A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[Thinkingstuff]

Your reply is why human reasoning is so inadequate. .

I don't see how. Its clearly a logical premise and a reasonable approach. A person once said that revelation wasn't meant to be work free but God gave us a brain. Jesus never said to do away with the man made institution of slavery. However, after years of following Jesus Christ and applying principles of Christ teachings to our lives that it became clear slavery is not consistent with Christianity and thus all Christianity at some point has banned it. Because it is an affront to God. Yet what do scriptures say? Be a good slave. Be a good master. consider each other brothers. But of the institution? Nothing.

God gave His people His word. Then He gave His own His Spirit. We do not

Amen to that. Yet despite the number of spirit filled christians we still have our disagreements on the meaning of the texts of scripture.

But we who are CHrist's have the mind of Christ

Again amen to that. Yet despite the mind of Christ though I can judge two men to love the Lord with all their heart one is a pacifist according to scripture and the other is not. Yet both revile violence, feed the poor, visit the prisoner, heal the sick, etc... There is something not quite complete.

What I think alot of people want is some infallible interpretor for them. Perhaps it fills some need for safety, or perhaps they are just lazy.

Possibly. I personally like study and digging. However, according to your previous sentences the role of the Holy Spirit is to be that "infallible interpretor" role for us yet in applicability it seems there is some failure.

When you appear before Jesus to be judged, He is not going to ask you how you responded to the ECFs. He is going to judge you by His Word

Unfortunately, he is not going to test me on his word. I may enter eternal life for my belief yet He will judge me for the things I have done and those things I have not done.

For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bow before me;

every tongue will confess to God.’ ”a

12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. - Romans 14:9-12

24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize - 1 Cor 9:24-27

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire - Rev 20:11-15

 

[BillySunday1935]

First of all, your not a baptist. And it is dishonest for you to claim to be in your profile. Your a papist. I just wish you would be honest about that.

Let the love begin to flow...

You have bought the papal lie about history. I am telling you I ahve read the same histories, the same writings, et. Perhaps you just can't imagine someone looking at the same data and not seeing what you see?

Right back 'atcha!

The papacy has NEVER been guided by the Holy Spirit. Unless you think murdering bible-believers is the will of God.

How do you know - were you there?

Do I have an axe to grind? Yes, actually I do. I am wholly and completely offended at a papal church that murders men, women, and children, that perverts every doctrine of the Christian church, that usurps the Godhead in every respect, and leads this world in spiritual adultery.

And all of this means...

I am also appalled ...

Well, I am sure that you will recover.

...that you would be permitted to be a member of a Baptist church that should throw you out on your ear and send you to the papists.

The Church I attend has no authority over me, you or anyone else for that matter. Thus they can neither "throw me out on my ear..." nor "... send me to the papists."

Now that you've vented, why not respond with something other than ranting personal opinions to my questions?

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

I am well aware of early Christian writings. I am not, however, bound by their authority as you are. It is quite revealing to me when debating papists that their primary appeal is to authority outside Scripture while bible-believers look to the Scripture (today, in large part to Huss, Wycliffe, and others who sacrificed their lives by the papacy to do so).

Huss was handed over to the king for sentencing and its implementation. John Wycliffe died of old age. - he did NOT sacrifice his life.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I don't see how. Its clearly a logical premise and a reasonable approach. A person once said that revelation wasn't meant to be work free but God gave us a brain. Jesus never said to do away with the man made institution of slavery. However, after years of following Jesus Christ and applying principles of Christ teachings to our lives that it became clear slavery is not consistent with Christianity and thus all Christianity at some point has banned it. Because it is an affront to God. Yet what do scriptures say? Be a good slave. Be a good master. consider each other brothers. But of the institution? Nothing.


Amen to that. Yet despite the number of spirit filled christians we still have our disagreements on the meaning of the texts of scripture.



Again amen to that. Yet despite the mind of Christ though I can judge two men to love the Lord with all their heart one is a pacifist according to scripture and the other is not. Yet both revile violence, feed the poor, visit the prisoner, heal the sick, etc... There is something not quite complete.



Possibly. I personally like study and digging. However, according to your previous sentences the role of the Holy Spirit is to be that "infallible interpretor" role for us yet in applicability it seems there is some failure.




Unfortunately, he is not going to test me on his word. I may enter eternal life for my belief yet He will judge me for the things I have done and those things I have not done.

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Yes whether or not I've done them.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Huss was handed over to the king for sentencing and its implementation. John Wycliffe died of old age. - he did NOT sacrifice his life.

Peace!

An Italian prelate pronounced the sentence of condemnation upon Hus and his writings. Hus protested, saying that even at this hour he did not wish anything, but to be convinced from Holy Scripture. He fell upon his knees and asked God with a low voice to forgive all his enemies. Then followed his degradation — he was enrobed in priestly vestments and again asked to recant; again he refused. With curses his ornaments were taken from him, his priestly tonsure was destroyed, and the sentence was pronounced that the Church had deprived him of all rights and delivered him to the secular powers. Then a high paper hat was put upon his head, with the inscription "Haeresiarcha" (meaning the leader of a heretical movement). Hus was led away to the stake under a strong guard of armed men. At the place of execution he knelt down, spread out his hands, and prayed aloud. Some of the people asked that a confessor should be given to him, but one priest exclaimed that a heretic should neither be heard nor given a confessor.

As Christ said to the Jews, I think He would also say to you and others who say things such as you wrote:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets."

Like the Jews did to the Christians by handing them over to the secular powers for execution, even as they did to the Son of God, so did the papal authority to the Christians when it was their time to do so.

The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. The exhumation was carried out in 1428 when, at the command of Pope Martin V, his remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

I made a mistake in lumping Wycliffe in as a martyr for Christ by the papacy. They burnt him after he was dead already.

So, this is church you think to be Christian?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes whether or not I've done them.

What will be the ground of your judgment. Will you be judged by the Word of God and of Christ or by popes and church councils?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Let the love begin to flow...



Right back 'atcha!



How do you know - were you there?



And all of this means...



Well, I am sure that you will recover.



The Church I attend has no authority over me, you or anyone else for that matter. Thus they can neither "throw me out on my ear..." nor "... send me to the papists."

Now that you've vented, why not respond with something other than ranting personal opinions to my questions?

Peace!

Your lack of submission to the elders of your church tells me alot.

 

[DHK]

Unfortunately you are gone and I wish you well. But your position isn't sound.
1. Yes the jews would understand terms such as Rock and Pebble and use them in the context of their speach. It would be prohibited to give peter a feminine name in order to make the point. Thus Jesus wouldn't say Petra (f) though art Petra (f). Peter would then have to have a feminine name applied forever. However, the language doesn't support the masculine equivelant of Kepha.

First, Kepha is in Aramaic not in Greek. The Word of God is inspired in Greek not in Aramaic. There is no evidence that the canon of the Bible was ever written in Aramaic. It is here your argument falls to pieces.
Furthermore, your argument fails in that you failed to look at post #53, by Bob Ryan made the night before (a nine hour difference) when Bob posted this for you:

Originally Posted by BobRyan
1 Cor 3 "No other Foundation (PETRA) can anyone lay than has been laid - Jesus Christ"

1Cor 10 "They all drank from the same spiritual ROCK (PETRA) and that Rock is Christ"

Matt 16 "you are PETROS -- upon this PETRA I will build my church... He turned and said to Peter "get thee behind Me satan" "

Matt 7 "everyone who hears these Words of MINE and ACTS upon them may be compared to a wise man that built his house upon the PETRA"

Christ is "The Rock" in fact the text is clear "NTHER Rock" is allowed 1Cor 3.

Your argument that "petra" being a feminine noun would never be used for Christ fails on this account alone. It is used for Christ over and over alone.

2. There may or may not have been a Q document which were a collection of sayings of Jesus. I believe that communal memory passed down by the Apostles to their disciples were more consistent than we give them credit for. Either way its irrelevant to the discussion.

The Q document is pure fiction. That which is our authority is the Word of God, which we now possess in the 66 books of the Bible, written by holy men of old, guided by the Holy Spirit and penned on MSS as the very inspired words of God. We have copies of those words which are preserved for us to this day. Any other words are not inspired and therefore not authoritative.

3. If the translator wanted to use pebble then I will build my church upon this pebble misses the import that a rock or founding stone would have. Petra would have to be used to get the point accross.

It is not the translator. Translations are now in the thousands. It is the Holy Spirit who wrote in the Greek and told Matthew what to write. What Matthew wrote was inspired by God. Your argument therefore is with God. There is a definite difference between petros and petra.

4. So unless you can come up with better material it may not be as much "rubbish" as you may suppose.

At this point I would question just who has the rubbish.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Your lack of submission to the elders of your church tells me alot.

And your responses tell me that you have neither the inclination nor the capacity to address this subject in a mature and intelligent way. Your member image says it all.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

As Christ said to the Jews, I think He would also say to you and others who say things such as you wrote:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets."

Like the Jews did to the Christians by handing them over to the secular powers for execution, even as they did to the Son of God, so did the papal authority to the Christians when it was their time to do so.

I made a mistake in lumping Wycliffe in as a martyr for Christ by the papacy. They burnt him after he was dead already.

So, this is church you think to be Christian?

Let me know when you have something of value to say...

 

[DHK]

Well, I’ve just posted many documents that DO support that idea. Yet, you have provided nothing in contradiction. If you have studied Church history then you should be able to provide us with some historical documents dating back at least as far as those that I have posted that prove your statement.

You read the wrong history books. You are biased in your reading. You are like the Mormon that reads only Mormon literature and thus asserts his scholarly conclusion is more educated than yours.

Again – see the above…

No need to see the above. You want to read the "Roman Catholic Church" back into first century history. Do you also want to read computers back into first century history. We don't start with a present premise and try to prove that it was in the first century. You have become biased before you have even started.

Well, its historical fact that they did. You can ignore it if you wish, but that would be your problem.

The canon was finished at the end of the first century with the writings of the Apostle John. Your assumption is that the Apostles were so stupid that they could not educate first century believers what was Scripture and what was not. In fact this is the position of all Catholics. It is so arrogant that is pitiful.
The fact remains that the RCC did not even exist until the fourth century. What do you think believers did before that century?
Have you ever heard of the Peshitta, the Itala, and other second and third translations of the Bible, that existed far before the RCC did.

It’s simple logic – nothing more! The RCC had the authority – guided by the Holy Spirit – to create the NT canon. If you were a true student of History, or even had a Western Civ. 101 course under your belt, you would know this. Personally, it sounds to me as though you have an axe to grind.

Yeah, it is simple logic. Rome (the RCC) had the authority to murder thousands through the Inquistions, the Crusades, and various other persecutions and tortures. Yep, they had the authority all right. But God never gave them the authority to touch, create, keep, preserve, the Word of God. That was in the hands of "holy men of old"--the prophets of the OT and the apostles of the NT, and the early believers. The RCC was and is one of the most wicked organizations to exist. God would never entrust His holy Word to them. Please don't make that assumption. To say that they were guided by the Holy Spirit is ludicrous. The Holy Spirit does not guide to murder, torture, persecute. If you were a true student of history you would know these things. But you conveniently gloss over them. It sounds to me you have both an axe to grind and one to defend--unfortunately (defending the axe that beheaded the martyrs that stood for the Word is sickening)!

I wonder no such thing.

You ought to wonder; but maybe not. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing.
You are not a Baptist. You are a Catholic spouting Catholic doctrine lying on your profile saying you are a Catholic when you are not. No Baptist believes this garbage.

Again… more opinion.

No, it was a statement of fact.
No Baptist believes this garbage. That is not opinion. You are not a Baptist.

And you should mind your own affairs.

Honesty is a Christian trait.
If you are honest then you should leave the SBC which you are associated with and join the RCC which you so ardently defend. Why are you so dishonest?

Let’s see - you use scripture to judge the councils that put together the scripture of the NT by which you are judging them. Astronomically circular!

--Man is a sinner. He is not infallible. Only God is infallible.
It stands to reason then that no Council is infallible.
It also stands to reason that no Council of the RCC is infallible.
The only authority that is infallible is the Bible which is inspired of God, not of man. The RCC had nothing to do with its canonization.

Well, all I can say is that people are fallible and they make mistakes. So, whose interpretation of scripture do you follow, hmmm? It is going to be through some denominational lenses that you view scripture you know. So, which shall you chose? I believe that, wherever there is consensus among the ECF’s, there is a guide to what the Early Church taught and worshipped. It is undeniably clear. Personally, I would prefer to use the Early Church as my interpretational lenses as they were close to the time of Christ and his teachings, and knew better than some yahoo “theologians” who came onto the scene in only the last 500 years.

You prefer the early church; I prefer the leading of the Holy Spirit.
You prefer the early church; I prefer the objective study of the Scriptures.
You prefer the early church; the ECF which you prefer were caught up in many heresies.

Ireaneus believed that Christ lived up to the age 80. Reliable wasn't he?
Origen was declared a heretic even by the RCC.
Tertullian at one stage believed that baptism saved, and that at another stage believed in believer's baptism. Later he became a Montanist. Which account do you believe?
Eusbius was a follower of Origen; who knows what he believed, as he was a follower of the heresies of Origen in many of his philosophies.

So, go and believe your heresies. I will believe the Word of God.

What makes you think that our Catholic Christian brothers and sisters ignore Christ? As far as I can tell, they are more Christocentric that many Protestant denominations out there.

If they are not saved, they are not my brothers and sisters.
Jesus said (John 8:44) "Ye are of your father, the devil...)
Catholic doctrine teaches that the new birth is baptism. If that is their belief they cannot be saved, and therefore are not my brothers and sisters. The RCC is not and never was a Christian Church. With all of its anti-Biblical doctrines it falls outside the realm of Christendom.

Right…

Yes it is right. Early believers recognized the canon that was already in existence. But the RCC recognize "the stupidity" of the Apostles. That is unfortunate.

Look - there were many writings out there at the time and some were even heretical. Why in the world do you think the councils were called in the first place? It was to create a unified canon of the inspired and authentic writings into one unit that all Churches could use with confidence. Here’s a list of what didn’t make the cut. Again, this is historical fact!

New Testament Apocrypha
Community Rule
The 'Zadokite' Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy's Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES' CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA's to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Phillip
Secret Gospel of Mark
Book of Marcion
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
The Letter of Aristeas
The Didache

Peace!

And we had the Apostles to teach us which were Scripture and which were not. It doesn't take much brains to figure that out.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Let me know when you have something of value to say...

And let me know when your man enough to stand up for who you really are.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And your responses tell me that you have neither the inclination nor the capacity to address this subject in a mature and intelligent way. Your member image says it all.

Peace!

Are you pretending you do? You should go read my post on Sola Scriptura.

 

[BillySunday1935]

You read the wrong history books. You are biased in your reading. You are like the Mormon that reads only Mormon literature and thus asserts his scholarly conclusion is more educated than yours.

The world trembles in the face of your rapier wit.

The fact remains that the RCC did not even exist until the fourth century. What do you think believers did before that century?

Please note the dates here DHK -- they precede your ridiculous 4th century theory by around two hundred years.

St. Ignatius of Antioch: A.D. 107
"Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Oops...

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Agustine verifies this a little later...

Augustine (Letters 53:2 [A.D. 412]).
2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.

Yeah, it is simple logic. Rome (the RCC) had the authority to murder thousands through the Inquistions, the Crusades, and various other persecutions and tortures.

If it were not for the Crusades, you would be bowing to Allah under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Be carefull where you cast dispersions there DHK. Again, you show your complete ignorance of history.

Yep, they had the authority all right. But God never gave them the authority to touch, create, keep, preserve, the Word of God. That was in the hands of "holy men of old"--the prophets of the OT and the apostles of the NT, and the early believers. The RCC was and is one of the most wicked organizations to exist. God would never entrust His holy Word to them. Please don't make that assumption. To say that they were guided by the Holy Spirit is ludicrous. snip...

Oh please - spare me the self-righteousness!

You ought to wonder; but maybe not. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing.
You are not a Baptist. You are a Catholic spouting Catholic doctrine lying on your profile saying you are a Catholic when you are not. No Baptist believes this garbage.

Let me say this again! I was born and raised a Baptist. My ancestors were Baptist back to the Civil War. I could really care less what you think about me, so deal with it!

No Baptist believes this garbage. That is not opinion. You are not a Baptist.

And you are not God!

Honesty is a Christian trait.
If you are honest then you should leave the SBC which you are associated with and join the RCC which you so ardently defend. Why are you so dishonest?

Insert Charlie Brown's Teacher's voice here...wah... wah... wah... wah

--Man is a sinner. He is not infallible. Only God is infallible.
It stands to reason then that no Council is infallible.
It also stands to reason that no Council of the RCC is infallible.
The only authority that is infallible is the Bible which is inspired of God, not of man. The RCC had nothing to do with its canonization.

This is complete and utter twaddle representing only your opinion.

You prefer the early church; I prefer the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Do you think that the Early Church was NOT led by the Holy Spirit? Do you think that some newcomer religion is closer to Christ than the early Church? Clearly you do!

You prefer the early church; I prefer the objective study of the Scriptures.

Do you think that the "objective study of the Scriptures" is closer to the truth than the practices of the early Church? Apparently so!

You prefer the early church; the ECF which you prefer were caught up in many heresies.

Ireaneus believed that Christ lived up to the age 80. Reliable wasn't he?
Origen was declared a heretic even by the RCC.
Tertullian at one stage believed that baptism saved, and that at another stage believed in believer's baptism. Later he became a Montanist. Which account do you believe?
Eusbius was a follower of Origen; who knows what he believed, as he was a follower of the heresies of Origen in many of his philosophies.

Well, some of those heretical ECF's put forth the doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. Do you deny those doctrines? Be consistent there DHK!

So, go and believe your heresies. I will believe the Word of God.

No - you believe in your fallible interpretation of the Word of God!

If they are not saved, they are not my brothers and sisters.

And just who the heck are you to decide who is or is not saved - God? Do you know who is in heaven or hell DHK? You certainly appear to claim that authority for yourself. Carefull, lest you wind up in hell for commiting the sin of presumption!

The RCC is not and never was a Christian Church. With all of its anti-Biblical doctrines it falls outside the realm of Christendom.

Blah... blah... blah... Just more of the same bigotted opinion from you, DHK!

Yes it is right. Early believers recognized the canon that was already in existence. But the RCC recognize "the stupidity" of the Apostles. That is unfortunate.

And that diatribe is completely divorced from reality.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

And let me know when your man enough to stand up for who you really are.

And let me know when I care what you think about me.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Are you pretending you do? You should go read my post on Sola Scriptura.

Well, I don't think that you can show me directly from scripture where scripture claims that it is the SOLE authority for Christians regarding faith and morals. Wanna' try again? And this time please address the material and formal sufficiency of scripture.


Peace!

 

[DHK]

Please note the dates here DHK -- they precede your ridiculous 4th century theory by around two hundred years.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

St. Ignatius of Antioch: A.D. 107

"Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

St. Ignatius of Antioch Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Oops...

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

In case you hadn't realized it, what you have posted are primarily the early church fathers along with some Tradtion, and perhaps some church history, none of which relates to the RCC. I note you use the word "ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles." The RCC had no such thing.

Agustine verifies this a little later...

By most accounts Agustine was an intelligent man. But he did hold to various and sundry heresies, and of course by his time the RCC was already in place, thus the name of "St. Augustine," whether or not he deserved it is another matter.

Augustine (Letters 53:2 [A.D. 412]).

2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.

The Donatists had many pastors (another term for pastor; same office different name). Peter was never made a Pope. He went to Rome to die, and that is all. Not even the Catholics themselves can prove any different. Peter being in Rome as a bishop, a Pope, etc. is a myth, and nothing more. You have no evidence to the contrary, and thus everything that follows is all bogus.

If it were not for the Crusades, you would be bowing to Allah under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Be carefull where you cast dispersions there DHK. Again, you show your complete ignorance of history.

Your statement: "The arm of flesh will save you; you dare not trust your Lord." That seems to be correct, is it?
My history books tell me that the Crusades completely annihilated the Albigeneses, a peaceful, God-fearing, gospel-preaching people that wanted nothing more than to be left alone to live in peace. But the RCC feared that their peaceful evangelical ways would corrupt the RCC itself. They went out and killed them all. It was a massacre. What does the Bible say:

Revelation 17:5-6 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
8 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--What shall we say: "If the shoe fits, wear it!"

But the Bible also says: "The Lord knows them that are his."
He has promised to preserve throughout every generation a people for himself.
I know history, and I know the Bible better.
You say you know history. But you don't know the Bible. And you can't dictate to God what he would have done.

Oh please - spare me the self-righteousness!

Spare you the truth?? You need a good dose more!
It is too bad that Dr. Walters left. He would have told you the same thing.

 

[DHK]

Let me say this again! I was born and raised a Baptist. My ancestors were Baptist back to the Civil War. I could really care less what you think about me, so deal with it!

Your heritage as a Baptist doesn't make you one. You must be born again. If you haven't been born into the family of God, by the Spirit of God (and not of water--the water of baptism), then you are not saved, and not a Baptist. You don't hold to Baptist doctrine whether or not you sit in a Baptist church. You are not Baptist because you come from a Baptist family. You sit here and spout Catholic doctrine. It is obvious to all who read your posts that you are not a Baptist. You need to be honest.

And you are not God!

I don't have to be God. Jesus said: "You shall judge them by their fruit."
That is what I do. I judge by your fruit. Your fruit is not Biblical but unbiblical if not anti-biblical. It is the fruit of the RCC, not of a Christian and not of a Baptist.

Insert Charlie Brown's Teacher's voice here...wah... wah... wah... wah

Suit yourself with your own immaturity.

This is complete and utter twaddle representing only your opinion.

No, it is fact. The Bible was written by the prophets and the apostles (2Pet.1:20-22). It is the inspired Word of God (2Tim.3:16). Thus it had nothing to do with the RCC. It claims its own inspiration.

Do you think that the Early Church was NOT led by the Holy Spirit? Do you think that some newcomer religion is closer to Christ than the early Church? Clearly you do!

The early church, yes. The RCC, no.
The promise is to every believer the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the RCC wouldn't know that. They trust in man not God. That is why they have a magesterium, a group of men to guide them.

Do you think that the "objective study of the Scriptures" is closer to the truth than the practices of the early Church? Apparently so!

Than the early church fathers, yes! Go ahead, trust in the works of Origen et. al. I would never do so.

Well, some of those heretical ECF's put forth the doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. Do you deny those doctrines? Be consistent there DHK!

I teach what the Bible teaches. The Bible taught the trinity long before they did.

No - you believe in your fallible interpretation of the Word of God!

I am not stuck on the heresies of the ECF. Apparently you are.

And just who the heck are you to decide who is or is not saved - God? Do you know who is in heaven or hell DHK? You certainly appear to claim that authority for yourself. Carefull, lest you wind up in hell for commiting the sin of presumption!

By their fruits you shall know them.

Blah... blah... blah... Just more of the same bigotted opinion from you, DHK!

You are opposed to listening to truth--always have been. That is why you have rejected your Baptist heritage.

And that diatribe is completely divorced from reality.

Peace!

Early believers recognized the canon that was already in existence, but it is pure folly on the part of the RCC not to recognize the early believers.

 

[1Tim115]

What? Clearly you didn't read my first post on the matter (#4). Anyway, as you well I don’t hold to the false and man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura and thus I am not bound by it, nor am I bound to defend it - that would be your position. Additionally, I can see why you run from the writings of the Early Church fathers. You do know that St. John Chrysostom is considered to be in the top five of the ECF's by theologians - both Catholic AND Protestant don't you?

Peace!

You're bound to a church, not the word of God? You're bound to a system and not the Savior? Why would you ever want to justify or validate anything outside of God's word? The simple truth was given to you in the first post in this thread. The title of the thread would allow you to continue to use "dogma" which is anything outside God's word.

I hope others are silently observing this hold man made doctrine has on some folks...there's a scripture for that...

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Colossians 2:20-22
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.