to follow their faith, and not their folly, as we consider the end of their conversation or manner of life. Again, they are called to be ensamples or examples to the flock.

Finally, as we have already discussed, elders are not exempt from examination. For example, this same Peter, who was an elder, was sternly rebuked by Paul at Antioch for his dissimulation or hypocrisy, which negatively influenced others, when he separated himself from eating with Gentile believers when certain Jewish believers showed up.

Galatians 2:11-14

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

Ultimately, everyone should be held to the same scrutiny, and that scrutiny is walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, and this leads me back to my simple point, which is this:

We must know the truth of the gospel ourselves. If we do not, then we cannot properly scrutinize ourselves or others.

 

[rogerg]

Actually, the scriptures say that someOne is the source of these things. But, since He is the source of scripture there is no schism.

The proof of the Word is its life within the people… it must be applied and seen. Such is the role of the elders among the saints. It is the responsibility of the elders to care for the young ones; and the responsibility of the young ones to obey the elders.

17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

But all of which must be strictly within the bounds of, and specifically supported by, biblical doctrine alone, with nothing
to be included not of biblical doctrine, right? In other words, those who "rule", must do so strictly in accordance with the doctrines
established by the Bible (which doctrines should themselves have been vetted according to the rules set-forth for such by Bible), thereby having no latitude to include anything not already present within it; that is, the Bible being sole source of, and authority for, everything spiritual.

Sorry, I don't think that I follow your first sentence about a schism.

 

[Aaron56]

But all of which must be strictly within the bounds of, and specifically supported by, biblical doctrine alone, with nothing
to be included not of biblical doctrine, right? In other words, those who "rule", must do so strictly in accordance with the doctrines
established by the Bible (which doctrines should themselves have been vetted according to the rules set-forth for such by Bible), thereby having no latitude to include anything not already present within it; that is, the Bible being sole source of, and authority for, everything spiritual.

Sorry, I don't think that I follow your first sentence about a schism.

Seeing the scriptures as a set of rules creates self-induced injury.

The sons of God are led by the Spirit, He may speak to us directly (Spirit to spirit) or speak to us by the scriptures. The scriptures also record another way the Spirit speaks to us: from the mouths of elders.

We will not find, within the scriptures, instruction on which job to take or where to travel, how to regard specific strangers, what exactly to teach: to whom and when, whether or not we are to stay in an area or go, for example. Yet, for each incident listed the Spirit is sure to guide us. Our assurance comes from within AND ALSO from the record of scripture where the Spirit led others.

For example, this is recorded about Paul:

6After the Holy Spirit had prevented them from speaking the word in the province of Asia, they traveled through the region of Phrygia and Galatia. 7And when they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not permit them. 8So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas.

Now, how Paul received this direction is not clear: was it from the Spirit speaking to his spirit? Was it a prophet speaking to him? We don't know. What we can be sure of IS THAT PAUL DID NOT READ IT. This was a communication that came to him in some other way than by "careful study". The Spirit provides real-time direction for all believers.

These examples are in a throughout the record of scripture as part of the normal culture of the sons of God.

 

[rogerg]

The sons of God are led by the Spirit, He may speak to us directly (Spirit to spirit) or speak to us by the scriptures. The scriptures also record another way the Spirit speaks to us: from the mouths of elders.

All must say exactly the same thing. There cannot be multiple differing sources of spiritual truth. All that God wanted to reveal regarding things spiritual, have already been revealed in/by the Bible. I firmly disagree that God adds new/additional spiritual truth through either the Holy Spirit or by the mouths of elders if that's what you're saying. Spiritual truth cannot evolve nor be modified nor be added to once given, or it never was truly truth: its revelation must have had a defined beginning point and a defined ending point, beyond which, no further truth is/can be forthcoming. Any source of truth having originated from God is worthy and capable of satisfying that requirement, otherwise, were it open ended and ongoing, we would/could never be able to know when we had received it all which would then make it untrustworthy, and therefore, could no one rightly be judged by God for failure to satisfy (or not) that which had not been given or is uncompleted.

We will not find, within the scriptures, instruction on which job to take or where to travel, how to regard specific strangers, what exactly to teach: to whom and when, whether or not we are to stay in an area or go, for example. Yet, for each incident listed the Spirit is sure to guide us. Our assurance comes from within AND ALSO from the record of scripture where the Spirit led others.

For example, this is recorded about Paul:

6After the Holy Spirit had prevented them from speaking the word in the province of Asia, they traveled through the region of Phrygia and Galatia. 7And when they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not permit them. 8So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas.

Guidance is a matter different from that of the introduction of new spiritual truth. Guidance can only be built upon/from spiritual truth and will never contradict spiritual truth - guidance is not new spiritual truth.
The example you sited above (verse 6) occurred during the period of spiritual revelation before closure of the Bible, and therefore, new spiritual truth and God's conformation of His truth, was still being dispensed by God. After Revelation 22:18 -19, however, further revelation ceased, never to reoccur.

Now, how Paul received this direction is not clear: was it from the Spirit speaking to his spirit? Was it a prophet speaking to him? We don't know. What we can be sure of IS THAT PAUL DID NOT READ IT. This was a communication that came to him in some other way than by "careful study". The Spirit provides real-time direction for all believers.

These examples are in a throughout the record of scripture as part of the normal culture of the sons of God.

Again, there is a distinction to be made between the time period when the scripture was still being revealed and confirmed,
as opposed to the time period after its revelation had been completed.

 

[Aaron56]

All must say exactly the same thing. There cannot be multiple differing sources of spiritual truth. All that God wanted to reveal regarding things spiritual, have already been revealed in/by the Bible. I firmly disagree that God adds new/additional spiritual truth through either the Holy Spirit or by the mouths of elders if that's what you're saying. Spiritual truth cannot evolve nor be modified nor be added to once given, or it never was truly truth: its revelation must have had a defined beginning point and a defined ending point, beyond which, no further truth is/can be forthcoming. Any source of truth having originated from God is worthy and capable of satisfying that requirement, otherwise, were it open ended and ongoing, we would/could never be able to know when we had received it all which would then make it untrustworthy, and therefore, could no one rightly be judged by God for failure to satisfy (or not) that which had not been given or is uncompleted.



Guidance is a matter different from that of the introduction of new spiritual truth. Guidance can only be built upon/from spiritual truth and will never contradict spiritual truth - guidance is not new spiritual truth.
The example you sited above (verse 6) occurred during the period of spiritual revelation before closure of the Bible, and therefore, new spiritual truth and God's conformation of His truth, was still being dispensed by God. After Revelation 22:18 -19, however, further revelation ceased, never to reoccur.



Again, there is a distinction to be made between the time period when the scripture was still being revealed and confirmed,
as opposed to the time period after its revelation had been completed.

I don’t agree there is a distinction between Biblical times and today as far as how we are supposed to walk with the Lord. That’s a erroneous conclusion of dispensationalists and cessationists.

We certainly don’t need more scripture. The canon is complete. But the scripture necessitates elders who watch over the souls of the saints: carriers of grace specifically for our benefit. This is seen in the example of all the epistles.

And “truth“ is a person. We cannot conclude that knowing the scriptures makes us wise. That is the error of the pharisees. We must be doers of the word: the scriptures, the direction of the Spirit, and the counsel from elders (“Obey those who rule over you…”).

 

[rogerg]

I don’t agree there is a distinction between Biblical times and today as far as how we are supposed to walk with the Lord. That’s a erroneous conclusion of dispensationalists and cessationists.

We certainly don’t need more scripture. The canon is complete. But the scripture necessitates elders who watch over the souls of the saints: carriers of grace specifically for our benefit. This is seen in the example of all the epistles.

And “truth“ is a person. We cannot conclude that knowing the scriptures makes us wise. That is the error of the pharisees. We must be doers of the word: the scriptures, the direction of the Spirit, and the counsel from elders (“Obey those who rule over you…”).

Which part of the following verses do you disagree with?

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Look, I'm not sure that I follow your point. To me, the question is simply this: do you, or do you not, believe that today, there is only
one trustworthy source of spiritual authority and truth, namely, the Bible, upon which, all spiritual teaching and guidance should solely be derived and based, and no other source of spiritual truth besides it?
Being as I am not too bright, please try to keep your reply simple, clear, and to the point - thank you.

 

[Aaron56]

Which part of the following verses do you disagree with?

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Look, I'm not sure that I follow your point. To me, the question is simply this: do you, or do you not, believe that today, there is only
one trustworthy source of spiritual authority and truth, namely, the Bible, upon which, all spiritual teaching and guidance should solely be derived and based, and no other source of spiritual truth besides it?
Being as I am not too bright, please try to keep your reply simple, clear, and to the point - thank you.

It's simple cause and effect.

You seem to be reading scripture only [is needed to] make the man of God perfect and thoroughly equipped for all good works.

That's not what it says.

It says scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

THESE things (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness) make the man of God perfect and thoroughly equipped.

THESE things (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness) require the relationship between one who is an elder and one who is learning.

Paul wrote this to Timothy:

"But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance..."

Timothy is not making up his own doctrine, he is following Paul.

Paul would also write to the saints in Corinth:

"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

This is an elder setting an example for the young. This pattern is matched in every epistle. And why shouldn't it be: Jesus told His disciples "In the way that the Father sent me, I am sending you". Within a multi-generational house (family) wherein the elders are examples for the young, there is a clear line of culture whose origin is the father. This is true for the House of God and it is the way that God builds the house.

Scripture makes these relationship, elders to the young, essential within the Kingdom of God.

 

[rogerg]

It's simple cause and effect.

You seem to be reading scripture only [is needed to] make the man of God perfect and thoroughly equipped for all good works.

That's not what it says.

It says scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

THESE things (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness) make the man of God perfect and thoroughly equipped.

THESE things (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness) require the relationship between one who is an elder and one who is learning.

Paul wrote this to Timothy:

"But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance..."

Timothy is not making up his own doctrine, he is following Paul.

Paul would also write to the saints in Corinth:

"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

This is an elder setting an example for the young. This pattern is matched in every epistle. And why shouldn't it be: Jesus told His disciples "In the way that the Father sent me, I am sending you". Within a multi-generational house (family) wherein the elders are examples for the young, there is a clear line of culture whose origin is the father. This is true for the House of God and it is the way that God builds the house.

Scripture makes these relationship, elders to the young, essential within the Kingdom of God.

You didn't answer my question. Irrespective of how or through whom it is communicated and/or taught, do you believe that it should be limited to, and based solely upon the doctrines of the Bible and the Bible alone, with there being no other trustworthy source of
divine inspiration, authority and revelation other than it?

By the way, the "my doctrine" and other like phrases you referenced above, are they, amongst other divinely
inspirited sources, which became the Bible.
Indeed, Timothy followed Paul, but Paul was being led by God.

Even though God entrusts the knowledge of His word to certain people to make it manifest, yet it is God alone who teaches it:

[Jhn 6:45 KJV] 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

[1Co 3:4-7 KJV]
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

 

[Aaron56]

You didn't answer my question. Irrespective of how or through whom it is communicated and/or taught, do you believe that it should be limited to, and based solely upon the doctrines of the Bible and the Bible alone, with there being no other trustworthy source of
divine inspiration, authority and revelation other than it?

By the way, the "my doctrine" and other like phrases you referenced above, are they, amongst other divinely
inspirited sources, which became the Bible.
Indeed, Timothy followed Paul, but Paul was being led by God.

Even though God entrusts the knowledge of His word to certain people to make it manifest, yet it is God alone who teaches it:

[Jhn 6:45 KJV] 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

[1Co 3:4-7 KJV]
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

The Bible actually claims that a certain person has all authority.

You say that Paul was led by God. Are you not also led by God? Also, who watches over your soul, as is written in the Bible?