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!
Hi neal4christ,Originally posted by neal4christ:
Are any Catholics going to respond to my previous post? Or was what CC said just his own far fetched ideas? I have questions about claims made and yet no one answers. Hmmmm....
Originally posted by GraceSaves:
We disagree on the doctrine of ecclesiology, and for me to explain that doctrine thoroughly to you in a way that you will comprehend will take up another thread completely. Notice that I never used the word "church" deliberately to avoid confusion. There are many definitions of "church" and that is where the confusion arises.Let's start off with the basics.
Do you or do you not believe that "the church," as spoken of in Scriptures here, refers to each and every individual Christian, and that all of these Christians together make up the Body of Christ, which IS the church?
What I said is that all believers make up the bride of Christ. I don't think anyone here (Baptist) will disagree with me. I have said in the past that the definition of a church is "assembly," which is why you are probably confused. When all believers are resurrected and gathered into Heaven they will be assembled as one body in Heaven. In the future they will be as a "church" or "assembly" in Heaven. That is the only place where all believers can be assembled together. It does not take away from the doctrine that God is calling out a bride for Himself, which will consist of all believers since the cross. Christ has only one bride. He is not a polygamist. Mary is not His bride. The believers that He is calling out for Himself in this day and age will compose His bride.
1Pet.2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
DHK
Based on your own words, Christ's bride is made up of BELIEVERS, which is plural, and thus = polygamy.Originally posted by DHK:
The believers that He is calling out for Himself in this day and age will compose His bride.
Based on your own words, Christ's bride is made up of BELIEVERS, which is plural, and thus = polygamy.Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
The believers that He is calling out for Himself in this day and age will compose His bride.
Have you? I assume you have since you have made a wise choice, right?That means that you have examined all the writings of all the denominations out there (I assume that in compete honesty and fairness you HAVE done this so you have made a wise choice, right?)
No, I do not think that Baptists have all the correct interpretations. But they are closet to what I see Scripture saying. And be careful using Baptists so broadly, for even that 'label' can carry a very broad meaning. There are many Baptists I would not agree with.have decided that the things preached by Baptists, their interpretation of the Scriptures, is correct?
See, here is a major difference between us. Maybe it is since Catholics have to have a person to point to and follow, I don't know. I am choosing not to believe men, I choose to believe God's Word. No, I don't have it all figured, and I don't claim to. However, I am not following men and believing what they say. If what they say is in agreement with God's Word, then I believe it. If not, then I don't believe them. See, my standard is what the Word of God says, not the men. And yes, others will try to justify their stance by the same appeal. I am sure you would, because you see the Catholic church as what the Word of God says. However, I must make a decision for myself. I am the one who will stand before God Almighty one day and give an account to Him for my actions and my decisions. No Baptist leader or preacher is going to be speaking on my behalf, it will be me.So you choose to believe certain men whom you have heard preaching, yet you in the same breath warn me against listening to the preachers of the first, second, third, and fourth century who listened to and learned from the apostles, and who wrote before there was even a finished canon of Scripture. That is kinda hypocritical to make such a statement to me when you choose the men to whom you will listen and believe.
Boy, you sure do assume a lot. Have I once said that you need to read any of these men to understand the Bible, as you have appealed to the early church fathers? I can't and won't give you proof of 'this' because I have never claimed 'this'! And I am truly sorry that you feel that way about God's Word. No, I don't think the Bible can be used to prove just anything at all. I do think many appeal to the Bible to support their claims, but if people would carefully study God's Word and let it speak for itself we would have a lot less contention. Just because someone uses a verse out of context or appeals to Scripture does not mean that person has proved the Bible supports them. Acts 17:11.What makes C.H. Spurgeon more reliable than Polycarp, who learned the gospel directly from John the Beloved Apostle, who, of course, learned it directly from Christ. Tell me how Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, Jack Hyles, or Billy Graham is a better, more honest, and more correct exegete of the Scriptures than St. Irenaeus, St. Ignatius, or St. Augustine, all of whom lived much closer to the Lord in chronological time than these men did. What is your proof of this, other than your tired and worn out appeal to the Bible, which carries no weight with me at all since the Bible can be used to prove anything at all.
Never claimed that. I simply stated I didn't know I had to read all the church fathers to understand Scripture.Why bother, if you can figure it out all by yourself?
Again, never claimed that. Please refrain from assuming so much. See Acts 17:11 for you answer of what I accept.Could it be that these men are simply in a long line of those who were taught error, have accepted it as truth, and are passing it on to you? Or is learning error, passing it on to others, and having them learn it, only reserved to those in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Faith? Are your teachers INFALLIBLE?
Again, never claimed it. That is my whole point, there is no man (other than Christ, before you assume again) that is infallible. You are the one assuming that the pope is, not me assuming a Baptist preacher is. Again, the label is very broad that you are using, because Baptist means many different things. Please show me the statements where I infer Baptist teaching has infallibility. I do not believe that, because we as humans are fallible. Also, there is only one Holy Father, God the Father.Funny how you refuse to believe that the Spirit of God could protect the Holy Father from erroneous teaching by a special grace , but in the same breath, you make statements which infer that Baptist teaching DOES have that taint of infallibility to it - that it simply could not be wrong.
Again, the problem with labels. That is why I don't like them.The more I studied the writings of history, the more I realized that there simply were no Calvinists or Fundamentalists in the second or third century.
I hope that they will be there when you have to give an account for yourself. I prefer to study Scripture myself. Yes, I will see what other fallible men have to say, but bottom line is I will give account for myself so I believe it is important to have as much "Bible knowledge and learning" as possible. This is why there are so many differences now, people have left that behind and instead trust on other men's interpretations. If your statement is true, why did the Holy Spirit stop leading that way?There is a fourth option, one that will not receive much acceptance in this day when all men have considerably inflated egos regarding their "Bible knowledge and learning". It is that not only were they honorable men, but they were led by the Holy Spirit's guidance in a way which few believers have been led since.
I guess so.This comes down to a matter of personal interpretation then, doesn't it
Again, it goes back to what God's Word says. It doesn't matter what I say, you say, any other Baptist says, or what the pope says. What does God's Word say? And are you telling me that all Catholics agree on everything? I saw a couple on TV the other night that don't, so I guess you have a problem too.Again, why are they wrong and you are correct? In the light of Christ's prayer in John 17 that we all be one, do you see that there is a problem here?
The only offices I see in Scripture are pastors and deacons. What is the reference to the office of pope and hierarchy? I sure you will say Matthew 16, but I don't think any way you twist the Greek you can get pope out of it.There is one leader and only one on earth - the Holy Father in Rome.
If there was something to ponder I would. Give me explicit Scriptural basis for your ideas and I will ponder. And by the way, I don't drink or smoke. Thanks though.Then I hope you will stop with the knee jerk reactions every time I explain something and get yourself a nice cigar, a glass of wine, and THINK and PONDER these things.
The BIBLE itself.WHO told you which statements from what people actually "agree" with the Bible?
So when Jesus is holding a loaf of bread in His hand in Luke 22 and says "This is my body" that bread physically became His flesh? And the same with the cup? Or could He be using them as symbols?Fine. Jesus said that you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. That is straight forward language by any standard. But now, instead of believing this, you are going to launch into some kind of esoteric argument as to why what is clearly written really doesn't mean that at all, aren't you? But the Word of God says "eat my Flesh, drink my Blood." Why won't you believe it as written?
So I Peter 4:5, Rev. 20:15, II Cor. 13:5, Heb. 9:27, Heb 13:17, and especially Rom. 14:10-12 are not referring to individuals?Not Biblical. Show me where in the Bible, Old or New Testament, that God puts a higher premium on independant thinking than He does on OBEDIENCE?
No, I am not following men. First of all, we were talking in the present, not the past. Yes, I have had influences. However, you are willing elevating the early church fathers' writings and the pope on the same level of Scripture. I am not doing that with Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, James White, or any of a number of men. The key is to test everything against Scripture.I cannot believe that you have come to the point you are at just by reading the Bible without hearing other men speak, either from the pulpit of the assembly you went to as a child, or the pages of a devotional book. My appeal is that you grew up, listened, and decided that these men were correct and all others were wrong. My statement is based upon your telling me that I am listening to men.
No, because I don't know everything. Never will. Only God does. I am open to something if it does not explicitly go against Scripture.Indeed, because if everyone would "carefully study" the Bible, they would come up with your conclusions, wouldn't they?
Absolutely true. That is why I try to guard against it.This applies to you too, my friend.
I never claimed infallibility for Baptist teachers, so there was nothing to dodge.That is a considerable dodge, you realize.
Couple of things. Technically the gates of hell are the gates of Hades. But that is another topic and no, I don't have an authoritative answer on that. Second, there is infallible leadership - Christ! (Eph. 5:23)He promised that the Church would not be prevailed against by the gates of hell. Now, in order for this to be so, you MUST have an infallible leadership, especially since you are dealing with human beings.
So each believer does not have the Holy Spirit, only the pope? (Sorry, I will not refer to him as father, for there is only one Holy Father).The only way to have assurance that we are not being misled by one of these heretical sects is to have an authority in the Church which has been promised the protection of the Holy Spirit from error. Someone like the Holy Father.
I am sure you would if you were looking for it. As you said, heresies were creeping into the church even in the book of Acts, so many probably could find "early" support for their views. And no, I am not trying to start something with you, I am merely using your own statement to say that many teachings were already found very early.All I find is quite Catholic teaching, starting quite early.