Interesting News article

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

I accept Scripture as authoritative, but I do not limit the deposit of divine revelation to Scripture, so I am not bound to "prove" that my doctrine is explicitly set forth in Scripture. The other source I rely upon is Tradition, and Scripture norms Tradition.

Isa.8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[Carson Weber]

Clint,

I asked you, "Do you have any canonized Scripture from which you can present a case for your canon of Scripture?" and you responed with "Nope, comes by faith"

Faith is an action that pledges trust, and faith has an object.

In this case, the object of your faith is the canon of Scripture. This canon of Scripture is not found within Scripture, but outside of Scripture.

Therefore, you are placing your faith in a doctrine that is found nowhere in Scripture when you say, "Nope, comes by faith".

You've just proven that you believe in an article of faith that is found in Tradition and not in Scripture (this has always been obvious, but this makes it more evident for the reader of these posts). Now, you should be consistent and hold to all authentic Tradition as defined by the Magisterium of the Church (other than limiting your cafeteria Catholicism to the canon of Scripture).

God bless,

Carson

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

You quoted, "Isa.8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." in response to my assertion that the deposit of divine revelation is found both in Scripture and Tradition.

I urge you to consider the New Testament of Jesus Christ:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thes 2:15)

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thes 3:6)

God bless,

Carson

 

[Clint Kritzer]

You still haven't responded to my original presentation of the Scriptural foundation behind Mary's perpetual virginity as proposed by Jerome in his Treatise.

I'll take a closer look tomorrow when I have time but I can see from a glance that he really had to contort uncomfortably to get around Matthew 1:25.

I would not have found that without the link.

You, Clint, do not accept Tradition (even when it is normed by Scripture - for instance, in the case of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary), so we do not hold to the same authority in the case of the deposit of divine revelation.

Claiming victory for oneself is another form of fallacious argumentation.

Clint, if you want to make an argument, make it. Get back to the topic at hand and stop presenting useless tangents that have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. This way of belittling your opponents is really fallacious and quite ineffective.

I AM making an argument. I am just insisting that the debate be conducted in a logical way that follows a positively conducive debate format. I have not belittled you, Carson, only your arguments. There is a HUGE difference. (BTW, thanks for the spelling correction. I hate spelling errors in my posts. Makes me look like a dumb ol' hick, don't it?)

"Useless tangents" got a chuckle out of me though! Just so I stay consistent, I will now insert the phrase "perpetual virginity of Mary" into this post. Now you can go back to telling us about late 20th century scholarship on Biblical texts, the eucharist, or false assertions about logical fallacies or whatever else may come to mind. Anything but the case at hand. It really doesn't matter at this point, does it? You may have the last word unless I see something very noteworthy in your link to Jerome. If so, I'll be here tomorrow.

Boy, won't Chemnitz be surprised when he signs back on!!!

Good night Carson and thank you for the debate.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "he really had to contort uncomfortably to get around Matthew 1:25.

Compare Matthew 1:25, "but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus."

With 2 Samuel 6:23, "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death."

Claiming victory for oneself is another form of fallacious argumentation.

And the quote that you presented does not present me claiming victory for myself. That would be "putting words in your opponent's mouth", which is another form of this "fallacious argumentation" that you're denouncing left and right.

I AM making an argument. I am just insisting that the debate be conducted in a logical way that follows a positively conducive debate format.

Writing, "If your instructor, Scott Hahn, whom you are forever promoting on this site, is half the apologist the catholics claim him to be, show him this thread and ask him to point out the fallacious arguments. I'm sure he can explain it to you.," can hardly be summarized as insistence upon a conducive debate format. It is a belittling tangent that does not make an argument of any substance.

You're welcome brother. Good night.

Carson

[ October 26, 2002, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

You've just proven that you believe in an article of faith that is found in Tradition and not in Scripture (this has always been obvious, but this makes it more evident for the reader of these posts). Now, you should be consistent and hold to all authentic Tradition as defined by the Magisterium of the Church (other than limiting your cafeteria Catholicism to the canon of Scripture).

Carson, your logic fails you at this point. The Scripture itself teaches us to look to it as its final authority, not Tradition. It is a Biblically-based doctrine.
415 times in 413 verses is the phrase "thus saith Lord" used. It is an appeal to the words of God, God's authority, never tradition.

Isa.8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--The appeal here is to Scripture. "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." There is no appeal to tradition, only Scripture.

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.
--The appeal of the Bereans was the Scriptures. It was their final authority, in spite of the fact that Paul was such a great and well-known teacher. They basically said to Paul that whatever you say or teach we will not believe until we check the Scriptures first. If what you say agrees with the Scripture is true, we will believe, if it is not true, we will not believe it. Paul called them "noble," for taking that stand. Their stand was using the Scripture as their final authority.

1Peter 1:10-12
10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

The subject here is salvation. Notice in verse 10, how Peter says the prophets (of the Old Testament) inquired and searched diligently of it. They prophesied of the grace that should come, for they prophesied of Christ. The gospel spoken of in the Old Testament, was also a subject of great interest to the angels in Heaven. They desire to look into it. Peter says concerning the gospel, and the New Testament revelation that the Apostles received, "unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost." Peter puts the Apostles, and their revelation, on the same level as that of the prophets of old.

2Pet.3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture. They are authoritative. They are the Word of God. It is not tradition; it is the Word of God.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi DHK,

You quoted, "Isa.8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." in response to my assertion that the deposit of divine revelation is found both in Scripture and Tradition.

I urge you to consider the New Testament of Jesus Christ:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thes 2:15)

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thes 3:6)

God bless,

Carson

There was no tradition in the time of Paul, in the sense that the Catholic Church uses it. The "churches" were young. Christianity at large was young. Christ had died approximatley 29 A.D. Some of the letters you are referring to were written in the mid-fifties to early sixties A.D. There was no time in 25 years to develop the kind of tradition that you refer to. That isn't even logical to think that way. The word "tradition" used in all of those verses simply means "truth." Walk in the way of the truth which I have taught you. Paul taught the truth. He tells them to walk in it. It is really not a difficult concept to understand.
"Maintain these 'truths' even as I have delivered them unto you."
"not in accordance to the 'truth' which you received from us."
DHK

 

[Dualhunter]

Joseph's father was Jacob not Heli. Matthew having been a tax collector would most likely have focused on the the legal geneology of Jesus, the wording of the geneology as given by Matthew makes it clear that Jacob is Joseph's father. The geneology that Luke gives is not the same as Matthew, your comment suggests that the Catholic church believes that God inspired a contradiction. Luke is believed to have been a doctor and thus it would make sense for him to list the biological geneology of Jesus and therefore Mary's geneology. The wording allows for Heli to be Jesus' immediate male ancestor, both the "as was supposed, the son of Joseph" and the geneology starting with Heli are refering to Jesus, thus we conclude that Mary's father was Heli, not Joseph's, and that contrary to the beliefs of the Catholic church scripture does not contradict itself.

 

[BobRyan]

In Catholocism - Mary is to be prayed to,

she is titled "Queen of Heaven",

her apparitions are sought after,

she is said to be the only human sinnless like Christ,

she is considered by many to be "co-redemptrix with Christ" for the human race,

she is so exaulted that the "immaculate conception" miracle - (having a sinnless child) is attributed in Catholic tradition to HER mother giving birth to HER.

So the issue of James the brother of Jesus - takes on a new dimension/implication given the godlike qualities attributed to Mary.

The question remains from another thread - how does this differ from ancestor worship and praying to the dead?

IN Christ,

Bob

[ October 26, 2002, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi DHK,

That is to assume that Peter wrote 2 Peter to begin with
...
How would my holding to the pseudoauthorship of 2 Peter be the cause of my rejection of this epistle as authoritative? Also, one can regard Scripture as authoritative while also not holding Scripture as one's final authority. To disallow for this distinction would be to impose your Protestant categories upon Catholics.

God bless,

Carson

2 Peter 1, "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" Question, did the Holy Spirit inspire thses words? Are they true? Is the Holy Spirit the author of lies? Would that be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Seriously concerned, Colin

 

[Carson Weber]

2 Peter 1, "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" Question, did the Holy Spirit inspire thses words? Are they true? Is the Holy Spirit the author of lies? Would that be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Hi Colin,

I won't go into it here because I don't have the time (I am a full time graduate student with many responsibilities), but I want to point something out for you.

Fundamentalism is a particular Biblical hermeneutic that does not allow for the historical-critical method because it denies the human aspect of the Sacred Scriptures. Your response demonstrates the fundamentalist perspective. A Catholic interpretation would allow for pseudoauthorship and does not view such as error or lying, while the fundamentalist sees such to be an error and lying.

God bless,

Carson

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

A Catholic interpretation would allow for pseudoauthorship and does not view such as error or lying, while the fundamentalist sees such to be an error and lying.

A Catholic interpretation would allow for pseudauthorship (false authorship), as the word speaks for itself. Therefore it does have error and lying inherent within its own interpretation, by swallowing hook, line, and sinker the "higher criticism" of the liberal theologians. The end result is a denial of the Word of God.
DHK

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Fundamentalism is a particular Biblical hermeneutic that does not allow for the historical-critical method because it denies the human aspect of the Sacred Scriptures. Your response demonstrates the fundamentalist perspective. A Catholic interpretation would allow for pseudoauthorship and does not view such as error or lying, while the fundamentalist sees such to be an error and lying.

God bless,

Carson[/QB][/QUOTE]

Hi Carson, I actually enjoy studying the human side of Scripture very much. Jeremiah, cut off from family, temple, marriage, funerals and parties, becomes the prohpet of the New Covennt where God will be personal to all, Eziekiel, in Exile, is brought back to the land and the Temple etc. I find the best way to view the written word is just like the living Word, fully human, fully divine, and utterly sinless. Psuedo authorship says scripture claims one thing, but is another. It is just a fancy word for lying. To say this does not imply that I ignore the human side of scripture, rather that I believe Scripture to be sinless.
When I lived in Jerusalem, a PhD student visited. He was looking at Nehimiah. Critical scholarship saw the book as a later compilation of two seperate oral traditions, proof for this being in the differing phrases, "A built next to B", and "A built above B". This student walked around the walls would have been. Everywhere the ground was flat, A had built beside B. Everywhere there was a slope, A had build above B. He then researched ancient building methods. His conclusion was that this was not two oral accounts combined generations later, but good evidence of an eyewitness writing down and remembering what he had seen during the day.
My point is, do not be too quick to accept the clever arguments of critical scholarship when they distain the authority of God's holy word.

Take care, Colin
PS, when is 1 Peter supposed to have been written?

 

[Frank]

Ron:
You said, "The difference being, Catholics do not read the Catechism and come to completely polar views as to the meaning.

The differences in interpretation are vastly more profound among the sola scriptura crowd.Look and Frank and DHK.

Ron, The Roman Catholic Chruch practices the very things found in the New Testament regarding the falling away.One, the Catholic teaching on the marriage of bishops and having believing children. I Tim 3:1-11,Titus 1:5-9, II Tim. 4:1-4. Two, The practice of abstaining from meats. II Tim. 4: 2,3. Three, The unscriptual organization of the Catholic church. SEE I Tim. 3 Titus 1.Four, The claim of inspiration among it's magisterium. Rev 2:2, II Cor. 12:12, Mark 16:20. Five, the glorification of men. Mat. 23:8,9, I Cor 1:10-12.

The Catholic church was the first to start the heretical teachings.

Ron, to compare me with DHK theologically is well absurd. If you have followed the posts, you will notice a different hermeneutical principle in setting forth our positions. Furthermore, he acknowledges to be a Baptist. I have claimed to be a Christian as per the New Testament. I am a Christian, no more and no less. If you wish to prove otherwise, use evidence, not unfounded assertions.

Moreover, I have asked you to do the honorable thing and prove your points with inspired evidence. You refuse to do so to this point! It is a most distasteful and dishonorable to make claims about others and not provide evidence to the truth.

I offered you this challenge in another thread. If my position is wrong, simply prove it with evidence.

I do not want to be lumped unjustifiably with others without proof.

 

[Chemnitz]

Clint, I thank you for your kind words.

I hate to burst the Catholic's bubble , but the only reason they diverted it away from the perpetual virginity is because to me it is not worth debating because neither side can provide definitive Scriptural proof and it is not a critical belief. However, I do believe that the teaching of the perpetual virginity has and does lead to many abuses and idoltrous behaviors.

I had just posted the link because I thought it was interesting, I never imagined that such a debate would ensue.

I have been lurking the past couple of days. I just haven't posted because after writing

a 10 page exegetical paper on Isa 6, my mind was temporarly fried . I tell you the hardest part was keeping it to ten pages, there was just too much cool stuff to go into.

I do see that once again Frank is complaining that nobody will play by his rules.
For those of you who in the past have tried to pin him down as to what group he belongs too, I have learned some things yall might find helpful. Frank belongs to a group called the Restoration Movement. Their basic theology is descended from the Campbellite movement. The Restoration movement views the NT as nothing more than a blueprint for the formation of a church. They claim to be against all denominations and the divisions in the Body of Christ they create. Yet, they refuse to see the hypocracy of their own beliefs by not acknowledging that they too are just one more denomination.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Hi Chemnitz -

Wondered where you had been.

I hate to burst the Catholic's bubble , but the only reason they diverted it away from the perpetual virginity is because to me it is not worth debating because neither side can provide definitive Scriptural proof and it is not a critical belief.

Actually Carson provided us the proof of Mary's sexual involvement with Joseph in his link. Matthew 1:24-25 states:

Matthew 1
24When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

I guess Jerome didn't get around to changing that one!

Carson asked me to cross reference to 2 Samuel 6:23 for an explanation to this.

Michal was the daughter of Saul. Saul's house was cursed by God for Saul's many iniquities (1Samuel 15). I agree that Michal had no children because of David's rejection of her, but that was due to her attitude towards David dancing before the Ark when it was returned to Jerusalem (2Samuel 6:20-22). This really seems contrary to his adoration of Mary to compare her to Michal.

Michal not having any children was part of God's displeasure with Saul (1Samuel 15). The choice of Mary to bear the Messiah is because of God being pleased with her (Luke 1:28).

Of course, addressing this post to you is preaching to the choir.

Hope you did well on your paper. Welcome "home."

 

[Frank]

Chem:
One does not have to"pin me down " to know my position on any biblical subject. If one makes a request, I will respond.

You said,"
I do see that once again Frank is complaining that nobody will play by his rules."

I have made a request that those who make assertions about what someone believes to provide the evidence from the scriptures, I Thes 5:21.
By the way, this is God's rule. God's word said to prove all things, to search to see if those things are so, to study to show yourself approved unto God. God does not endorse, every man doing what is right in his own eyes. Acts 17:11, II Tim 2:15,I Thes 5:21, Judges 21:25. God;s word is the ONLY STANDARD. JOHN 12:48,JOHN 17:17,IPET. 1:23,JAMES 1:18.

You said,"For those of you who in the past have tried to pin him down as to what group he belongs too, I have learned some things yall might find helpful. Frank belongs to a group called the Restoration Movement. Their basic theology is descended from the Campbellite movement. The Restoration movement views the NT as nothing more than a blueprint for the formation of a church. They claim to be against all denominations and the divisions in the Body of Christ they create. Yet, they refuse to see the hypocracy of their own beliefs by not acknowledging that they too are just one more denomination.

You make unsubstantiated assertions.
1. You have provided nothing that proves I belong to any movement. What evidence?
2. The Bible is a pattern that is complete for man in every spiritual need, II Tim 3:16,17. It consists of a pattern of words that are to be followed. II Tim. 1:13, Act 2:42.
3. The Bible teaches us we are to be united in one faith, not many. Eph. 4:4-6, Jude 3, Acts 14:22, Gal. 1:23;3:25. Jeus prayed for unity,not division. John 17:20,21. Paul rebuked those who practiced division. ICor. 1: 10-16. God expects all men to walk by the SAME RULE and MIND the SAME THINGS. Phil. 3: 16,17,I Cor. 11:1,2, I Cor. 1:10,11, Romans 16:17, Titus 3:11,12.

4. I believe and teach New Testament Christianity as delivered once to all the saints.Jude 3. I have not taught or practiced anything by word or deed as a matter of faith that is not done so by the authority of Jesus Christ. Mat. 28:18-20.

The Truth does not fellowship false doctrine. Not because Chem says not to or Frank, but because the inspired word of God says do not do it. II John 9- 11.
5. I believe in God's hermeneuitic. The Sum of thy words are truth. Psalms 119:160.

Finally, I have signed an open porposition that states the following:
The Bible Teaches That Water Baptism Is Essential for the Salvation Of The Sinner."

If you would like to sign the negative and meet in LaGrange, Ga., I would be more than happy to discuss this in a televised public debate. Better yet, if you cannot come may be you can get someone in this area to sign it and debate the proposition.

This propostion has been proposed to the denominationalist in this area for months. I have had no one to accept the negative.

Let's debate the issue and see who is "PINNED."
By the way, DHK is looking for a baptist preacher to debate this issue. He has not found one to this date. Maybe you can help him out.

Ihave affrimed I am a Christian as per Isaiah 62:2 and Acts 11:26, no more and no less. I have affrimed I am a part of the body of Christ, the church of the saved of Acts 2. The church, assembly, congregation(s),house, body, Kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God, Kingdom of his dear Son and the churhc of God In Christ Acts 20:27, I Thes. 1:1 Mat. 16:18, I Cor. 12:13, Col. 1:12,13, Mat. 19: 23,25,I Tim. 3:15.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
By the way, DHK is looking for a baptist preacher to debate this issue. He has not found one to this date. Maybe you can help him out.

Frank, though I have said that your position on baptismal regeneration is false, I never once said that I was looking for a Baptist preacher to debate you. Where did you get this idea? There are more than enough people on this board that can ably refute you, if they are willing.
DHK

 

[Frank]

DHK:
The challenge was made for you to do so. I said you were looking for one in a Rhetorical sense. If I live here and cannot find one, I doubt your efforts would bring forth fruit. I did not mean to misrepresent you.

As for the last statement,it is unsubstantiated assertion at best.

By the way, did you find those two examples I requested. Let me refresh your memory about the subjects.
One, I asked for the name of the Patriarch that was NOT JUSTIFIED by a working active faith.

Two, I asked for the name of the person or persons, as you have IMPLIED by your statement that men are saved by grace only and over and over faith only, in the New Testament that were justified without a working active faith.

Have a good one day.

 

[Chemnitz]

Frank, I don't have to provide the evidence because you provided it for me. The distinctives you listed are the distinctives of the Restoration movement.

The very fact you haven't started the thread yourself indicates your fear that we are right and you are wrong.

Finally, I have signed an open porposition that states the following:
The Bible Teaches That Water Baptism Is Essential for the Salvation Of The Sinner."

If you would like to sign the negative and meet in LaGrange, Ga., I would be more than happy to discuss this in a televised public debate. Better yet, if you cannot come may be you can get someone in this area to sign it and debate the proposition.

Why would I want to do that? To clarify my response please check the teachings on baptism at LCMS.org under Belief and Practice.

[ October 28, 2002, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]