What makes these other churches think they are right and other's are wrong?

That is all true - would that the RCC could see her way to join that church.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]How does a thing join itself?

 

I can't believe people still think they can study their way to the Truth. Oh well, good luck! But I pity the poor and the unschooled -- guess they don't have a chance. Too bad Christ didn't plan things well enough to leave an infallible teaching authority for all the non-PhDs of the world. </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible does not advocate SYI. Paul did leave a legacy found in 2 Tim 2:15, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

So now that you know what the Bible does teach tell me how you would explain Matthew 8:28, Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27?

 

I can't believe people still think they can study their way to the Truth. Oh well, good luck! But I pity the poor and the unschooled -- guess they don't have a chance. Too bad Christ didn't plan things well enough to leave an infallible teaching authority for all the non-PhDs of the world. </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible does not advocate SYI. Paul did leave a legacy found in 2 Tim 2:15, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

So now that you know what the Bible does teach tell me how you would explain Matthew 8:28, Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, you got me there. I don't have a clue what SYI means! Guess that makes me one of the unschooled!

 

The RCC is merely the historic decline of what became of the NT Christian church once error had corrupted its pure NT teaching over time.

Just as the ONE true Hebrew Nation church started by God at Sinai - had gone into doctrinal error as Christ stated - pre-Cross in Mark 7 "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, it is so odd that you can say this with a straight face when it is well known that to become a SDA, one must put Ellen White on par with the Apostles.

The SDA member must declare Ellen Whites writings to be inspired just as Scripture is inspired.

The SDA member must accept, as inspired, her opinions on diet, dress, conduct... you name it.

The even odder part is that it keeps changing even after she is dead.

New publications of her stuff are changed to reflect current practice or to delet embarrassing stuff.

Most strange.

 

Sorry, Johnv, but you haven't convinced me. One group says that it is scripturally correct to baptize infants. One group says it is scripturally wrong. Both are not right. Unless, of course, you want to say that God has contradictions in his truth. I agree that each group sees that what it believes it is true, but that does not mean both are TRUE. One has to be wrong.

In Christ,
Neal

 

I was amused by this:

"The Baptists, I believe, will be unpleasantly surprised that they will have to become fully Catholic when they go to Heaven."

Largely because we Baptists believe there will be one church in heaven, that Jesus is its head, and that Jesus, the sinless Son of God, is truly infallible. There will be no doctrines of infallibility that are hard to stomach. And if Jesus tells me that the elements really are his body and blood...I would certainly believe Him.

Jesus prayed for oneness of all believers. It is in heaven that this oneness will be realized.

Do Catholics think there will be folks of papal authority who still have such authority in heaven? I guess even if there were...we could be certain that they were answerable to Jesus in person. Claims of delegated authority are always easier for me to accept when the delegator confirms that authority has been delegated to the delegatee.

That is why I reject Catholicism. There are teachings that seem to me contrary to Scripture, such as Mary as Mediatrix of the Graces and Co-Redemptess. And then there are claims to infallibility and certainty that the eucharist is transformed "in substance" and the like. All these things, including papal authority, must be accepted on faith or rejected. And the popes are given no signs by which their authority, if real, can be made known. I concede that some parts of Scripture are ambiguous and perhaps the Catholics have it right. Of course, I don't think so...or I'd go join up.

In Christ,
CalvinG

 

I am not Catholic, but I have seen no one espouse such a view or belief.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Hello to all...I trust you will accept me as a visitor. I've only made a couple of entries because of my chosen "time management". I stopped by to check out the current discussion. I have enjoyed reading this page. After reading, I decided to share some thoughts about truth...just for your condsideration, of course. I confess that I've struggled with some of the questions that are being discussed. Well, I'll get right to it, and hope that everyone will receive it in the same spirit in which I share it. *grin*, but serious.

Before I begin with my main thoughts, I'd like to ask you to please recall the apostle Paul, before and after his experience on the Road to Damascus. Before his encounter, surely we would agree that he was in confusion about "lots of things", however, immediately(?) after his encounter, again, surely we would agree that he was, so to speak, "out of confusion". Paul explained "this" later (and more than once(?) while witnessing that "then and there" he had encountered a Devine Revelation of Truth.

"What Is Truth?"

Truth Defined...
First of all, let's ask the question that Pilate asked Jesus, "WHAT IS TRUTH?" How do we recognize truth when it's presented? How do we sort out truth in religion when theology confronts us with thousands of claims, counter claims, conflicting and often confusing dogmas, which apparently sincere individuals assert and sometimes vehemently expound as truth? What IS truth?

Truth is a very rigid word. Courts require witnesses to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Truth is akin to reality. It is an ultimate, alone and separate from any rival. Rogert's Thesaurus enlightens us with truth being veracity, fact, naked, plain, exact, intrinsic and honest as well as fidelity. Truth is accurate, constant, unerring, unimpeachable, definite, scrupulous, meticulous and tangible, along with many other meanings. Kenneth Wuest, in his "Word Studies," defines truth
from the Greek words that mean unconcealed, unhidden. that which will stand scrutiny or investigation. Further he cites the gospel of John, which uses the word more than all the rest of the New Testament, as meaning, "That which has not only the name and semblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name."

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." Also, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) Truth is the opposite of error and has an opposite effect. Truth is simple and profound. Error is mysterious and complicated. The farther truth is pursued the easier it is to maintain, while error multiplies its weaknesses and eventually
crushes the ones who support it. Error is temporary while truth is eternal.

The Source of Truth...
The proper place to seek truth is always at its source. There, if nowhere else, truth bubbles forth unadulterated, uncontaminated and undiluted. The fountain of truth concerning the teaching of the New Testament is found in
Acts 2 where Peter enunciated the first gospel message under the anointing of the Holy Ghost. Here the truth poured forth clear and so understandable that every listener knew exactly what it meant and what he was required to do.

Searching for Truth...
In our search for TRUTH, we should accept the obvious meaning and refuse the devious. Truth has a fountainhead and we should go to the Source for it. Truth is not a mystery, nor a maze. Bible TRUTH does not have to zigzag its way through seven judgments, four gospels, multiple resurrections infinitesimal hair splitting definitions about Jews and Gentiles, endless
detours to get around road-blocks needing experts to "rightly DIVIDE the truth." Truth is simple. God meant for ordinary people to understand it in its most apparent meaning. Truth is integrated. What was true for Moses was true for Peter and the
TRUTH Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost will be true until the end of time. The gospel's not a postulation, but a proclamation. It's not a theory, but Divine authority. It's not a future conjecture, but a present reality. This is the LAST time. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners apake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these LAST DAYS spoken unto us by his Son..." (Heb. 1:1, 2a) "...but now once in the END OF THE WORLD hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb. 9:26b)

Thank your for considering, I trust the length of this won't be offensive.

Blessing to all,
~ jerry

 

It's not a right or wrong issue. It's a "how we interpret scripture on the subject" issue. As Baptists, we must accept adult, saved baptism (by immersion) is the only acceptible method because the Distinctives require it, so it's not an option for Baptists. But there is no such requirement for non-baptists. In fact, there is no biblical requirement for a saved person to be baptized at all. It's encouraged, but not required (if it were, then salvation would not be by faith alone).

 

Bob, it is so odd that you can say this with a straight face when it is well known that to become a SDA, one must put Ellen White on par with the Apostles.

The SDA member must declare Ellen Whites writings ...
The SDA member must accept, as inspired, her opinions ...</font>[/QUOTE]Arguing from the "void" of what you have not read again?

OR are you hoping I might believe you if you just "say it"??

Since none of it was actually true - maybe you would like to try it on a less informed group - they might not know you are just making stuff up and then you would be king - for in the land of the blind - the one eyed man is king.

Seriously - your post was intertaining!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, it is so odd that you can say this with a straight face when it is well known that to become a SDA, one must put Ellen White on par with the Apostles.

The SDA member must declare Ellen Whites writings ...
The SDA member must accept, as inspired, her opinions ...</font>[/QUOTE]Arguing from the "void" of what you have not read again?

OR are you hoping I might believe you if you just "say it"??

Since none of it was actually true - maybe you would like to try it on a less informed group - they might not know you are just making stuff up and then you would be king - for in the land of the blind - the one eyed man is king.

Seriously - your post was intertaining!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]So now you are saying that Ellen White's writings are not inspired?

Shall I redirect you to the thread where you said that her writings were "obviously" inspired?

So which is it?

 

You still are not understanding what I am saying. Using infant baptism as an example, one group says it is okay to do. The other says it is absolutely not okay to do. They can't both be right. It is impossible. Either one of them speaks the Truth, or both are wrong. But mutually exclusive positions cannot be both right. It is simply impossible. Yes, I agree interpretation is taking place. But I am talking about the actual Truth of the interpretation. Everyone has an interpretation. But not every interpretation is right. There is no way around that. There is an underlying Truth, an Absolute, if you will. Truth is outside of the person.

In Christ,
Neal

 

I agree interpretation is taking place. But I am talking about the actual Truth of the interpretation. Everyone has an interpretation. But not every interpretation is right. There is no way around that. There is an underlying Truth, an Absolute, if you will. Truth is outside of the person.

This is why the Body of Christ needs a teaching authority (i.e., a magisterium) to provide authoritative interpretation.

I believe that when you read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, we witness the establishment of this body of overseers & elders who have the very authority of Jesus Christ (who in turn has that authority from the Father) by the person and ministry of that same Christ:

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

When Jeremiah prophesied of the restoration of Israel, he prophesied: "Behold, I am sending for many fishermen, says the Lord, and they shall catch them". Do you really think Jesus came up with "fishers of men" out of thin air?

 

It would be nice to have an authoritative teaching authority. However, saying that it would be nice does not mean that it exists. And especially does not mean that it exists as the Catholic denomination.

Where does Jesus say that He gives anyone "the very authority of Jesus Christ." That is the authority of God. Not everyone who reads the New Testament in the light of the old sees the Catholic denominaion as a body of overseers and elders who have "the very authority of Jesus Christ."

New Jewish converts to Christianity from within the land of Israel seem to me folks who accept and understand the New Testament in the light of the Old. Several of them who continue mission work inside Israel have spoken at our church. They do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome and relate to me that Jewish memory of the many acts of Christian kindness shown to the people of Israel at the behest of the Bishops of Rome create a barrier not only to witnessing to Jews for Christ but most especially to Jews' accepting the Catholic denomination as the authoritative spokespeople for Christianity.

The statement you quote in Luke was said by Jesus to 72 missionaries whom he sent out two by two. It was not stated of the the Catholic denomination, nor of Peter's purported successors. If it is of applicability today, it is that rejection of the Gospel is rejection of Jesus.

Blessings,

CalvinG

 

My pastor preaches with authority, the final authority, the word of God.

 

Are you including interpretation here? I assume so. If so, and if another pastor down the road interprets the same word of God differently, and somebody in that church says "My pastor preaches with authority, the final authority, the word of God," then how do you resolve the contradiction?

Has your pastor ever interpreted something differently in the past then he does now? How would you resolve that?

How did your pastor come to possess the ability to interpret Scripture with the "final authority"?

 

I can't believe people still think they can study their way to the Truth. Oh well, good luck! But I pity the poor and the unschooled -- guess they don't have a chance. Too bad Christ didn't plan things well enough to leave an infallible teaching authority for all the non-PhDs of the world. </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible does not advocate SYI. Paul did leave a legacy found in 2 Tim 2:15, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

So now that you know what the Bible does teach tell me how you would explain Matthew 8:28, Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, you got me there. I don't have a clue what SYI means! Guess that makes me one of the unschooled! </font>[/QUOTE]SYI stands for Share Your Ignorance. I have met some who do not have very much education but understand the things of God well. They have read and studied a lot. I have also seen some of the educated not even know God. They just know something about Him. But they really don't know God. I believe when we get serious with God we will get to know Him.

 

"This is why the Body of Christ needs a teaching authority (i.e., a magisterium) to provide authoritative interpretation."

Someone can appear authoritative and be wrong. I don't know of one person or any body of believers who would have an absolute claim on truth.

The authority of 1 Cor. 13:9,10 claims, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."