I'm not sure why the RCC having the final authority for Catholics is such a problem (such as interpretation of scripture, as was pointed out). If I openly profess that abortion is okay, I would be booted out of my church in a heartbeat. Most Baptist demoninations interpret scripture to be anti-abortion. I've never seen it as an option to its members. As an SBC Baptist, I'm bound to accept the SBC teaching on it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
20 Years without one iota of New Testament Scripture?
- Thread starter Carson Weber
- Start date
I don't believe that it is a problem, for those who really choose to be RCatholic. My problem is with when they wish to cross their denominational lines and try to force their beliefs, creeds, pronouncements, saints, prayers, etc. on other believers. The RCatholic church is not our mother.
I have certain appreciations of the RCatholic church:
* Their stance against abortion years ago, when many of the churches (or pastors) were crying, "Stay out it! It is a Catholic issue!"
* The fact that my sister left Wicca and found our God in a Catholic church. She has since moved on, but it was good for her at the time, although the priest was not the average priest, and his church had no statuary.
* I thought I could think of more, but I can't right now.
Kathryn S.
New Member
DHK:
http://ccel.org/a/augustine/enchiridion/enchiridion-bod.html
Here is a small book that St. Augustine wrote. He wrote it as a small simple book for the average person. Very readable. Enjoy!
http://ccel.org/a/augustine/enchiridion/enchiridion-bod.html
Here is a small book that St. Augustine wrote. He wrote it as a small simple book for the average person. Very readable. Enjoy!
I took the time to read through it, at least most of it. Augustine does not seem to know the meaning of salvation, what it means to be born again. He is thoroughly confused on that issue, believing that an infant must be baptized to pay for the sins that he inherits from his ancestors. That is not only unbiblical, it is paganistic.
Among other of his quotes is this one:
"As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace." 100
Sounds fairly "Calvinistic" to me.
DHK
Bible-belted
New Member
"Sounds fairly "Calvinistic" to me."
It should. After all, Calvanism is based in Augustinianism. The Reformers were at great pains to base their teachings in Scripture, but also to be in harmony withthe ECFs.
Everybody seems to forget that fro the first couple of centuries after the Reformation, protestants were at the forefront of patristics.
Thank God we have ceased to concede that field to those to whom it does not belong! Nowadays, Evangelicals are among the greatest of patristic scholars again. And they're SATILL evangeliclas too! So much for Newman's idea about being steeped in history is to cease being protestant!
It should. After all, Calvanism is based in Augustinianism. The Reformers were at great pains to base their teachings in Scripture, but also to be in harmony withthe ECFs.
Everybody seems to forget that fro the first couple of centuries after the Reformation, protestants were at the forefront of patristics.
Thank God we have ceased to concede that field to those to whom it does not belong! Nowadays, Evangelicals are among the greatest of patristic scholars again. And they're SATILL evangeliclas too! So much for Newman's idea about being steeped in history is to cease being protestant!
weeping prophet
New Member
Show me a "Thus says the Lord" on the authority of Apostolic tradition.What about the tradition handed down to the Pharisees and Scribes, how far did it get them, but Jesus clearly taught from the Torah.I have no problem believing that the apostles had authority, for they were eyewittnesses of His Glory.Now have any of the so called Bishops you trust seen Him face to face?No they have'nt the apostles are all gone and thank God they have left us with a good record to base our beliefs in.Now, I would ask you a question, where the so called tradition is in direct contridiction to the written word which would you have me beleive?Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Keith,
You wrote, "Actually the first Christians had the Hebrew Scriptures, so they weren't left in the dark."
That goes without saying.
The question is: What about the Divine Revelation that was granted through the deeds and words of the Incarnate Son of God?
As you know from the legitimate and scholarly methods of historical criticism, this Divine Revelation was kept in the Churches through the spoken Tradition, which was invariably united with the Apostles and those whom they commissioned.
My question remains: How can the Church come to reject this spoken Tradition as the authoritative Word of God, united as it is with the Apostles and their bishops?
And, my deeper point is that Scripture is only rightly employed within the context of the living, breathing New Covenant household of God. Without the apostolic leadership and the apostolic Tradition (the liturgy, esp.), Scripture is utilized outside of its breeding ground, outside of its proper context.
In fact, without the apostolic Tradition, both you and I know that we wouldn't have a New Testament because it itself is the literary composition of the Apostolic Tradition - and its very confines/canonicity depends upon the decisions of men within the household of God (e.g. the Gospel of John, Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, etc.).
When you reject the household and its Tradition, yet retain its Scriptures (while, simultaneously, rejecting 7 books + of Scripture in the LXX), what foundation are you left with? The New Testament Scriptures alone.
How ironic - because once one accepts the precepts of Sola Scriptura, one destroys the very foundation that brought forth the New Testament Scriptures: Apostolic Tradition and Authority.
The Philosophic irony that lies in the Protestant paradigm astounds me each time I think through it anew. Honestly.
Of course, I don't have a problem with the New Testament Scriptures. That's obvious. I carry my Bible with me everywhere I go. I read God's Word daily. I praise God with his Word daily. I study his Word daily. This thread isn't about discounting Scripture. It's about the discounting of Apostolic Tradition and Authority, upon which the Scriptures' chronology and legitimacy stand.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson Weber
The just shall live by faith!!!!!
weeping prophet
New Member
The hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain,nor in Jerusalem,worship the Father."You worship what you do not know;we know what we worship,for salvation is of the Jews."But the hour is coming, and now is,when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth;for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. Jesus here teaches us that the place of worship makes no difference, because He even excludes the temple in Jerusalem.The condition of true worship is the spirit in which it carried out. Are you the teacher of Israel and know not these things?
When has the catholic church supplanted the Lord Jesus as the means of grace?Did the catholic church die on the cross?You are doing much harm to those you seek to lead if you do not lead them to the cross of Christ as the means of grace.Read Galatians1:6-12 Are you not preaching a different Gospel then that of Christ? You wish to have Christ then somthing.We wish to have Christ alone!
We preach Christ and Him crucified and do you seek to prevent us? You seem to be fond of your education but what has it done for you if you hinder the spread of the gospel?Acts4:13 Why do you dishonor the Lord Jesus by claiming Him to be bottled up in some church building?Has he not saved many, even in the gutters of the street?Read Acts26:14-18
I don't believe that it is a problem, for those who really choose to be RCatholic. My problem is with when they wish to cross their denominational lines and try to force their beliefs, creeds, pronouncements, saints, prayers, etc. on other believers. The RCatholic church is not our mother.
I don't see the RCC as really doing that, at least not any more or less that we all do. Not to say it's okay necesserily.
BTW - I'm glad for your sister.
I don't see the RCC as really doing that, at least not any more or less that we all do. Not to say it's okay necesserily.
BTW - I'm glad for your sister.
GraceSaves
New Member
All that emphasis on the actuality of what IS, and you still deny Jesus' own words: "This IS my body."
Dualhunter
New Member
All that emphasis on the actuality of what IS, and you still deny Jesus' own words: "This IS my body."</font>[/QUOTE]The fact that He said do this in remembrance of me shows that it was symbolic. You cannot remember something which is actually happening. If something is actually happening, you are experiencing it not remembering it, therefore the concept of the mass is false. The fact that He said it is His body combined with the fact that it was in every physical way still bread shows that it is symbolic as well. And before you start quoting verses saying that Jesus said that we need to eat Him, consider this: Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. If you think you are physically eating Jesus, when was the last time you ate your Bible?
GraceSaves
New Member
That's not the case. At a funeral, is not the body of the deceased present, and yet you remember the individual who is right there before you? On 9/11, you watched planes crash into the WTC. Then a year later, you watched it over again on TV...where you saw it the first place. It was the same incident, and you reexperienced in the same way, while at the same time remembering what happened the first time.
The Mass is experiencing Christ while at the same time remembering the sacrifice He paid, his death on the cross for our sins. We remember the price He paid and share in His passion with Him.
I'm sure you'll refute this, but it's not an illogical train of thought, and it's perfectly valid, regardless if you believe it or not (which you don't).
I know, aren't miracles great? When you experience a miracle, I bet you think to yourself, "I can't believe my eyes!" Sometimes our senses only perceive what we need to perceive so that faith can carry us the rest of the way home.
Heavens, now I'm told not to quote the Bible. Darned if I do, darned if I don't, right? Honestly, how civil was that?
Second, nowhere in your verse does it use the words flesh (which is used, for instance, in John 6 a total of five times), nor is there the verb EAT. There is no reason to take that literally, so I have no reason to attempt such a thing.
May the Lord bless and keep you,
Grant
Dualhunter
New Member
So you pick and choose so that you can continue your pagan wannabe canabalism.
At a funeral you remember the life and perhaps the event during which the person died. The mass differs because Christ is supposedly being sacrificed again, therefore you'd be experiencing the sacrifice, not remembering it, therefore the mass is blasphemy.
At a funeral you remember the life and perhaps the event during which the person died. The mass differs because Christ is supposedly being sacrificed again, therefore you'd be experiencing the sacrifice, not remembering it, therefore the mass is blasphemy.
GraceSaves
New Member
DualHunter,
Picking and chosing what? I don't follow that line.
In the Mass, Christ is not sacrificed again, and that is plainly taught by the Church. It is a re-presentation of the one and same sacrifice on Calvary. Being just that, it is a memorial of that sacrifice while at the same time an active participation in His passion. I appreciate you trying to understand it, but I don't think you're clearly reading my words, which completely allow for both a memorial and participation. You aren't required to believe in it to understand what is believed by others.
And please leave the "cannibalism" insults at the door. You aren't going to change my mind with derogatory terms like that, and you well know it, so using them is purely rude and agressive towards a firmly held Christian belief that you merely differ in.
May the Lord bless and keep you,
Grant
P.S. Your logical statement doesn't work. You took two premise to reach a conclusion, and then used a conclusion to reach another conclusion. That isn't valid.
Also, you ignored the other half of my posts. Am I to concede that I answered your questions?
[ September 27, 2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]
Dualhunter
New Member
You are denying the reality of the situation, you're denial will not change reality. You pick and choose when you decide that you physically eat Jesus but don't physically eat the word of God. Jesus also said that He was the bread of life, however Catholic only think He is the bread of life in the mass and don't seem to believe that He was bread when He made the statement. The "active participation" part of the mass is precisely the problem, in the Orthodox church they even go so far as "spear" the bread. You claim to be commiting and act of canabalism but you resent being called a canabal. If you walk on a sidewalk, do you resent being called a pedestrian?
If there is only one argument I can pick as the "Worst argument ever" or give out a "Has no idea what they are talking about" award...it would be for this. I'm sorry, but it's true.
Ever hear of a figure of speech?
Here, let me show you something:
I take a picture of my car. I then show you that picture and say "This IS my car". Are you to believe that this flimsy 3x5 piece of laminate is the actual thing that carries me from place to place? OF COURSE NOT! That would be dumb.
How about this:
This IS my alma mater. What did I just say? That my alma mater is a webpage located at http://www.psu.edu? Did I just say that my alma mater is the server with the address of 146.186.157.6? Or did I just say that I was educated at Penn State, which is reprented symbolically at the given address? Of course I mean the the symbolic representation.
Why would you automatically assume what Jesus said is not symbolic? Well, rationally, you wouldn't. It would take something else to make that assumption and that something else is not found in the bible.
And of course, there is the matter of catholics being inconsistent with their literal and then figurative interpretations of scripture (figurative for John 3:3, literal for this).
[ September 27, 2002, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]
GraceSaves
New Member
Jason,
You see it as a problem. And then I see Jesus at the Mass. He's present there, and I thank God for that.
May God bless you,
Grant
You see it as a problem. And then I see Jesus at the Mass. He's present there, and I thank God for that.
May God bless you,
Grant
You "see Jesus at the Mass." Is that literal or figurative? As Jason said:
"And of course, there is the matter of catholics being inconsistent with their literal and then figurative interpretations of scripture (figurative for John 3:3, literal for this)."
What did you actually see?
DHK
Now have any of the so called Bishops you trust seen Him face to face?No they have'nt the apostles are all gone and thank God they have left us with a good record to base our beliefs in.
You believe all the apostles saw Jesus face to face? Many saw Jesus face to face, yet only few were apostles. 11 of them were Jesus' closest friends. After Jesus' death, the remaining 11 chose Matthias to be an apostle. While the Bible says Matthias went among the people, he wasn't present at some of the most crucial times, such as the last supper. So, while he saw Jesus, he did not know him the way the apostles knew him, yet he was still blessed.
And what of Paul? He never met Jesus either, he only saw his vision on the road. That happenned after Jesus' death & resurrection. Everything he learned from Jesus, he learned second hand.
So one must not have known Jesus personally, or even have seen him face to face, to have been blessed to serve as an apostle.
You believe all the apostles saw Jesus face to face? Many saw Jesus face to face, yet only few were apostles. 11 of them were Jesus' closest friends. After Jesus' death, the remaining 11 chose Matthias to be an apostle. While the Bible says Matthias went among the people, he wasn't present at some of the most crucial times, such as the last supper. So, while he saw Jesus, he did not know him the way the apostles knew him, yet he was still blessed.
And what of Paul? He never met Jesus either, he only saw his vision on the road. That happenned after Jesus' death & resurrection. Everything he learned from Jesus, he learned second hand.
So one must not have known Jesus personally, or even have seen him face to face, to have been blessed to serve as an apostle.
Why would you automatically assume what Jesus ["This is my body"] said is not symbolic?
That's a new one. Everything in the Bible is literal, except for that one phrase.
We must literally assume that Jesus didn't drink alcohol because the Bible didn't say so, but we have to take something Jesus literally said as figurative.
Paul forbidding women to prech we must obey, even though Jesus didn't say it, but this we must not take literally, even though Jesus DID say it.
That's a new one. Everything in the Bible is literal, except for that one phrase.
We must literally assume that Jesus didn't drink alcohol because the Bible didn't say so, but we have to take something Jesus literally said as figurative.
Paul forbidding women to prech we must obey, even though Jesus didn't say it, but this we must not take literally, even though Jesus DID say it.