The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

Jesus said He is God; and the Jews corroborated this claim.

Jesus told the Jews: "If you do not believe that I AM THAT I AM, you will die in your sins."

The Jews replied,"he blasphemes, he makes himself to be God. That was the charge against Jesus before the Sanhedrin: BLASPHEMY.

Cf: John 8:54-59. Also run a concordance check on I AM.

Jesus is either who He says He is, or He is the greatest imposter to mislead mankind.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Phil 2 says HE WAS IN THE FORM of God and then that He made Himself into THE FORM OF MAN.

So either HE WAS a man AND so - (and just as much) - HE WAS GOD -- or the phrase "Being found in the FORM of MAN" means he was NOT a man and therefor "Existing in the FORM OF GOD" could also be taken as HE was NOT God.

It has to be one way or the other. Some are trying to have " a mix ".

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is where the discussion on the Trinity belongs - on that "pre existence" post.

Lets get back on topic for this thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes Lets Bob....How about that infallible decree that ordered the murder of Saints?

 

jcf,

The triune nature of God is thundered from the scriptures of every reputable translation available today, not just the KJV.

Mike

 

And not least the Greek, where I always go to sort this kind of 'version' nonsense out...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

This is 'plain' nonsense; if it were true, there would be no disagreements between Christians over the interpretation of Scripture. The fact that there are such disagreements proves that Scripture is anything but 'plain'. QED

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]What is nonsense is one's willingness to accept another authority above and beyond the Bible as their authority for truth, and hence the disagreements between "Christians" over the interpretation of Scripture. It is a sad day when Christians, (or those that call themselves as such) resort to other authorities other than the Word of God for their authority. There would be little disagreement indeed if the Bible was our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, but it isn't, is it?

The Catholics have Oral Tradition, papal decrees, the church fathers, church councils, etc. that they authoritatively appeal to. The Bible is not their only authority. It is not even their final authority. Hence unbliblical doctrines, heresies, and much disagreement.

The Charismatics in general rely on experience: tongues, dreams, visions, words of knowledge, etc. These extra-Biblical forms of revelation add to the Word of God, and in many cases are just as important as the Word of God. Experience is the foundation of the Charismatic movement rather than doctrine.
Some, of the Pentecostal cults such as Oneness Pentecostal, deny the trinity, believe one is saved by baptism and speaking in tongues, deny justification by faith, believe in baptismal regeneration, and have some very strange beliefs concerning the person of God and Christ. Yet, they claim the Bible is their authority. It is not. It is experience.

The Mormons have the Book of Mormon, and their prophet Joseph Smith for extra biblical revelation to depend upon.

Other major denominations will depend on the writings of their founders--whether they be in the form of creeds or whatever. They are not willing to study the Bible on their own. They gullibly accept whatever their church teaches them, however they have been indoctrinated.
Acts 17:11 they ignore:

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.

Those that study the Bible objectively, on their own, usually come to the same conclusions.
DHK

 

No doubt that is the precise reason that the J.W.'s used the critical text from which to translate their New World Translation.

John 10:30-33 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Answer. you have two choices.
Did the Jews accurately understand the words of Jesus in John 10:30, and therefore stone him, because He said who He said He was, that is God?

or,

Were they a bunch of fools making a false accusation because they really didn't understand him in the first place. (Maybe his KJV was too hard to understand)
DHK

 

I'm sorry but I really cannot let this slide past.

Let's look at just one sola Scriptura denomination: the Plymouth Brethren. Since their inception in the late 1820s, there have been countless splits - all over the interpretation of Scripture. How do I know this? Because my wife grew up in them; there have been half a dozen splits in her lifetime just in her one group over disagreements on Biblical interpretation. Look at this BaptistBoard for a wider picture of the ludicrous extent of this state of affairs: some are cessationist, others charismatic; some dispensationalist, some covenantal; pre-mills, a-mills and post-mills (huge thread in the theology board on just that topic right now; don't even start on pre-trib, post-trib or mid-trib rapture stuff!); and that's for starters! All these viewpoints claim sola Scriptura as back up; no doubt you do likewise for your cessationist position. All claim to be guided by the HS and scripture in claiming their own interpretational ground; either the HS and Scripture aren't doing a very good job or there is something very wrong indeed with the doctrine of sola Scriptura....This just demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt how wrong it is - and that's before you add in heretical SS-adherents like JWs and Christadelphians...

Yours in Christ

Matt

[ETA addressed to DHK's penultimate post]

 

Understanding the scripture:

In John Chapter 3: Jesus chided Nicodemus, "You are a 'Master of Israel' and do not understand these things?" "Marvel not what I say unto you: you must be born again."

The current "confusion" we see today in the interpretation of The Word of God is the result of unregenerated "teachers" trying to train unregenerated students in the "hallowed halls"of "higher textual criticism".

Nothing new: Jesus made this observation, "In vain they(the Jews) do worship, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men". The "religious world" continues--in the same ditch--blind leading the blind.

The "pillar and ground of the truth" is still "in the world but not of the world". It behooveth us to find Her--the true ecclesia.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Who or what is She, then?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Good point James.
The local church is the pillar and ground of the truth. If that church has the Bible it is their responsibility to have it as their foundation--their authority in all matters of faith and doctrine, and their pillar--to uphold the truth of it so all can hear and see.
God has ordained the local church in this day and age to hold forth the word of truth, to carry out the Great Commission, to obey Christ is all things.

Many of the things you mention are relatively minor. It really doesn't matter which translation you use does it. 90% of this world doesn't speak English so the KJV issue is a non-issue. The C/A issue is another non-issue. I am neither Calvinist nor am I Arminian.
The Charismatic movement only started in 1901 so we know why that is relegated down here in non-Baptist forums. To many it is not even a Christian movement. Cults are cults for a reason. Go to www.carm.org and find out what makes a cult. They are unorthodox in their beliefs and do not take all their beliefs from the Bible. They are not sola scriptura.

Almost everything you have mentioned are good topics for debate, interesting subjects, but in the end (Re: Baptist topics), are they that important as far as fellowship with one another as Baptist believers are concerned.
If I only use the KJV, for example, I am sure that I can have sweet fellowship with someone that uses the NIV. It is a matter called soul liberty. It goes along with sola scriptura.
DHK

 

So for the first few centuries when the local churches only had the Scriptures in varying degrees of completeness (ie having a "canon" varying in number and content), were these local churches only "pillars of 90% of the truth", or "of 75% of the truth", or "of 67% of the truth", etc? The fact is when Paul wrote that statement to Timothy (1 Timothy) several NT books hadn't even been written yet. Were they not "pillars of the truth" until they had the entire canon of Scripture, leatherbound with table of contents and concordance? Or could it be that despite this lack of possession of the entire Scripture, Paul could call the Church the "ground and pillar of truth" because that is where the Apostolic Tradition had been deposited, whether written or oral (2 Thess 2:15), since Tradition in both forms witnessed to the same Christ?

 

jcf, I'd appreciate it if you'd address my post.

 

Sorry,

I am unlearned in the mechanics of quoting portions of a post.

Would someone please guide me.

Thank-you,

Bro. James

 

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Any Bible scholar will tell you that the faith which Jude refers to is that body of revelation which we believe to be God's revealed truth. Jude says to contend for the faith.
I throw the same question back at you. How much of the faith do you believe Jude was intending for us (and those of that century) to contend for? 90%? 75%? 67% How much of the faith are/were we to contend for? I contend that Jude had in mind all the faith, but then I don't subscribe to the ridiculous theories of canonization of the Scriptures through the Catholic Church only. The Catholic church didn't canonize anything.
DHK

 

Jcf,
Apparently my post went right over your head. You seem to be hung up on what you think "form" has to mean in the Philippians 2 passage that you are missing the obvious.

First, as Bob pointed out you can't have it both ways. If "the (notice the definite article) form of God" doesn't mean being really God in v.6, neither does "the form of" in v.7 mean that Christ was really a bondservant and a man, just that He was one in appearance only. The belief that Christ was man in appearance only, but not in reality, is known as "Docetism" which was an early gnostic heresy.

In truth, the Greek words for "form" are the same in verse 6 and 7 (as opposed to that for "appearance" in v.8) and it has to do with having the exact essence of something. In other words, Christ who was (already being) in very nature God came to earth in the very nature of a servant, of a man. That Christ didn't consider it robbery to be equal with God (or that equality with God was something to be grasped) means that Christ voluntary "emptied" Himself of His Divine perogatives (rather than "clinging to" them)in order to humble Himself by taking on humanity for our sake. This is known as "kenosis". Christ, already God by nature became man by nature. It's in this state of humility that Christ can refer to the Father as "greater than I". However, that was not the end. Christ became exalted and returned to the same glory He shared with the Father before the world began when He was eternally in the "form of God", ie of one essence with the Father. Amen.

 

Correct, and this was delivered to the saints in oral and written forms (2 Thess 2:15)

Correct. And that "body of revelation" was handed to the Church by the Apostles by oral preaching and in written letters. (2 Thess 2:15)

100% of course.

I contend Jude had in mind all the faith as well but this faith was delivered orally and in written forms, with the written form (canon) not universally agreed upon until the mid-4th century at the earliest. That's a historical fact. (Lest you dismiss the historical canonization process as Catholic propaganda, perhaps you should read a good Protestant book on the subject such as F.F. Bruce's The Canon of Scripture). The very first list of NT books which exactly matches that found in our Bibles today was found in Athanasius' Festal Letter in AD 367. But although it took time before the NT to be completed and the books to be circulated and the canon to be universally recognized, the Church was still able to maintain ("100%") the faith handed down once for all to the saints, since she at least had the tradition in its oral form.