-
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!
Sola Scripture?
- Thread starter nate
- Start date
You are correct. However that was the infant Church. It was just starting to establish it's doctrine. Church doctrine is built on the Word of God.
No but again during the first generations of Christians they were hammering out doctrine according to Scripture. But once they hammered it out it's good enough for me. I dare not try and interpet Scripture according to how I think it should read rather than those Saints who did that for me in the Early Church.
In Christ,
Nate
BTW, is it just me or is there a large amount of anti-Catholic bias here. I start a thread on how we should interpet Scripture and authority and what guidline we should use and everyone assumes that I'm a RC. Or that I think the Pope infallible an the head of the church. Do you guys see the RC behind everything? I must complement several on this board for never missing an oppurtunity to commit a drive by attack on the RC. [sarcasm]God would be proud[/sarcasm]
Sorry, if you find some Anti-catholicism here. Remember the Inquisition? They have not changed their core beliefs on that issue (They continue to sanction similar activity in latin countries today). They are trying to send my grandparents and friends down a false path. They do a funeral only if you pay them, and then don't give the gospel to the poor family left behind. They claim authority over the Bible. Their priesthood ranks are rich with pedaphiles which they do not condemn in any way (at least publicly). They claim exclusive priesthood (as if I can't speak to my own Father). The priests serve beer to the communities during fesivals.
Oops! And thanks for the complement.
Oops! And thanks for the complement.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
True--which is why I subscribe to neither papal infallibility nor purgatory (nor indulgences nor superogatory merit etc.).
True--which is why I subscribe to neither papal infallibility nor purgatory (nor indulgences nor superogatory merit etc.). </font>[/QUOTE]That's a surprise. You used to defend these doctrines if I remember correctly (as every good Catholic should--if they are faithful to their Church). The reason to discard them is found in sola scriptura.
DHK
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
True--which is why I subscribe to neither papal infallibility nor purgatory (nor indulgences nor superogatory merit etc.). </font>[/QUOTE]That's a surprise. You used to defend these doctrines if I remember correctly (as every good Catholic should--if they are faithful to their Church). The reason to discard them is found in sola scriptura.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You remember incorrectly as I've never defended them since I am not (nor have ever been) a Roman Catholic.
True--which is why I subscribe to neither papal infallibility nor purgatory (nor indulgences nor superogatory merit etc.). </font>[/QUOTE]DT: Not to put you on the spot, but I know you don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura, as neither do I any more, but how do you determine the correct interpretation. Feel free to PM me if you like…
For instance regarding the RCC, when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, he is speaking with Divine assistance regarding faith and morals, but that’s only because in my understanding is that all the Bishops or Cardinals have searched the scriptures to ensure that what the Pope speaks of is soundly grounded in scripture and backed by Tradition.
Kind of...technically the 'Bishops in Communion with the Bishop of Rome' constitute the Catholic Magisterium and only when there is lack of clarity among the Bishops does the Pope have to step in.
But then again I regard the Catholic Bishops as part of the Episcopate only...
So I don't think Nate, DT or I are talking about Roman Catholic doctrine and practices here, including the Inquisition. So why do people keep on salivating about the Pope and the Inquisition and other Catholic red herrings every time we question sola Scriptura?
[ETA - otherwise every thread degenerates into a Monty Python sketch: "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition"...which is what I'm sorely tempted to say next time someone brings up that strawman on this thread...]
But then again I regard the Catholic Bishops as part of the Episcopate only...
So I don't think Nate, DT or I are talking about Roman Catholic doctrine and practices here, including the Inquisition. So why do people keep on salivating about the Pope and the Inquisition and other Catholic red herrings every time we question sola Scriptura?
[ETA - otherwise every thread degenerates into a Monty Python sketch: "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition"...which is what I'm sorely tempted to say next time someone brings up that strawman on this thread...]
Jarthur001
Active Member
Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
And Calvinist do
No really...this is why i hold to a creed to help in this matter. Creeds have always come for history, where great men check other great men that wrote of other great men.
But in the end...lets face it. The God will have to give you peace in your heart. This only comes for a one on one relationship with God. I know this is how it is with me.
I love my Church and I do not disagree with anything major. But if the pastor leaves the Word, I must do somthing. To just go along for it is my church is not right. I follow no church...i follow no man. The bible only. For the creed also comes from the Bible.
Yet with a creed which has systematic theology threaded in its core, it is easier to quickly point out heresies. A creed is not wrote in one night, by one person. Months...even years go into it...with input from great men of God.
This i feel is needed in todays church more then ever before.
And if it be all Calvinist that write this creed...so be it.
In Christ...James
Jarthur001
Active Member
A very large amount of anti-Catholic on here. I know that the RCC is off base, but i have never seen so much blaimed on the RCC before. Its like...if you want to lable something bad on this board..link it to the RCC and that should do it. Again, I'm not standing for the RCC, I just see that most problems are deeper then that which is blaimed on the RCC. One is SIN....and then you have mankind. If we deal with those too things 1st, we can take on the RCC.
I agree completely with you the Creeds are marvelous and are traditions on how to interpet Scripture. The only thing about creeds however there are only 3 that most Protestant's use and those three mostly deal with Christ's attributes and affirm Orthodox Christology. What about other doctrines?
In Christ,
Nate
I agree completely. I don't want to defend their bad doctrine but neither do I want to see people just beat them down neither. Christ died for lost RC souls just as He suffered and died for lost Baptist and all lost Humanity.
In Christ,
Nate
(Christ paid much to high a price for us to pick and choose who should come.-CC)
No I mentioned Ellen White in my last post because you or Bobryan mentioned that I look to the Pope for tradition and teaching(which is false). I was simply stating SDA's who make that charge to RCC's or anyone are being hypocrites because they themselves look to a woman who formulated their doctrine.
In Christ,
Nate
If Laodicea means "the people rule", then what is the alternative? Nicolaitanism (Nikos- priest + "laity"; i.e the hierarchical system)?
Still, it is a great double standard here, as "all the hundreds of denominations with conflicting interpretations" are constantly cited, but then we are expected to believe this one particular body out of all of them got it right. They are men too. If you claim "but they were the one true Church that goes all the way back', then others say the same thing. And anything that can't be founbd in scripture is just attributed to "oral tradition". But this is no better than the Baptists/landmarkers, or JW's, sabbathkeepers, Church of Christ, etc. methods of tracing their group back. The reason why there are all of these different groups is because they all insist on clinging to theur traditions and reading them into the scriptures somehow or supplementing it if that doesn't work, rather than because it is only one of them that had the truth )which they all claim, so you are still apart of "all those groups"). We're all men, all have gone astray, and we need to stop expending so much energy trying to best other men with these argumentational devices (Eph.4:14), and then we may be humble enough to see what the truth is.
I had recently been thinking about the different "traditions" by which sola scriptura is supplemented (violated through reading it in light of these things) or outright set aside, and yet projected back to the Bible.
</font>
- Rabbinical Judaism: "mosaic" oral tradition through Rabbis (1 century BC-11th century?)</font>
- Catholists: "apostolic" oral tradition through "Fathers" (2nd Century to 1054 when East no longer accepted Rome's continuing additions)</font>
- Reformed: Creeds and Reformed confessions (16th/17th century</font>
- Fundamentalists: "the faith of our fathers" (18th century to 1950's America)</font>
- Sects and Cults: leaders' "restoration" of the truth by their own reinterpretions.</font>
- More radical cults and movements: esoteric revelation or additional writings.</font>