Female RC Priests

That objectivity is impossible. We are all - even those of us who deny it - influenced by our various ecclesial traditions or Traditions. For instance, the Baptist ecclesial tradition rejects baptismal regeneration, and therefore it has of necessity to interpret I Peter 3:21 in a non-regenerative/ salvific way; Baptists are therefore just as interpretatively biased as SDAs.This is where I have a hard time with the "bible only" crowd. You most certainly do have a faith tradition, and it is either woefully ignorant or disingenuous to state otherwise. If you don't think "bible only" is a particular tradition, that puts you in the woefully ignorant column and you would do well to read some history of Christianity. Otherwise you're being disingenuous. "Bible Only" theologizing isn't in the Bible, and its beginning can be traced back to man. Very recent man, as these things go. Far more recent by many centuries than infant baptism.

And whilst we're on the subject of 'Tradition', what do you think compiled and produced the Scriptures which you 'sola' hold to? What I think the nonconformist "sola scriptura" tradition needs to learn from this is that the Books on which "sola scriptura" authority is based were in fact selected by others. The NT by the Orthodox/Catholic Councils and the OT by Jewish scholars. They did NOT descend in all purity from the sky on gold tablets a la Book or Mormon. They were derived by human processes under the human control of non-protestants and non-Christians. We may claim the protection of God the Holy Spirit over the processes - but our evidence that He might indeed do so is in these very books collected, sifted and preserved by others with whom we disagree. Now when was the last time any of us heard a Baptist sermon on that theme? "Let's be grateful to the Traditionalists! We wouldn't have a Bible at all if it wasn't for their faithfulness and hard work! Thanks be to God."

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

DHK,

And that is a mirror image of my experience.

Keep in mind, at the time I 1st started encountering born again people whom God was sending my way, I knew nothing of evangelical, pentecostal, charismatic, or protestant teachings. I only knew what I was taught by the Catholic Church. So...I had absolutlly no bias of any kind. No pre-set evangelical leanings. No lifetime of evangelical teaching to supposedly "cloud" my objectivity.

And yet when I started searching the scriptures myself it was absolutly clear...crystal clear...that the many teachings of the Catholic Church that they claim are essential and so very important to live right and gain heaven are completly and totally foreign to the scriptures.

They are not in the least supported by Gods scriptures.

Over and over and over again I found that....

Catholic Church says *this*....but God says *THAT*.

Catholic Church says *this*....but God says *THAT*.

Catholic Church says *this*....but God says *THAT*.

Catholic Church says *this*....but God says *THAT*.

Catholic Church says *this*....but God says *THAT*.

What a sad thing it is to see folks choose such heresy, idolatry, and wickedness when Gods good truth stream of living water is available.

God bless,

Mike

 

This absurd claim that if it werent for the (((Catholic Church)))) we wouldnt have the scriptures is one of the weirdest and most bizzare things I've come across in my 23 years as a born again person.

I dont know how to describe it...maybe "absurdly weird and hilariously misplaced arrogance" or something.

Its usually good for a chuckle of two.

Amused,

Mike

 

So, how do you assert that we ended up with the Bibles we have today? I suppose they fell miraculously out of the sky?

DHK, you know as well as I do that the Catholic Catechism is shot through with Scripture quotations. Now, doubtless we will be having the usual tired old phrases from you and Mike about their alleged 'mangling of the Scriptures' and this and that being 'thundered' from the Scriptures, but all it boils down to is that your interpretation is different from theirs.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Hey, my mother actually believes this! Actually she has no idea how we got the bible. I’m anxiously waiting DHK and D28guy’s response, if we get one.

 

Hi DHK:

Matt asked So, how do you assert that we ended up with the Bibles we have today? I suppose they fell miraculously out of the sky?

You replied to go back and review your posts that you’ve already explained this. I went back and couldn’t find any explanation from you concerning Matt’s question. Could you kindly tell me what page and post (dated) that you answered how we ended up with the bible? I’d like to know who collected and decided what letters were acceptable and what letters weren’t that make up our New Testament portion of the bible.

Thanks.

 

page 3, August 12; 3:09 p.m. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi DHK,

Thanks for the post pointing me to your response, but that doesn’t answer the questions posed. There was no bible, as we know of it today in the first half of the century. Granted they had an Old Testament, but my question revolves around the New Testament.

Peter, Paul and John all wrote more letters than those we see in our New Testament. WHO determined which of these were authoritative and which of these weren’t?

I’m not a Catholic, but would like to know, how we got the bible in the final condition it is in and who was responsible for determining which books made the cut and which didn’t.

Concerning the “Trinity”, my Pastor just done a bible study on Islam last year and he used The Story of Civilization, by Will and Ariel Durant for all his research. I went to my library to read some of these books and research the Authors, since he was promoting these books so heavily and found that these books claimed that the “Trinity” was a rip off from pagan ancient Egypt. When I brought this to his attention he ‘bout flipped out. Now I wonder just how much information he used about Islam was the actual truth.

So how did we get the term “Trinity”? The word isn’t found in the bible, but the idea is certainly there. I also remember seeing a discovery channel special, maybe a year or two ago and the special stated groups believed in the Father and Son, but other groups were adding the Holy Spirit and this was causing a problem and a council was called to research this and make a doctrine. Was all this fact or fiction? I guess it depends upon the source as I stated above conflict using The Story of Civilization.

I would seriously like to know the above questions, please feel free to PM me any resources that I could investigate this on my own.

Thanks

 

Every book now in the new testament was inscripturated and were being read, circulated and studied by approximently the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

The religious professing christian group known as the Catholic Church was about 300 years from coming into being and had absolutly (((ZERO))) to do with the giving of these scriptures to Gods people.

Mike

 

That's rather a bizarre claim since the Gospels were not written until after the destruction of the Temple, and Revelation not until c.95AD.

I asked on the "What did Constantine actually do?" thread how you assert that the Catholic Church came into being some 300 years later. I'm still waiting for an at least half-decent answer to that one. As far as I have always understood, the Church that existed in the 4th century was the same Church as had existed in the 1st century; the onus is on those who assert otherwise to adduce evidence in support of their contention; so far, zilch.

DHK, you gave stated quite correctly how the Canon of Scripture came to be written (50 to 98AD is far more accurate than Mike's assertion of "everything before 70AD"); what you have failed to do is to assert HOW the Canon came to be determined by the Church ie: how did the believers understand which of Paul's letters were canonical and which weren't; how was the Gospel of Thomas excluded etc. The nearest you get to an explanation is

Be careful! You're coming dangerously close to making out a case for your dreaded Tradition there! I'd also like to know which were these "Bible believing churches entirely outside the corrupt Catholic Church"? When and where did they exist? And when and where did the Catholic Church exist? What documents and writings from that period (whichever that period actually is) are you relying on to support your claim?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Actually, the canon of scripture as we know it today was decided by a council in the late fourth century. Jesus Freaks II gives the date 393 AD for the canonization of the 27 books of NT scripture we have today. This was decided by a Council of Bishops at a local North African synod called the SYNOD OF HIPPO. Many bishops of the Church came together and prayerfully constructed the canon with the aid of Augustine's writings on what constituted inspired, canonical scripture. That is simple history.

But, the Catholic church had nothing to do with it. At that time there were no divisions in the Church. The Arian heretics were running rampant, but there were no divisions. Catholicism, this group we so like to demonize, didn't begin to become a seperate entity from the Church until the 8th century. The formal break with what would be called Eastern Orthodoxy didn't occur until 1054. And, the complete split didn't occur until the late 12th century.

Also, the assertion that all scripture was already written by the Fall of Jerusalem is fallacious. John's Gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem. As was Revelations, which is dated by the most conservative scholars at 96 AD.

 

DHK, you said:
"There are forgeries today, and there were forgeries then. Ask the Catholics? They claim that those 14 forgeries in their Bible are actually inspired! Imagine that, even though they weren't officially accepted into the canon by them until 1532. "

Actually, the reason why Catholics and Orthodox (they include the Apocrypha too) include these books, is because the Church decided that the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the OT), which included these books, was the OT scripture for them. This was decided in a council. I want to say that it was the Council of Hippo as well, but I'm not sure.

 

The Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) defined the NT Canon. To say either of them defined the OT canon is more problematic and controversial; definition of the OT canon sprang more from usage, in this case usage of the LXX, complete with the DCs/Apocrypha pretty much from day 1 of the Church spreading beyond the confines of Judaism. That, plus the fact that the purely Jewish 'Jamnia process' from c80AD rejected the LXX as their Scriptures because it was written in Greek (and used by those pesky Christian 'splitters'!) and accepted only Hebrew Scriptures, which of course excluded the DCs.

The Christians, however, continued to use the LXX version which formed the basis of Jerome's Latin Vulgate OT, until Luther unilaterally decided to remove the DCs because he didn't like some of the doctrines revealed therein; he also wanted to remove the Letter of James which contained the rather inconvenient (to his sola fide doctrine) phrase "faith without works is dead" and Revelation (because he thought it was wierd) for the same reason, but fortunately he was stopped. It was the Catholic Council of Trent (which started meeting in 1545 not 1532, DHK) which therefore had to reaffirm the inclusion of the DCs in the OT Canon as a reaction to Luther's unauthorised action.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Hi Matt: That’s pretty much what I’m reading in my research using respected historians such as Jaroslav Pelikan from Yale and J.N.D Kelly from Oxford, but boy, I have to say a new world is emerging for me and to be this deep in history is to almost cease to be a Protestant.

I feel like Neo in the Matrix and Morpheus is freeing my mind, but it just never in my 30+ years occurred to me “how” these books that make up the bible were collected and “who” or “whom” decided which books or letters were authoritative. I guess I just took it as it was.

The jury is still out on this one…

 

Riverm,
Don't worry. The Holy Spirit worked through these doctors of the Church to give us the Scripture that was breathed by Him. Know that. The bishops were men of God, representing the Church of God. The Scriptures, as we have them, are true and good.

 

riverm asked of DHK...

And DHK quoted himself....

And now riverm, incredibly, says this...

Unbelievable.

Let me take the liberty to bold some of what DHK posted, in an effort to make it easier for you....

I sincerely hope that helps.

God bless,

Mike

 

Personally, I couldnt care less because I almost never use that word. I like to say instead "the triune nature of God".

THAT is scriptural, so I use that. The word "trinity" is a concoction of man so I prefer to not use it.

Mike