-
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!
Essential Doctrine from the Bible
- Thread starter Cathode
- Start date
Have to stop you there.
In Protestantism the theologies are made by men from their own fallible interpretations of the texts Scripture.
Their doctrines are the fruit of new and fallible men’s interpretation of scripture.
This is an attempt to recreate Christianity from textural criticism, and results in those manifest chaotic variations.
Catholicism never held to this.
When we say Apostolic, we mean the original teaching of the inspired Apostles hand down as a guarded deposit through approved and appointed men from the Apostles.
‘But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.’ Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1,28 (c. A.D. 350).
So it’s a preservation of the Infallible Apostolic understanding and interpretation of scripture.
Not the result of fallible man made interpretations of Scripture.
There is a big difference between the two.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I am not really a Calvinist but often defend them because I so much like the Puritans but I can tell you and any of the Calvinists on here and anywhere else can tell you that all the Calvinistic theology can be and is derived directly from our canon of scripture. The fact that they use Augustine for example should be an encouragement to you but it is not really necessary. The recent books trying to make Calvinism based on Manicheanism have questionable scholarship at best.
The other thing you have to remember is that all of Protestantism agrees with the Apostles Creed and in fact is very unified on the basics of how someone becomes a Christian. The differences involve the philosophy of necessity, predestination and reality of the world we live in. Whether free will is compatible with absolute predestination of events makes no difference at the point of someone coming to Christ and living a life of following Christ.
Yes. It's the errors that came some from the early church fathers but mainly later. Still, Athanasius is a hero to Baptists too. We talked about him in Sunday school today as a matter of fact. But to my earlier point, the ECF had flaws and areas where they needed to develop more also. They had various errors too. There is a whole body of study, and I'd refer you to Michael Kruger, that takes the position heresy was so prominent in the early churches that we probably don't even know what we ended up with and why. That goes too far but the fact is they weren't perfect, and neither are we - and neither is the Roman system.
No. You aren’t getting it.
The Church Fathers aren’t generating errors with their fallible interpretations of scripture.
They are holding to the interpretations and understandings the Apostles handed down to them.
‘We are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy…’ Athanasius, De Decretis 27 (c. A.D. 350).
“We are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold this.” Athanasius, Epistles 59 ( A.D. 356).
“But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the NT and the Old.” Athanasius, Epistles 60 (A.D. 356).
The tradition of the Fathers is the teaching of the Apostles.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
What don't I get? We Baptists consider Athanasias a hero for his work protecting the Trinity too. And don't forget St. Nicholas, who reportedly gave Arias a slap for good measure. But in other areas if you read the ECF's you can tell they had error as well as undeveloped positions on lots of issues.
Like I said, they had errors, and more importantly, they were not your church fathers any more than mine. Roman theology continued to increase the error and corruption until a breaking point was reached.
This is what I meant earlier about simply restating the obvious tenets. You are like the Calvinists on here who used to constantly go back to the TULIP. You can state and restate your belief that the church is infallible and that there is an uninterrupted succession of apostles. I don't care because I don't accept it. If you have nothing else to say just drop it.
I’ll try explain again.
I know you don’t accept an infallible Church.
What you need to acknowledge is the fathers are saying that they aren’t coming up with their own teachings and doctrines from their own interpretations of scripture.
“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 in truth.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199).
Catholics follow a singular interpretive Tradition from the Apostles.
So a Catholic reads a scripture passage “ born again of water and Spirit “ and asks what has the Church and the Fathers traditionally taught that means.
The fathers all say it means water Baptism regeneration as handed down to them from the inspired Apostles.
Ask a Protestant what it means.
Well depending on what fallible human tradition interpreted it since the 1500s it can mean contrary things.
See Catholics avoid the trap of following fallible human interpretations and doctrines by only following the Apostles interpretations handed down by the fathers.
“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).
“Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use.” Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).
So Protestantism follows fallible human interpretations of scripture. Traditions of men and doctrines of men.
And Catholicism follows infallible Divine interpretations of Scripture handed down from the Apostles by the Fathers.
“Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use.” Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).
“They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church’s tradition. They preach only ‘the dogmas of the Church'” John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction (A.D. 389).
37818
Well-Known Member
That is a professed Catholic persuasion.
My persuasion, the New Testament are the sole Apostolic authority.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
@Cathode . If you want to engage on this site you need to start thinking like a Protestant. Since you are into baptismal regeneration use that as an example.
First. Do you really think the group called Baptists wants to minimize the importance of baptism? Do they teach that it is optional? Go to scripture. Does every discussion of salvation include baptism? If not then why not? Are there warnings in scripture about symbolic things and the possibility of relying on the symbol itself rather than the reality of what is being symbolized? Are you able to observe those who have been water baptized who are obviously living in sin and not regenerated? If you like Augustine, go back and reread his own discussion of his delaying his own baptism so he could get some more sinning out of the way first. Is that an indication of someone who was at a point of understanding or maturity that should be followed to the letter on the procedures true meaning?
I could go on and on but this is the way you have to look at things that are not spelled out explicitly in scripture. You would also need to ask, is it a general rule that symbolic things are used to commemorate, and maybe even a stronger word like validate, confirm, seal something - and yet there be cautions that the physical thing itself is not the literal cause of the commemorated effect? In other words, might it not be wise to be cautious in general about a system that so emphasizes performance of obviously symbolic acts used to help us and our faith rather than just jump over to where "by the working of the work" the whole thing is reduced to a literal physical act?
As a Baptist, I became a believer who was ignorant and young. My baptism, which though I was young I still vividly remember, was a huge help in my own budding faith and it did in my opinion make it a reality to me as I did this with the whole church gathered in order to see it done. I consider it essential, as a Christian, so much so that I cannot think of why someone would forgo their Baptism. As a visible and physical sign it also confirmed my identification with Christ and my church family, who cannot read my mind went on that profession and allowed me to join the visible church. What I do not see in scripture though is a case that the actual act of baptizing with water is in itself, salvific.
You need to start thinking like this and studying scripture like this. Most people who do this end up leaving the Roman church though.
First. Do you really think the group called Baptists wants to minimize the importance of baptism? Do they teach that it is optional? Go to scripture. Does every discussion of salvation include baptism? If not then why not? Are there warnings in scripture about symbolic things and the possibility of relying on the symbol itself rather than the reality of what is being symbolized? Are you able to observe those who have been water baptized who are obviously living in sin and not regenerated? If you like Augustine, go back and reread his own discussion of his delaying his own baptism so he could get some more sinning out of the way first. Is that an indication of someone who was at a point of understanding or maturity that should be followed to the letter on the procedures true meaning?
I could go on and on but this is the way you have to look at things that are not spelled out explicitly in scripture. You would also need to ask, is it a general rule that symbolic things are used to commemorate, and maybe even a stronger word like validate, confirm, seal something - and yet there be cautions that the physical thing itself is not the literal cause of the commemorated effect? In other words, might it not be wise to be cautious in general about a system that so emphasizes performance of obviously symbolic acts used to help us and our faith rather than just jump over to where "by the working of the work" the whole thing is reduced to a literal physical act?
As a Baptist, I became a believer who was ignorant and young. My baptism, which though I was young I still vividly remember, was a huge help in my own budding faith and it did in my opinion make it a reality to me as I did this with the whole church gathered in order to see it done. I consider it essential, as a Christian, so much so that I cannot think of why someone would forgo their Baptism. As a visible and physical sign it also confirmed my identification with Christ and my church family, who cannot read my mind went on that profession and allowed me to join the visible church. What I do not see in scripture though is a case that the actual act of baptizing with water is in itself, salvific.
You need to start thinking like this and studying scripture like this. Most people who do this end up leaving the Roman church though.
You are still following fallible interpretations of scripture and doctrines therefrom.
You really want to trust fallible interpretations and doctrines for your eternity?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
The point is, all interpretations and all man made doctrines are subject to error. Even your clergymen. Our scriptures contain no doctrinal errors but may have some translation problems. In addition, your system has a proven track record of corruption and error. You do what you want but if you come on a Baptist forum with this baloney it's going to be called out, at least I used to think so.
Yes, thats why we don’t follow them. None of them possess the truth, which is an unscriptural position.
Catholics have avoided human interpretations of scripture and only follow the ancient Apostolic interpretation of Scripture, Apostolic Tradition.
Protestantism = fallible conflicting human interpretations of scripture and fallible doctrines of men.
Catholicism = Singular infallible divinely inspired Apostolic interpretation of Scripture handed down in tradition. True doctrine from true interpretation.
This is what I talked about, people prefer fallible human interpretations and doctrines and precepts of men.
Protestants think it’s normal to interpret their own doctrines from scripture, hence they all scatter after reading the same Bible, they make the Bible the source of their disunity.
The Bible is the inspired product of The Catholic Church, preserved by Catholics from the Apostles and determined it the Canon itself.
“ Without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible.” Professor Peter Flint, Baptist translator of the Dead Sea scrolls.
Catholics had the scriptures and created the Canon more than a thousand years before protestants walked the earth.
If we accept the testimony of men, the testimony of GOD is greater-1John 5:9. What matters and prevails is the Word of GOD, the Word of GOD is from everlasting to everlasting, the Word is GOD, understand? GOD Himself, self-executing.
It is not the Protestants who condemn the Church of Rome, but the Word of GOD, first written by the apostles, mainly by the apostles Paul and John (1 John 2:18-21).
It is not the believers who condemn your Church of Rome, but the Word of GOD by which the Church of Rome with her followers will all be cast into the Hell's fire-Revelation 19:19-21:
19 And I saw the Beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the Beast (the MAN Beast of sea and his woman, the RCC, the great whore) was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him(Revelation 13:11-14), with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the Beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the Sword of him that sat upon the horse, which Sword proceeded out of his mouth:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
It was around the year 95AD, or around 65 years after JESUS's acension, JESUS sent seven letters, a letter to the each one of the seven churches of Asia, and left the church of Rome out of His circle and abandoned it because long before the year 95AD the church of Rome had already linked itself first to the Devil, and then to the agents of the Devil within the Roman Empire to kill the apostles and disciples of JESUS.
By the way, 38 years earlier, I mean around the year 57AD, Paul the Apostle wrote an epistle to the church of Rome in which he said and testified that it had been a powerful church and that he loved it so much (Romans 1:8-17), but in the year 57, around 30 years after the crucifixion of JESUS, the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church of Rome to rebuke it due to the idolatry that had taken over the Church and the consequent depravity of the modus vivendi of churchgoers after it was linked to the Roman Empire, and from where the name of the Church comes to this day, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church.
All the messages you have written on this site, I mean, from your 1st message until now, O @athode, they have been written as by a messenger of the Devil, a minister of Satan-2Corinthians 11:13-15 combined with Revelation 12:7-12-, and not as a Minister of GOD.
Get behind us Satan.
What the Spirit of Devil says through you and the demonic Pope, your demonic guide, will be burn with everlasting fire. By the way, my Lord JESUS makes it very clear: GOD is He who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell-Matthew 10:28. Get ready.
I think you will ultimately find out that you have been blaspheming Christ’s Church for years.
You should look to the demonic church you attend, and see that your satanic guide, the Pope, has a demonic NAME of blasphemy in his head-Revelation 13:1.
Unfortunately you are blind, guided by a blind, elected by the Devil as his representative in the Roman Catholic Church.
.
More SDA propaganda