Typical Southern Baptist

DHK...Neal....Amen!

Sherrie

 

Hi neal4christ,

I appreciate your zeal for the truth! You and I are very similar in that capacity!

Let us please note that Catholics do not believe that the Word of God is suppressed into the pages of the Bible. We do not rely on the Bible alone, but on the Sacred Traditions (oral Word of God) handed down by the Apostles.

Further, I think that CC did a pretty good job, though some of what he said is not Church doctrine, but speculation. We don't know if Joseph was previously married, or if Mary was a consecrated temple virgin, though these things are attested historically in other writings. That doesn't make them true or untrue, but at this point in time, it's not necessary to have those answers. Mary was ever-virgin. Mary was immaculately conceived. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. Mary is the Queen of Heaven and earth. Mary intercedes on our behalf. Mary is the New Eve. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

If you wish for a heavy debate, please feel free to start a new thread, though. This was not really the intent of this thread; in this thread, I mainly wanted to show the nonsense of the "typical anything" argument.

Please also note, though, that none of the Marian doctrines can be seperately analyzed accurately. They all work together, in conjunction with dogmas like the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and his life, death, and resurrection. The whole of Catholic doctrine works together like a well-oiled machine, and it is when one pulls out a single screw and tries to analyze what it means that things don't work. Taking out that one screw distances itself with the rest of the machine, and it won't make sense. Further, without the screw, the machine breaks down.

Mariology needs to be looked at from all its angles to properly understand it. It needs to be looked at Scripturally and historically. A year and a half of study has led me to see the wonderful truths of Mary and how she points me to her Son, Jesus Christ. For as Christ loved his Mother, so we should also.

If you would like to have a private discussion of this, please send me an AIM message at "DojoGrant." I'll be more than happy to spend many an hour in study with you.

God bless you!

Grant

 

By the way,

I just realized that I seem to be posting on two names here, but my intent is not to deceive. I used to post as DojoGrant, and then switched to GraceSaves. Apparently on my old computer (which I'm using while at home with family) is still logged on as DojoGrant, while my new computer in my bedroom is logged on as GraceSaves. I just now realized this was occurring.

I assure you, I am one and the same, and I will switch to GraceSaves on the other computer tomorrow, assuming I remember. Sorry for the confusion!

God bless,

Grant

PS: My name on AIM is still DojoGrant, if anyone wishes to message me.

 

I was wondering about that! BTW, I started a new thread on this subject.

Neal

 

Based on your own words, Christ's bride is made up of BELIEVERS, which is plural, and thus = polygamy.

God bless,

Grant

 

Based on your own words, Christ's bride is made up of BELIEVERS, which is plural, and thus = polygamy.
</font>[/QUOTE]Did you not understand the Scripture in Ephesians that I first posted for you. Perhaps this will help:

Revelation 19:6-9
6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Christ takes his bride and marries her. The marriage supper follows. The bride is made up of all believers, just as a local church has many members, this grand assembly in heaven will also have many members. One local church on earth is a picture of one great assembly in heaven. They are both assemblies. Christ can have only one bride. His bride is the church, the one assembled in Heaven. If you are not part of that assembly, then you better make sure of it today. Christ has no other bride.

Heb.12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven,
DHK

 

Didn't know I have to know what all the early church fathers said to figure out what God wants to say. I think that I will just stick to His Word. Also, be careful of your confidence in men.

Excuuuuuuuuuse me? That last sentence is absolutely laughable. YOU have chosen to adhere to the teachings of a man also. And don't try to wiggle out of it by claiming that you are simply believing the Word of God.

There are literally HUNDREDS of interpretations of the Bible. Depending upon which one YOU CHOSE, you will be an Episcopalian, a Baptist, a Fundamentalist, a Methodist, a Seventh Day Adventist, a Oneness Pentecostal, etc. etc. etc.

You have CHOOSEN to believe that which supports the Baptist position. 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?) and have decided that the things preached by Baptists, their interpretation of the Scriptures, is correct?

But by what internal standard of Scripture does the Scripture validate this choice for you? And please dont' just say that the Bible supports Baptist doctrine, because I can get all of the above mentioned groups to say the same thing and argue you to death that you are mistaken and they are right (while they are not busy arguing amongst each other). And none of you have any validation except to claim that the Word of God validates your position. That is a considerably circular argument.

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.

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.

You say you didn't know that you had to know the Early Fathers to know what the Bible teaches. Well, why then do you listen to your pastor? To tapes of your favorite teachers and preachers? Why bother, if you can figure it out all by yourself?

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?

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.

One of the first things which really kind of shocked me when I began to read the Early Fathers was the realization that they would have listened to my Calvinist explanations of the Bible for maybe about 5 minutes and then would have laughed me to scorn and right out of the council chambers of Nicea. 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. Of course, if this was true, then from where I had to ask myself, did they get such ideas? And as I studied, and learned that these men were taught by men who were taugh by the apostles, there could only be a couple of answers:

1. The apostles decieved them and taught them something different than what Jesus taught. Now is that really even a consideration?

2. They made the whole thing up.

3. The apostles taught them the truth and they abandoned it. Again, that infers that they were not men of honor as believers, but rather a particular brand of scoundrel. And for what? What advantage would they have gained by changing the message, seeing that all they faced for ANY MENTION OF JESUS was persecution and death.

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. They were, in accordance with the promise of Christ to the apostles in the Upper Room, led into "ALL TRUTH" by the Holy Spirit.

Your warning is noted and highly disagreed with.

Brother Ed

 

Have you? I assume you have since 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.

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.

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.

Never claimed that. I simply stated I didn't know I had to read all the church fathers to understand Scripture.

Again, never claimed that. Please refrain from assuming so much. See Acts 17:11 for you answer of what I accept.

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.

Again, the problem with labels. That is why I don't like them.

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?

Please keep the assumptions to a minimum. I don't mind having a discussion with you, but if you are going to misrepresent me then I will have to decline. If you want to know what I think about something, please ask first, rather than assume. Labels are truly dangerous.

God bless
Neal

[ December 30, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Boycotting this thread too.

 

No, I do not think that Baptists have all the correct interpretations. But they are closet to what I see Scripture saying.

This comes down to a matter of personal interpretation then, doesn't it, for I see teaching and supporting doctrines which are found in the Catholic and Orthodox Faith. How then do we determine who is correct and who is not?

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.

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?

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.

Well, actually it has to do with authority and the hierarchial nature of the Church. Does the private listen to the sargeant who listens to the lieutenant who listens to the captain? The kingdom is not a body with thousands of "heads" all claiming pre-eminance and all claiming leadership. There is one leader and only one on earth - the Holy Father in Rome. He is the representation of the divine Head in Heaven, our Lord Jesus Christ. As there is only ONE divine Head in Heaven, so in this earth there can only be one.

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.

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. I notice that you are a seminary student in your bio, therefore, I would think that pondering concepts would be something you would feel at home doing.

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.

You really can't see what you are saying here, can you? WHO told you which statements from what people actually "agree" with the Bible? You had to make a choice, but your choice had to be prejudiced by things which you had heard and learned as a child on up.

If not, then I don't believe them. See, my standard is what the Word of God says, not the men.

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? The Church did for 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation came along, which makes me think that perhaps there is something to this understanding that y'all Baptists have missed.

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.

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? The Jews in the Old Testament were given clear rules and expected to obey them. God did not exactly appreicate those who had other "interpretations". St. Paul says much the same thing when people challenged his authority.

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'!

You miss the point. 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. Unless you can prove to me that you NEVER listened to another man's preaching or writing, then you also listen to and are influenced by men.

m 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.

Indeed, because if everyone would "carefully study" the Bible, they would come up with your conclusions, wouldn't they? You remind me of the Dutch Calvinist I used to listen to on the radio who says the exact same thing: "If we carefully study ...." which by inference means that all who disagree with him are NOT carefully studying, right?

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.

This applies to you too, my friend.

Again, never claimed that. Please refrain from assuming so much. See Acts 17:11 for your answer of what I accept.

That is a considerable dodge, you realize. There are many even in Baptistry who would disagree with you and appeal to the same passage to support their contentions.

Again, never claimed it. That is my whole point, there is no man (other than Christ, before you assume again) that is infallible.

Not what Jesus said in Matthew. Remember? 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. We see heresies cropping up in the Church in the book of Acts. 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.

Again, the problem with labels. That is why I don't like them.

Well, let me say it another way. I don't find taught the doctrines of the Baptists or any other brand of non-Catholicism. All I find is quite Catholic teaching, starting quite early.

Brother Ed

[ December 30, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

I guess so.

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.

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.

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.

The BIBLE itself.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Absolutely true. That is why I try to guard against it.

I never claimed infallibility for Baptist teachers, so there was nothing to dodge.

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)

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).

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.

God Bless,
Neal

[ January 02, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]