20 Years without one iota of New Testament Scripture?

Sorry but that won't wash! if you want to use Barett's definitions gainst prottestants then you're going to have to acept then aplied to your club too. And he says there are many many RC denominations using the same definition of denomination for RCism as fro protestantism.

If you don't like the result for RCism then maybe you shouldn't use the figures at all. You sure can't use them only one way and be fair and honest.

 

Carson:

1) I've read Ray. He has no credentials to do exegesis. And his exegesis holds no water anyway for anyone who knows what they're talking about. And yo bought it huh? Hmm....

2) "Of course, that's a qualification that you impose upon the text. St. Paul nowhere states that oral traditions must equal what is written down."

LOL. Not hardly. It's what the text says. It is in fact eisegesis to assume that they are differnet messages.

3) "Yes he does. St. Paul commands us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15)"

So you want to be circular?? LOL. Give us a break here, Car. The texty is explicit hod fas to the traditions, however you receive them. Its all the same traditions buddy. Not different ones. you provide the evidence of your own eisegesis.

Like shooting fish in a barrell.

4) "Under "Christian Organizations", object 44 is titled "Denominations", and under the column "mid-2002", 35,500 is the number listed."

Yes, Isaw it. Heck, I CITED it! But, as I explained (and you obviosly didn't read) you still misrepresented the findings badly. Go back and read my post. Repeating your mistake doesn't make you right guy. It just further ruins your credibility.

 

Carson --

Now you are getting a bit facetious! 8o) Which
Apostolic Writings? You know which ones I
intend.

I think most people here know what undermine
means, but perhaps not everyone knows what
Sola Scriptura means. Where did I say I was
Ssola Scriptura?

 

Statistics can be deceiving can they not. The 35,000 refers to "denominations" under the category of "Christian Organizations" But I suppose that the Catholic Church does not consider itself as a Christian organization and thus does not lump itself into that category.

Further up there is another category of "evangelicals," stating that there are 217,896,000 in that group. Why doesn't that Catholic refer to that Stat instead showing their unity and their size in number? Isn't it amazing what you can do with numbers when you are out to purposely deceive people.
DHK

 

The only problem with that is that I'm worried that you might be teaching people to trust in baptism to save them instead of trusting completely in Christ. Notice the Gospel as you listed it does not mention baptism. Converts should be baptized of course but it is not part of the Gospel of salvation which is significant.

 

The inspired Word of God during the first twenty years came through the spoken word of inspired men. The epistle written by all the apostles and elders at Jerusalem changed that. While the inspired word of the apostles would have been sufficent to convince the Jewish Christians relative to their Gentile counterparts, the epistle served to open the door to the acceptability of the procession of epistles that followed. The inspired epistle was as authoritative as the inspired man and was delivered as such to the churches.

Acts 15: 30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

Acts 16: 4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

The written word, then, was to be of equal authority with the spoken word but, since the revelation of all truth was completed prior to writing of any of it, the written word could not contain anything new within it that had not been revealed! Whatever was written of necessity had to conform to the spoken word else the Holy Spirit had not guided the apostles into all truth.

Footnote... The phrase All Truth is embraced in (teaching, doctrine, revelation, law, ect.) and identifies the New Testament law with all its attending commandments, statutes and ordinances. This is not to say that the application of these principles had been made to every situation that would develop. They had not. Even today we must apply these same principles (commandments) to differing situations. The law of Christ by which right and wrong is determined, however, was fully revealed before it was written in our New Testament Scriptures.

The first book of the New Testament to be written was I Thessalonians. It was written by Paul in late 52 A.D. while at Corinth ... Taken from The Development of the New Testament by Arthur Ogden... Brother Glen

[ September 20, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Then why is it that sprinkling a bit of water on a baby's head does not produce anything new other than a slightly wet baby? When the infant grows older we see that the person is still ruled by sin and only Christ can truly set them free. Supposedly the sprinkler set them free but the evidence says otherwise. On the other hand when a person genuinely trusts Christ we see that the person is a new creature and has been set free from the snare of sin.

 

The statistics are misleading, and the statement you make can be proven false very easily. I live in a predominately Catholic nation. If I were to construct a survey concerning doctrine (Biblical), and morality, and worship (Biblical), and then conduct this survey to the surrounding community, I could almost guarantee you what the results would be. First you would weed out all who were not either evangelical or Catholic. Then you would divide the Catholics into one group and the evangelical answers into another group. As a whole evangelicals would be more united in their doctrine on soteriology, pneumatology, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and many other doctrines. There is a wide diversity of beliefs among Catholics, if not ignorance. There are many who call themselves Catholics and you know full well that they don't have the knowledge you do. They quite frankly don't know what they believe. Most Catholics have never seen a Bible, much less read one. On what authority do I say these things? For years, I have gone door to door, talking to individuals about Christ, many, if not most, have been Catholics--very, very, ignorant about doctrine.
Take a survey. You will find that evangelicals are more united in their doctrine than Catholics are. I challenge you.
DHK

 

The point is that you make a false dichotomy between Catholics and "Catholics," and then proceed to make divisions among evangelicals where there are none. Very deceitful. It goes like this: All those "Catholics" who claim to be Catholic, and don't believe like me, are not really Catholic. (I have heard that logic from the Muslims). Whereas in some of the above churches that you listed may not even be evangelical. Now, that is deceitful isn't it? In the issue of soteriology evangelicals in general are united. If I were to ask the same basic questions on salvation that I would ask of evangelicals to Catholics, most Catholics would be clueless. In basic Bible doctrine they are naive.
DHK

 

Catholics are not as united as they so often think. As I've mentioned before, I'm not a Baptist, DHK is, despite our differences we are united in Christ with one common Gospel.

17 Therefore if anyone is (1) in Christ, he is (2) a new creature; (3) the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB

Since you don't seem to quite understand this verse let me highlight some things for you:

Therefore if anyone IS [not wants to be, not wants to stay in, it says "is"] in Christ, he IS [not is slowly becoming, not will eventually be, it says "is"] a new creature; the old things passed away [that's "passed" which is past tense, aorist in Greek, it doesn't say passing away, it says "passed away"], new things have come [again it doesn't say new things are coming, it says "new things have come"].

Jesus offers more than a wet head, He dramatically and fundamentally changes peoples lives.

 

You still don't get it Carson. IS a new creature NOT is gradually trying to be a new creature. But trusting solely in Christ for salvation a believer is transformed into a new creature. The transformation is not what puts a person in Christ it is the result of being in Christ by faith with nothing else attached. You are still ignoring that when a baby is baptized, it's head is a little wetter but there is not observable and change and all too often once the infant grows older we see that it is a child of sin. On the other hand, a person who has genuinely put their trust in Christ is a truly changed person.

 

If you are going to quote an authority quote the Bible, and leave the heretics out of it. I doubt if all Catholics agree with Augustine or even know what Augustine taught. Most people on this board probably don't. Augustine was the true founder of what is commonly called "Calvinisim." There is nothing new underneath the sun. The doctrine of God deliberatley electing some to go to Hell and some to go to Heaven came from Augustine, not Calvin. Ask the average Catholic if God has already predetermined and chosen certain elect to go to Hell, and see what reaction you get. Catholics are in agreement?? NOOOOOO!!!!!!
DHK

 

It should be known that Carson is quoting me inappropriately, though not by his own fault.

I thought I was answering the question "what is the difference between Roman Cathlics and Southern Baptists?"

That is the general context of the post I was responding to, and I didnt read the specific question I was answering closely enough to realise that there was a shift in subject.

In actual fact you will not find a single protetant denomination that disagrees over hte fact that mbnistry od for the whole membership. You will not find a division over the fact that there IS a pesence in communion. You will not find a denomination that does not baptise. I think you get the idea.

Ther is far more unity that Carson suggests.

But there is also complete disunity in the RCC over a number of central issues as well. What are the dogmas? How many are there? What kind of obedience to the Pope is due on non-dogmatic matters? Who makes up the magiterium? Are you Jansenist, Dominican or Jesuit in theology (great differnces on the nature of grace)? Do you believe that election is conditional or not? How do you interpret EENS (extra ecclesiam nullum salus)? Do you have a partim-partim viw of scripture or not?

So you see differences among RCs on the same issues as among protestants.

 

Indeed, Baptists are the only ones who are aloud to argue, badmouth, and gossip.

Carson brought up some good points. The original topic of 20 years without new scripture is sound. Aside from the OT, the new churches wer creating new customs (or traditions, or whatever you want to call it). Indeed, much of what we do, both in and out of the poews, is based on traditional customs. Most churches have cumstomarily have a cross in the church, and say the Lord's prayer, and end prayers with the word "amen". Yet, we're not commanded to do any of these by NT definition. In fact, "amen" came from the Jewish tradition of closing prayers (which is "amen" or "amein").

The early church developed new customs before the writings of the NT. The earliest NT writings probably weren't penned until 50ad. The later weren'd penned until 70ad. Regardless, the NT writings weren't considered scripture until long after the writers were dead and buried (or mutilated, unfortunately).

Yet we downplay churches who rely heavily on tradition. More to the point, we downplay churches that rely on tradition more than us. If we are to give tradition no merit, then we must give our traditions mo merit as well.

 

"Indeed, Baptists are the only ones who are aloud to argue, badmouth, and gossip."

Haven't a clue what you're talking about, but it doesn't look ediofying, so I'll thank you to not elaborate.

"Carson brought up some good points."

Not really. He has raised some facts. However he has tired to make points with them that re baseless.

"The original topic of 20 years without new scripture is sound."

But the conclusions that Carson tries to draw from it are not. This has laready been discussed and pointed out.

"Aside from the OT, the new churches wer creating new customs (or traditions, or whatever you want to call it). Indeed, much of what we do, both in and out of the poews, is based on traditional customs. Most churches have cumstomarily have a cross in the church, and say the Lord's prayer, and end prayers with the word "amen". Yet, we're not commanded to do any of these by NT definition. In fact, "amen" came from the Jewish tradition of closing prayers (which is "amen" or "amein")."

What does this have to do with anything? Sola Scriptura does not deny that the Church (and individuakl churches) have their traditions. It does nt deny that these have their place. But this is NOT what Carson argues for. To suggest that the fact that churches have traditions is in anyway similar to what the RCC proclaims as Sacred Tradition is incorrect.

"The early church developed new customs before the writings of the NT. The earliest NT writings probably weren't penned until 50ad. The later weren'd penned until 70ad. Regardless, the NT writings weren't considered scripture until long after the writers were dead and buried (or mutilated, unfortunately)."

Again, traditions in the sense of where to put the pews has nothing to do with what Paul measn by traditions in 2Thess 2:15. Knowingly or otherwise you ignore a vital distinction.

"Yet we downplay churches who rely heavily on tradition. More to the point, we downplay churches that rely on tradition more than us. If we are to give tradition no merit, then we must give our traditions mo merit as well."

See above. If you don't know or understand the differnece between what Paul means by traditions, and what Carson puts forward as Sacred Tradition then you need to learn. Traditions such as you refer to have nothing to do with Tradition in the way Carson uses it. Or how Paul uses it, which is something different again from Paul.

 

Hi Carson,
thanks for your replies. The idea that the church is the final authority is a big divide between us. For you, it is the church which declares what is scripture, and what is tradition, and both are then binding. It often seems to me that if a Catholic has a problem, he is told to ask the priest, rather than go to the Bible. Church teaching and practice are also seen as authentic revelations of the will of God, so one's own history becomes normative. The trouble is that this just isnt true.

Catholics in Poland and Hungary in the 1930s and 40s read in their official Catholic press (edited closely by bishops) that Jews were "sewer rats", "scum", "bacteria", "invading fleas" etc. They heard their cardinals tell them to avoid all contact with Jews, and had high-ranking priests quote church fathers, councils and canons, as well as numerous popes to back up their position. The Cardinal in Hungary voted in parlament in his official role as leader of the church to impoverish and exclude Jews from public life, and to defend this as the true Christian position. The Synod of Bishops publicly supported the Etelkozi Szovetseg, whose first goal was "war against destructive Jewry". In 1938, the Jesuits in Poland published a call, based on Tomas Aquinus, that Jews should be expelled from Poland. Taught to accept church history, councils and teaching as authoritative, the average Catholic in these lands assumed that this was the will of God. Eichmann went to Hungary in 1944 with 100 men. Without the active cooperation of the Hungarian population, he would never have been able to deport and murder 437,000 Hungarian Jews in just 7 weeks. Likewise in 1942, the Catholic episcopate issued a pastoral letter stating "in our eyes, the influence of the Jews has been pernicious ... The Church cannot be opposed therefore if the state with legal actions [deportation to Germany] eradicates the harmful influence of the Jews". In Lithuania, Bishop Brings forbade his clergy from giving any help whatsoever to the Jews. Average Catholics, taught to obey their priests, and revere their history and teaching, assumed that the removal of Jews from society was God's will. Church leadership, history, teaching, councils and papal statements were revealed to be a source of sin. The Bible alone is the infalable Word of God.

Put another way, were the Catholic leaders of the day wrong to consult their own history and teaching to determine their own position re the Jews? Were they wrong to affirm it? Clearly the answer is yes, but by so doing, they were only doing what they had been taught was the correct, the Catholic way to determine God's will.

I should say that the Protestants of these lands, who also saw their own history as normative, were often just as bad. The lesson is, dont rely on councils and men, but on the person and work of the indwelling Spirit, affirming His word.
God bless, Colin