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!
Bound: Do you not know that it is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who created us and who will judge us?
"I would like to discuss your Trinitarian Doctrine... You appear to view the Father as the only God and Jesus Christ as an elevated man who acts as our intercessor.
Do you not know that it is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who created us and who will judge us?"
There is only one God according to the Bible:bound said:Grace and Peace,
I would like to discuss your Trinitarian Doctrine... You appear to view the Father as the only God and Jesus Christ as an elevated man who acts as our intercessor.
Do you not know that it is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who created us and who will judge us?
"Not needed. In Gods scriptures themselves we see evidence that the epistles were being circulated, and were considered the scriptures of God. We also have evidence that spurious documents were circulating that should be rejected."
"Please specifically cite your sources"
""And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching..." (ACTS 2:42). These writings did not become Scripture because years later some scholars got together and decided to bestow that honor upon them. They were Scripture before the ink was dry. The writings were accepted as Scripture immediately by the church. There was no gradual evolving to it at all, as some liberal theologians suggest today. The only things gradual about it was the spread of the copies of the initial documents to the ancient world and later the compiling of the writings into one book. The apostle Paul quotes Luke's gospel in 65 A.D. and refers to it as Scripture (compare I TIMOTHY 5:18 with LUKE 10:7) and Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture (II PETER 3:16).
We know that the inspired writings of the first century were widely circulated among Christians of that time (see Col. 4:16 and 1 Thess. 5:27). It is clear that those early Christians held the sacred writings in highest esteem and regarded them as the basis of their religious authority.
Within the first 50 years after the apostles there were several writers who made frequent appeal to the authority of what we now know as the New Testament books. Clement of Rome, in his Epistles to the Corinthians (A.D. 95) makes reference to Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, Romans, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter and Ephesians. The epistles of Ignatius (A.D. 115) and Polycarp (A.D. 130) refer to various New Testament books. Justin Martyr (A.D.100-165) made extensive appeal to the four Gospels and mentions Acts and Revelation.
Early heresies initiated by the Gnostics and others required that faithful brethren make a defense of the inspired writings. This they did, and we have the record of their defense preserved unto this day. In the process of defending the New Testament works, they actually insured that we would have historical verification of the writings that were known to be produced by inspired men. Someone has said, "in the struggle with Gnosticism the canon was made."
Paul wrote, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you..." (1 Cor. 11:23). The writers of the New Testament wrote by inspiration. The words they penned were given by the direct revelation of God (2 Timothy 3:16,17). He told them what to say and how to say it. When the inspired men of the first century wrote, the product of their work was immediately acknowledged and accepted by those in the church. They "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42) and they received those teachings "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13). These writings were "Scripture" before the ink had dried. (The word "Scripture" is used about 50 times in the New Testament and always refers to the written record of the will of God. Thus, the word "Scripture" can be accurately applied to the things found in both the Old and New Testaments.) Some argue that there was a gradual evolving of thought concerning the Scripture - that only after a long period did these writings come to be regarded as an authoritative source. That simply is not true. Certainly there was a gradual process of spreading and distributing these writings around the world (Colossians 4:16). Ultimately there was a compiling of these works into one book. (There is some evidence that compilations of the various books that make up our New Testament began as early as 115 A.D. - perhaps only a few years after the death of the last apostle). But the actual writings were regarded as Scripture immediately. Paul (writing in about 65 A.D.) quotes Luke's gospel and refers to it as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7). Peter (in 66 A.D.) mentions Paul's writings and calls them Scripture (2 Peter 3:16)."
Likely so by the immediate recipients (ie specific local churches to which the epistles were written), but not as readily by those outside the original target churches within which some of these letters initially circulated (more on this below).When the inspired men of the first century wrote, the product of their work was immediately acknowledged and accepted by those in the church.
Ah...but this described the Church in the early 30's AD--a good twenty years before the first NT epistle was written. This apostolic doctrine is thus referring to their oral teaching.They "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42)
Paul specifically mentions in that verse that it was the word of God the Thessalonians heard from him--ie their oral teaching. And as 2 Thess 2:15 indicated he considered his epistles and oral teaching of equal weight.and they received those teachings "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
That's true as far as it goes in terms of inspiration, but the final consensus on the exact limits of the NT canon wasn't settled until a few centuries later.These writings were "Scripture" before the ink had dried.
Again that depends on which books we're talking about. The Gospels and Paul's epistles were widely accepted very early as was 1 John and 1 Peter. However, books like Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, while each enjoying varying degrees of local canonicity, were disputed by many well into the 4th century (and by some even in the 5th and beyond).Some argue that there was a gradual evolving of thought concerning the Scripture - that only after a long period did these writings come to be regarded as an authoritative source. That simply is not true.
This is of course true.Certainly there was a gradual process of spreading and distributing these writings around the world (Colossians 4:16). Ultimately there was a compiling of these works into one book.
Right--specifically the four Gospels began to be regarded as a unit* by at least the early second century and Paul's epistles (except perhaps the Pastorals) were circulating as a unit together as early as the end of the 1st century.(There is some evidence that compilations of the various books that make up our New Testament began as early as 115 A.D. - perhaps only a few years after the death of the last apostle).
It certainly makes sense for Paul to be referring to Luke's Gospel as they were close associates, and it was historically largely based on Paul's apostolic authority that Luke's (who wasn't an apostle) Gospel was regarded as authoritative on par with OT Scripture at such an early date. (Conversely, Luke probably drew on the oral tradition described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 in writing his account of the Last Supper). I've read where some scholars believe Luke's Gospel was written in the early AD 60s while Paul was detained in Caesarea.But the actual writings were regarded as Scripture immediately. Paul (writing in about 65 A.D.) quotes Luke's gospel and refers to it as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7).
Ironically, 2 Peter was one of those 7 books that was disputed for a long time. This was probably because it initially had a smaller area of circulation, than many of Paul's epistles which circulated more widely earlier. Then, by the time 2 Peter started circulating into wider areas, other spurious works such as the Gnostic "gospels" and "acts" were also beginning to circulate, falsely attributing themselves to the apostles. This (along with some purported stylistic differences with 1 Peter) was likely why there was reluctance to accepting works such as 2 Peter in many areas for a couple of centuries.Peter (in 66 A.D.) mentions Paul's writings and calls them Scripture (2 Peter 3:16)."
skypair said:Guys,
It further occurs to me that Mariolatry either 1) attempts to make Jesus all man and no God OR 2) attempts to make Mary a god equal or superior to Jesus.
Is anyone else getting that?
skypair
We don't honor Mary anymore than Hannah of the OT, or Mary the mother of John Mark, where the church met in Acts 12, or any other believing woman. God had a purpose for them all. Mary was a vessel fit for the Master's use. God used her in a very unique way. He also used Deborah in a very unique way. Mary was chosen of God to bear the fleshly body of Jesus Christ and that is all. Both Mary and Joseph were charged with the responsibility of providing a home for him when he was young.Doubting Thomas said:I don't know about "Mariolatry", but a proper honoring of Mary is based on orthodox Christology--that one eternally Divine Person became man in time in the womb of the virgin without ceasing to be God.
Sorry for any misunderstanding here. This statement was not intended to be directed to any one individual in particular. I often use the word "you" in a general statement like that as in "one." The statement sounds better then saying: "The he will be one's judge." It was not directed to any one individual.DHK said:Jesus Christ will indeed judge you someday. Today he offers to be your Saviour; someday that opportunity will be taken away. Then he will be your judge.
DHK said:We don't honor Mary anymore than Hannah of the OT, or Mary the mother of John Mark, where the church met in Acts 12, or any other believing woman. God had a purpose for them all. Mary was a vessel fit for the Master's use. God used her in a very unique way. He also used Deborah in a very unique way. Mary was chosen of God to bear the fleshly body of Jesus Christ and that is all.
So what is it if my wife engages in intercessory prayer for me? And if she can do this, why can't the saints in Heaven who are much closer to God, do the same? (Unless they are all still dead, which is something you seem to believe despite the plethora of Scripture to the contrary.)Our advocate, Jesus Christ, is our one and only intercessor. He is our High Priest. He is the only one that can adequately intercede for us.
Not so fast. You must first explain away the plain meaning of these passages. "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. Matthew 9:8 (note the plural men ). "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." John 20:23.He is the only one that can forgive sins. No man on earth has that power. No priest can forgive sins. No man can come between man and God; only Christ can do that work.
DHK, I think the problem here is that you can't look the saints in the eye and ask for their prayers, like you can with your wife or your friends. In order to ask the saints for intersession, you have to pray to them, i.e., raise your eyes skyward, or bow your head, or at least speak audibly or silently into empty space. This looks like the way we talk to God, and it is, but there is no other way to talk to saints in Heaven. This does not make it worship. Worship is when you acknowledge your Creator and your Savior as such, when you offer thanksgiving for your blessings, and when you ask that "Thy will be done." And we do this in more ways than prayer. When we sing the Doxology or the Gloria Patri we worship. When we observe the Lord's supper we worship. Prayer is only one modality of worship and not all prayer is worship. However, when you engage in worship to anyone but the triune God, DHK, I'm with you--it is idolatry. See Revelation 22:8-9. "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, 'Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.'"One can pray for another, but we pray to God alone. There is no one that can intercede for us. In other words if I pray for you, in reality I am not interceding for you but it is Christ doing that work, as I pray for you. My prayers are always God-directed, never man-directed. I would never pray to a person, but only for a person.
I don't know anything about this governor-general but if she is a Christian I don't see it as necessarily wrong. I am acquainted with people who pray to their ancestors. I don't pray to my grandparents because I'm not onnvinced they are in Heaven. Also, this is not something I'm in the habit of doing. However, I can tell you for sure if my dear wife precedes me in death, I will be praying to her regularly. She is such a powerful prayer warrior now I can only imagine what she can do once she is released from the constraints of mortality.That is true. So why commit the sin of idolatry and necromancy at the same time, and pray to dead people thinking that they can help you? Why not pray to God alone? He is the only one that can answer your prayers. Christ alone can intercede on your behalf. To pray to Mary and the saints is an exercise in futility and it is sin. So then? Are you dealing with the spirit world? the occult? the paranormal? One of the governor-generals in Canada prays to her dead grand-parents every night. Do you? Why not?
Skypair, you're just narrow minded. Think expansively. Then instead of "either/or" you can make it "both/and."skypair said:Guys,
It further occurs to me that Mariolatry either 1) attempts to make Jesus all man and no God OR 2) attempts to make Mary a god equal or superior to Jesus.
Is anyone else getting that?
skypair
So what if she does? Who is she praying to? And if you asked her to pray for you to did you get down on your knees and pray to her, or did you simply ask her?Zenas said:So what is it if my wife engages in intercessory prayer for me?
Is your wife's prayer God-directed?And if she can do this, why can't the saints in Heaven who are much closer to God, do the same?
What Scripture? Would you like to quote some?(Unless they are all still dead, which is something you seem to believe despite the plethora of Scripture to the contrary.)
He was speaking of the result of the gospel. Speaking to his disciples, as they went forth with the gospel those who would accept the gospel message would have their sins forgiven, and those who would reject the gospel message would not have their sins forgiven.You must first explain away the plain meaning of these passages. "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. Matthew 9:8 (note the plural men ). "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." John 20:23.
If you can look the "saints" in the eye, you are in deep trouble! :laugh: Have you been dabbling in witchcraft, the occult, the paranormal or what, that you can actually see their eyes??DHK, I think the problem here is that you can't look the saints in the eye and ask for their prayers,
This is wrong! All Prayer is Worship! And in this wrong error you find justification for the sin of praying to Mary and other dead people. God calls it idolatry. They cannot hear you. What makes you think that they can? Suppose that there are one billion Catholics on the earth, scattered over every continent in the world and living in almost ever nation. And all of them pray to Mary at the same time. Do you think that Mary is omnipresent enough, omniscient enough, to hear and know what every Catholic's prayer is that is being prayed throughout the entire world? Is she God? Those attributes belong only to God, and yet are being attributed to Mary. Yes, Mary is a god to the RCC. She is treated as a god. She is even treated as a fourth person of the trinity and there is some discussion among some Catholic circles to include her in the "trinity." What heresy! Prayer to Mary and anyone else is idolatry. God alone is worthy of prayer. Prayer is worship.like you can with your wife or your friends. In order to ask the saints for intersession, you have to pray to them, i.e., raise your eyes skyward, or bow your head, or at least speak audibly or silently into empty space. This looks like the way we talk to God, and it is, but there is no other way to talk to saints in Heaven. This does not make it worship. Worship is when you acknowledge your Creator and your Savior as such, when you offer thanksgiving for your blessings, and when you ask that "Thy will be done." And we do this in more ways than prayer. When we sing the Doxology or the Gloria Patri we worship. When we observe the Lord's supper we worship. Prayer is only one modality of worship and not all prayer is worship.
This shows your naivete. She is a spiritist who prays to dead spirits. She is an occultist. She prays to the dead. This is totally against the Bible, and such people in the OT were stoned to death.However, when you engage in worship to anyone but the triune God, DHK, I'm with you--it is idolatry. See Revelation 22:8-9. "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, 'Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.'"
I don't know anything about this governor-general but if she is a Christian I don't see it as necessarily wrong.
And such a practice is sin. There will be no good to pray to anyone whether in heaven or in hell. What good will it do. There is no evidence that they can even hear or see you. And you will be committing idolatry. Only God is worthy of worship (which all prayer is). God alone must be prayed to. He is the only one who can answer prayer; the only one who is worthy of praise and thanksgiving; the only one to whom we confess our sins; the only one whom deserves our adoration; the only one that can answer our prayers. There is no one else--but God alone. and Christ is God.I am acquainted with people who pray to their ancestors. I don't pray to my grandparents because I'm not onnvinced they are in Heaven. Also, this is not something I'm in the habit of doing. However, I can tell you for sure if my dear wife precedes me in death, I will be praying to her regularly. She is such a powerful prayer warrior now I can only imagine what she can do once she is released from the constraints of mortality.
"DHK, I think the problem here is that you can't look the saints in the eye and ask for their prayers,"
"If you can look the "saints" in the eye, you are in deep trouble! "Have you been dabbling in witchcraft, the occult, the paranormal or what, that you can actually see their eyes??"
DHK said:Sorry for any misunderstanding here. This statement was not intended to be directed to any one individual in particular. I often use the word "you" in a general statement like that as in "one." The statement sounds better then saying: "The he will be one's judge." It was not directed to any one individual.
D28guy said:Doubting Thomas,
Well, how do you view Mary, other then a sinner (as she confessed) saved by Gods mercy?
The Queen of Heaven? Queen of the Universe? Mediatrix of all grace?
Only the goddess worshippers believe those things.
Mike
Words have more than one meaning. You cannot pick and choose meaning and then interchange them at will according to the context you wish. That does not do justice to God's Word.Matt Black said:Thanks for that.
Re prayer, as I think I indicated (to Bob?) earlier in the thread, I think we are in danger of conflating two discrete meanings of the term. The first is the 'old-fashioned' meaning of the word, which simply means 'to ask', and shouldn't involve 'bowing and scraping'. The second refers to petitions and intercessions which may only be rendered to God and should involve an attitude of 'bowing and scraping'. So I could (if I wished to be quaint and Shakespearean/KJV about it) say to my Christian wife "I pray(1) thee to pray(2) for me to the Lord our God", and that, I think we would all agree, would be perfectly legitimate. The real issue is whether that remains legitimate if my wife predeceases me....