Quote from signature line

[Thinkingstuff]

During my Roman Catholic Inquiry phase, I met quite a few Catholics on Catholic message boards who used to be Baptist and who were actually moderators here on the Baptist Board, and who were converted.

Seems a few Catholic seminarians were members on the BB who studied under Scott Hahn (I believe that’s his last name?) and were influenced by the likes of David B. Currie (a former fundamental Baptist), Steve Ray and Johnny Atkins.

Former members of the BB were dropping like flies, converting to Roman Catholicism.

Thus as DT alluded to the “Great Purge” occurred.

A little BB History for you…

In XC
-

Oh....................

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Oh....................

Which I think also explains the knee-jerk "Roman Catholic!" accusation that seems to be repeatedly hurled at those of us like Agnus Dei, Matt Black, and myself who aren't RCs but who take seriously the issues of Church authority, Church history, Apostolic Tradition, the formation of the Canon, and the problems of 'solo scriptura'. (Which in turn is also why I only sporadically post here nowadays :smilewinkgrin: )

 

[Marcia]

How? Did a table of contents fall out of the sky or someone dig one up on gold plates a la Book of Mormon? Or did all the believers wake up one morning sometime in, say, the second century and intuitively know what was 'in' and what was 'out'?

They knew what was in and what was out from the beginning, Matt. The letters, for example, were sent to churches; these were part of the early formation of the NT because these were written by apostles. The church used these as scripture.

 

[Marcia]

Again, where in Scripture does it claim this?

If this isn't so, then we have to deny 2 Tim 3.16, 17:

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

How else would God pass on what he wants us to know? Secret handshakes?

Either scripture is sufficient or it isn't.

 

[Marcia]

But that's a circular argument; how do you know what should be in the Bible and what shouldn't?

The early Christians used the writings that were being passed to the churches; these were written by apostles or had apostolic authority. They were accepted as scripture. It was not a guessing game and it didn't begin 300 years after Christ.

Have you never read a detailed account of how we got the Bible?

I recommend Norman Geisler's A General Introduction to Bibliology, or From God to Us: How We Got The Bible.

The canon of scripture is markedly different from other "holy books" such as the Koran or The Book of Mormon which were allegedly given all at once by an unknown "divine being."

Also, there is real history in the Bible. In the Koran, not much that I know of. And in the BOM, history that has no basis in history or archeology.

 

[Marcia]

I'm not sure anyone is claiming "the church has authority over the word".

Agnus Dei says that the bible has authority only within the context of the church (i.e, the Eastern Orthodox Church). This is essentially the same thing.

Ultimately God reveals Himself through His Incarnate Word--Jesus Christ. Jesus proclaimed that the OT Scripture testifed to Him (John 5:39) and He taught the correct interpretation of these Scriptures about Himself to His followers (Luke 24:27,45). He then sent out His disciples with authority (see again Luke 10:16, Matt 18:18 and also John 20:22-23) to proclaim His gospel and establish His Church (built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets-Eph 2:20). They proclaimed the kerygma and some of them wrote Scripture--in either case the Holy Spirit was guiding them into all truth (John 16:13).

One ultimately, then, cannot separate the authority of Scriptures (God's word) from that of the Church (His body; the fullness of Him who fills all in all; the ground and pillar of truth) because:
(1) they originate from the same Divine authoritative source--Jesus Christ
(2) the OT Scriptures were authoritatively explained (interpreted) by Christ and then proclaimed by the apostles as being fulfilled by Christ
(3) the early churches, before any NT was written, was based on this apostolic proclamation/interpretation
(4) the Apostles (some at least), the founders of the Church, wrote the Scriptures to the churches
(5) the churches recognized the apostolic message contained therein and were thus able to rule out those spurious writings which, though claiming apostolic authorship, were in fact false.
(6)the Church defended the proper apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures against the distortion of the heretics
(7) the Church eventually arrived that the limits of the canon and recognized that all the material doctrine that was needed for salvation was contained therein.

So are you aruging for someone in the "church" to say what the interpretation of scripture should be? If not, then what do you mean by the authority of scripture cannot be separated from the authority of the church?

Althought the core of the NT canon was fairly well established by the end of the first century (the four gospels, Paul's writings, and perhaps Acts, 1 John and 1 Peter), it did indeed take about 300 more years before the Church reached a near-universal* agreement on the status of the following books: Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation to John. These are facts of history.

Yes, I know all that. I had a course in Bibliology in seminary. However, the reason that an official canon was named much later was due to false writings (gnostic gospels) that attacked the truth. I realize that a few of the books were disputed as you say, but these were the minority compared to the non-disputed books.

 

[Marcia]

Wow. I didn't know that. Retrospectively though it sounds funny. A baptist inquisition. :laugh:

I thought a B'hai could post on other denominations. Is it possible the people who run this board don't feel catholics are christian? So they are not a denomination? What about anglicans or Copts or Seventh Day Adventist?

There are Anglicans on the BB as well as SDA people.

I don't know if a Copt ever was on here or wanted to be.

The name of the forum is "Other Christian Denominations," which is why no Bahai can post here. As for the RC people, you'd have to ask the mods about that.

 

[Amy.G]

What's a Copt?

 

[Marcia]

Which I think also explains the knee-jerk "Roman Catholic!" accusation that seems to be repeatedly hurled at those of us like Agnus Dei, Matt Black, and myself who aren't RCs but who take seriously the issues of Church authority, Church history, Apostolic Tradition, the formation of the Canon, and the problems of 'solo scriptura'. (Which in turn is also why I only sporadically post here nowadays :smilewinkgrin: )

Yeah, but which church?? You are not all with the same one.

And I must say that I have problems with the statement that only you guys take church history and the formation of the canon seriously.

 

[Marcia]

What's a Copt?

Coptic Christians from the Coptic Christian church in Egypt (there might be others using this term but I am aware only of the one in Egypt). It is another of the Orthodox type churches, I think.

 

[Zenas]

Coptics are Catholics, in full communion with the Rome. Their liturgy is different but their beliefs are the same.

 

[Bible-boy]

An interesting interpretation that I have not heard before. It has some merit and is grammatically much more sound that those who claim that Christ is referring to himself as the rock.

The interpretation LeBuick gave is sound biblical doctrine and that espoused by all Baptists and like minded evangelicals.

So the question is: Which is the rock: Peter or Peter's confession of Christ's identity?

A literal historical grammatical reading and understanding of the text makes it clear that it is Peter's confession of Christ's identity.

How do you understand Christ's promise to give Peter keys to the kingdom of heaven if it is his confession he is building the church on and not his person?

Nothing in Matt. 16:18-19 suggest the possibility that Peter was given authority to forgive men of their sins. The words "bind" and "loose" are rabbinic terms meaning "to forbid" and "to permit." "Keys" were the symbol of knowledge or the fruit of the scribal or teaching office (cf. Luke 11:52 in which "key" refers to knowledge). Peter and those with him are given the "kets to the kingdom," i.e. the gospel of Christ. The use of those keys will build the church. Peter did precisely this at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), at Samaria (Acts 8:14), and for Cornelius the Gentile (Acts 10). The expressions "will be bound in heaven" and "will be loosed in heaven" are examples in Greek of the periphrastic future passive construction and should, therefore, be translated "will have been bound already" and "will have been loosed already" in heaven. In other words, Peter's pronouncment of "binding" or "loosing" is dependent upon what heaven has already willed, rather than earth's giving direction to heaven. Source: Footnote on Matt. 16:19 in the Holy Bible: Baptist Study Edition, W.A. Criswell Editor and Paige Patterson Managing Editor, New King James Version.

 

[Bible-boy]

I’ve had Catholic friends try and sign-up on the BB only to be denied membership. Many Catholics that do make it on the BB aren’t truthful on their application, b/c they know they’ll be denied. Eventually they’re sniffed out and burned at the cyber stake.

As far as myself being Orthodox, I signed up when I was a Methodist, and truthfully the BB administration really has no clue what an Orthodox is. My mom honestly thought my family and I was converting to Judaism.

If I’m carried to the cyber stake it won’t be because of Orthodoxy, but because of ignorance of what the Orthodox Church is.

In XC
-

Okay...

One more time for all you who apparently missed it the last 20 or 30 times it has been discussed:

We used to allow RCC members to join the Baptist Board and post in the section that is open to all Christians. However, we started to get a bunch of radical RCs who came here trying to teach that you were not saved unless you were a member of the RCC. They focused in on new believers who were posting here and began to brag about how they were converting Baptists etc. to Catholics. We asked them to stop proselytizing here on the BB. They refused to comply with the request. Therefore, they were banned. Then the same posters tried to re-join the BB using different names and church info on their BB membership applications. When we found them out we banned them again and the webmaster said that no more RCs were allowed to join the site. The actions of a few messed it up for the many. Now there are still a few RC folks that were members here before any of this took place and who were not involved in the proselytizing. They are still welcome to post in the section that is open to all Christians.

 

[Bible-boy]

During my Roman Catholic Inquiry phase, I met quite a few Catholics on Catholic message boards who used to be Baptist and who were actually moderators here on the Baptist Board, and who were converted.

Seems a few Catholic seminarians were members on the BB who studied under Scott Hahn (I believe that’s his last name?) and were influenced by the likes of David B. Currie (a former fundamental Baptist), Steve Ray and Johnny Atkins.

Former members of the BB were dropping like flies, converting to Roman Catholicism.

Thus as DT alluded to the “Great Purge” occurred.

A little BB History for you…

In XC
-

I don't know who you spoke with about this but the story you have told here is greatly over exagerated. It is false to say "Former members of the BB were dropping like flies, converting to Roman Catholicism." There were, to my knowledge (and I was here when it all happened), only a very limited few Baptists who claimed to have converted to Catholicism. Additionally, I beleive that most were professed new believers, babes in Christ, who were led astray by false teachings of some radical Roman Catholics. A little honest and correct BB history for you...

 

[Alive in Christ]

Matt Black,

This was posted...

"There is something very omniously missing from your interpretation of the Great Commission...



"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"

That is just what they did by writing it down...."

And you then responded...

"How?"

By causing every word of instruction that he wants us to have to be inscripturated.

"Did a table of contents..."

:laugh:

Matt, what in the world does the "table of contents" have to do with anything? Do you actually believe that God miraculously chistled the "table of contents" in stone, like the 10 commandments???

Do you actually think the Table of Contents is inspired???

"...fall out of the sky or someone dig one up on gold plates a la Book of Mormon?"

Of course not.

"Or did all the believers wake up one morning sometime in, say, the second century and intuitively know what was 'in' and what was 'out'?"

Why would you think it all took place in the 2nd century? The old testament scriptures had been in existence for thousands of years and the New Covenant scriptures were recognized as scripture almost immediately. Peter referred to Pauls writings as "scripture" during their lifetimes.

My goodness, its amazing the confusion that exists in the liberal Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox worlds.



:godisgood:

 

[Darron Steele]

Coptic Christians from the Coptic Christian church in Egypt (there might be others using this term but I am aware only of the one in Egypt). It is another of the Orthodox type churches, I think.

The Coptic church refused to subscribe to the Chalcedonian Creed.

They were rejected by the proto-Orthodox/proto-Catholic church. They are Monophysites, meaning that they believe Jesus Christ had solely a divine nature during His earthly life.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Matt,

This was posted....

"In the writing of Scripture Jesus said HE (the Holy Spirit) would guide them into ALL truth. That was His promise, and that is what it refers to.

Yes, he told them they were to write a book--a book written by God, the Holy Spirit.

And you said...

"How do you get that from the passage you've quoted? It says nothing about writing anything down. Again, with respect, you also are inferring what isn't there into the text."

You find it in multitudes upon multitudes of scriptures, Matt. One of the clearest is this....

"All scripture is given by inspiritation of God, and is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

Hope that helps to shed some light on it for you.


:godisgood:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Agnus,

You said...

"Protestantism, although certainly they believe in the incarnation of God, also holds a similar view of the bible as that of Islam and I’m thinking of these KJV only folks, whom I used to be one. The Bible is set-up over the Church having authority over the Church, much the same as Islam."

Bless your heart. You never cease to amaze me sometimes, Agnus.

And I post that with great sadness.


:godisgood:

 

[Zenas]

CORRECTION
In Post #91 above, I said Coptics are Catholics, in full communion with Rome. That was mostly wrong. Darron Steele had the better answer. In fact, the majority of Coptics are Orthodox with their own pope and only a small minority of them are Catholics with loyalty to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[DHK]

How do you get that from the passage you've quoted? It says nothing about writing anything down. Again, with respect, you also are inferring what isn't there into the text.

I have inferred nothing. I have exegeted the text as the Holy Spiirt has given me understanding. Has the Holy Spirit led you into ALL truth Matt? Are you perfect in your knowledge of the Scriptures?

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

This was a promise given to the Apostles when Christ was speaking to the Apostles. That is the context. Or do you beleive in context? He is telling them what the ministry of the Holy Spirit, especially in regards to them, will be. He, the Holy Spirit, will guide them (the apostles) into ALL truth.

I don't know of anyone else that can apply to--no, not anyone.
It applies to the writers of Scripture. He led them into all truth as they wrote down the words of Scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--This not only includes OT prophets but is perfectly applicable to the NT authors as well. They wrote down the Scriptures as they were moved by the Hloly Spirit--as the Holy Spirit led them into all truth.

Thus, Paul could say with all assurance:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

There is no question that God commanded the apostles (and their associates) to write a book--God's book!