Whats the beef between RCC and Baptist anyway?

No, Baptists are the only ones allowed to do that. At least, that's the impression you get from reading this board. It makes me ashamed to be associated with the term "Baptist".

 

Whether or not they should be part of the canon is an important issue, of course. But regardless, they are NOT forgeries or fraudulent. They are important written records, important enough for the KJV translators to translate and include them in the 1611 KJV. If one does not believe them to be inspired as the remaining 66 books, they are, in the very least, worthy to every Christian to read and study as a matter of commentary. I find it absurd that most of us have no problem picking up a copy of "Joe Schmo's Commentary on the OT" at your local book store, yet few of us have ever bothered to crack open one book of the Apocrypha. Are we so afraid of being "catholicized" that the apocrypha should be off limits? C'mon folks!!

 

Whether or not they should be part of the canon is an important issue, of course. But regardless, they are NOT forgeries or fraudulent. </font>[/QUOTE]It depends what writings you are looking at John. I find it quite incredible to believe that the prophet Obadiah was forced to take a basket of food, a second time to Daniel in the lion's den, by grabbing him by the tuft of his hair, and whisking him through the air, and then setting him in the midst of the den, all to give Daniel his food. The angel had to grab Obadiah by the hair and forcibly carry him this way because Obadiah in his stubborness would not go on his own.
This is a fairy tale, not history, not inspired Scripture, a fraudulent piece of someone's imagination added to the Book of Daniel.

There are other books, like 1 and 2 Maccabbees which do contain some valuable historical information, but not all the Apocrypha is like that. They are not inspired books. The works of Shakespeare have more inspiration than they do.
DHK

 

Th.. th..th..That's all Folks!

That's it, Is that as good as it gets.. Pardon the less than zealous reception here, but the closest any of you can get to answering the question of; on what basis do you have to prove the claim that the Bible as the inspired Word of God is the sole authority in regard to matters of faith is:

Ta da!.... We can't agree that the church has any authority on these matters...so the common ground is the bible. Therefore that shall be the sole measuring stick in deciding these matters.

But then,... if we can't agree, why not accept the Catholic contention that it is precisely by the authority of the Christ's Church that we can accept the canon and the teaching that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?.

Or did I leave something out? Oh, How could I forget, .... The bible has to be the sole static standard of authority because it is so easily understood and no TRUE believer could ever mis -translate scripture and even if they did as long as they don't interpret it the way the Papists do, they'll be alright.

Let's look as the gymnastics here:

Yelsew says:

Just curious, would any of you agree with the above statement particularly that "assembled by the Catholic Church" bit?

First, the Catholic church "assembled" 72 books not 66. The original KJV had 72 books. Later versions removed 7 OT books. Luther threw out the Epistle of James and Hebrews from his earlier translation that predated the KJV; as well as some OT books.
So what version(s)issuance did the Holy Spirit think it necessary to intervene and add some direction (because it certainly would help to have all the books available to use as proof-texts) And to which do you subscribe?
And what binding council spoke with such clarity that it was obvoiusly led by the Holy Spirit and therefore so leads you to accept their extra-biblical conclusions?

And as far as the neat idea about the "extra-biblical" books not being "commonly available," one must remember it was a novel approach of the 16th century reformers of the canon to NOT include these books.
A little research will prove that one of the questions to be addressed by the Council of Trent had to do with addressing the "reformers" insistence on REMOVING the books.

Yelsew comes as close as any Protestant probably ever will in admitting that the authority to define the canon came from the Catholic Church in his above quote, but then the all-to-common mental gymnastics start. Hence he finishes with:

The question is how does one prove the bible is the sole authority on matters of faith. I'm not at this juncture even pressing that you HAVE to aknowledge the Catholic Church as the binding authority that you lean on. It is good enough right now just to get you to admit that you do not get that authority for the Bible itself.

Yelsew is not alone, Frank cartwheels with:

I guess I have to start at the top as virtually every sentence screams of circular reasoning.
Bob is correct, you say? and why: Because we can't agree on what standard should apply, so you MUST take our word for it ("yeah it's 15 centuries late but, hey we like the book you guys came up with")

"OBJECTIVE TRUTH IS FOUND ONLY IN THE WORD OF GOD" sproing , bip rumble-tumble. And just how is it, you can beyond any pitfalls of logic know that what you are referring to is:
1.) The "Word of God?"
2.) Represents "Objective Truth?" and
3.) That Objective Truth is only found there?

And if you will try to distinquish your answers from the claims of the BOM, or the Koran, or Edgar Cayce's claims etc.
For if your answer seeks scripture as it's sole source to answer the questions then by what leap of logic would you keep a Mormon or Muslim from excercising that same right in "proving" the claims of their so-called Divinely inspired books?

Big dismount coming:

Is it then your independent practice to confirm each book in the Bible as belonging there? How then do you know to accept Ruth, Esther and Ezra in the OT and discard Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch? (Sanford and Son didn't give you the answer!)Who did? You can't say the Bible did because you won't find a list of books that belong within scripture.

So we are left with: " We can't agree to use your static standard (the Church), so we have to go solely by the Word of God. (Even though it's obvious that the defining of canon was decided by the church and therefore is extra-biblical wink-wink, tumble Splat!)

God Bless
Stephen

 

It is my understanding that Catholics and Protestants both believe the Bible is of Divine origin and that He guided holy men of God to write down exactly what He wanted us to know. We realize that all spiritual leaders are fallible and will be returned to the grave as dead, finite men and women. Infallibility is the trick of the evil one in deceiving and blinding one branch of the church into excepting all ex cathedras as though they were 'signed, sealed and delivered' by Christ Himself. Some people of faith are gullible and duped enough to believe that if their representative of the church said that Heaven was paved with Limburger Cheeze, they would not even bother trying to taste it on arrival there.

After all isn't accepting these questionable doctrines all based on the alleged Infallibility of the human authority of the temporary, resident of the Vatican?

 

Ray,
The question is not "if" the Bible is of "divine origin" that is: the inspired word of God. The question is HOW we know this to be true.

Catholics appeal to an extra-biblical source (if you will)in the Church. In that the Church saw the need to gather the inspired books (disqualifying others) under one cover and definitively identified the books that were to be considered inspired by God.

The Bible is the greatest possession of the Church, but is never the less a possession and instrument of the Church. They mutually support one another. Scripture refers to the Church throughout in reverent tones (Bride of Christ, etc). And the love of scripture by the Church is evidenced in it's zealous protection of the Biblical tenets through councils and encyclicals etc.

The Bible itself confirms the authority of the Church when we see the church referred to as the "pillar and ground of truth". Amongst other evidences.

Protestants take a view more akin to a relative stance; that the Bible itself proves it is of "Divine Origin".
This to most Catholics seems a faulty premise brought on by the neccessity to do so because of the rejection of the Church and its authority.
Afterall if the Bible could prove in and of itself it's divine inspiration who's to say that the BOM, or the Koran can't do the same. It now is then just relative to the individuals personal slant, and logically can't get past that.

The Catholic contention removes the emphasis from the relative acceptance of the divine origin of scripture from scripture, to the Church where it properly belongs. As it was the Church that commissioned the Bible's creation through its' official pronouncements of the Canon etc.

In other words the discussion REALLY should be not how the Bible proves itself the inspired word of God , but how the Church can make this pronouncement! But we can't get past go, because protestants insist the "common ground" is scripture and therefore Catholics must prove (fill in the topic), because the Protestants "SAY" they don't accept an outside authority.
But the truth of the matter is they in practice DO accept outside authority (just by using the Bible as the source of their proof-text agenda they are aknowledging an outside authority that defined the canon, or modified it etc.)

The mental gymnastics become evident when a Protestant is pressed to identify the authority he recognizes that defines the Canon, for true logic SCREAMS that it HAS to be extra-biblical because the Canon is nowhere defined within the pages of Scripture.

It gets even more amusing when Bible only advocates try to determine why the version of the Bible they quote from underwent the inclusion or removal of certain books. For nowhere in the Bible do we find the authority to do so.
Or when pressed to define the OT authority that actually closed the OT canon...the leaps and twists of logic are all too revealing of the Shaky ground of Protestantism.
Luther's whole premise of his 95 theses was a challenge to authority, putting the individual on par with the 1500 year old recognized church. He saw no use for the authority of the Church yet when handy didn't hesitate to yield his own heavy handed authority to dismiss and "excommunicate" his associate Agricola for disobedience and "heresy" for taking the premise that authority was from the individual and superceded the Church's authority just a bit further.
Luther lamented late in life that "a common milkmaid even believes in the ability to translate scripture on par with the church."
(paraphrased from memory)And as we've seen from the thousands and thousands of Protestant proclivities masquerading as churches they confirm their logic (to each other that is)and their right to do so.

God Bless
Stephen

 

Luther never doubted that the Church had the right to condemn and exclude obvious heretics like Agricola. But he also never doubted that the common milkmaid had a right to judge everything he said or wrote.

 

Yelsew, it is more like going to the Vice President of Finance to have her/him deliver your petition to the president of the company

Huge difference

Armando

 

Dr. Girffin, you said that: If it is NOT in the Bible then we have no authority on wich to debate.

Dr. Griffin, can you provide Chapter and verse that indicates that it must be in the Bible in order to have authority to debate.

Thanks
Armando

 

Yelsew, it is more like going to the Vice President of Finance to have her/him deliver your petition to the president of the company

Huge difference

Armando </font>[/QUOTE]Once again we have a representative of the Roman church exalting a created being, Mary, the lowly but faithful and willing servant of God, to a position of authority among Deity.

Once again we see the Roman church making God a liar when He, God, said that He is no respecter of man, The roman church says He is, and that He elevated a created being to the status of mini-divinity, one who has exclusive right to tell God what to do? That is what a finance officer does in most companies. "Mr. God, you have this amount of resourse left in your coffers, therefore if you do this you will make yourself bankrupt! Perhaps if you still want to do this you can borrow from the Mr. God of umpti-ump universe on a low interest loan." etc.! etc.! etc.! Imagine, Unlimitable God needing a human to tell him about his resources? You make us all laugh Armando.

Get real Armando! God did not have, or need man before He Created, and he certainly is not indebted to man now! We are His playthings, He is not our butler, or "man-servant"! This whole creation thing is His doing not ours! He does not need inefficient humans on his staff, unless of course you think God is less than self-sufficient, Omniscient, Infinite, Almighty, Omni-present, etc.!

Your image of God in His deity, is weak, and you exalt a lowly human well above what God does. You raise Mary to be above Michael and Gabriel, and all the other mighty angels, and cheribim, etc.

 

Steven,

'Your recent post stated, 'As it was the Church that commissioned the Bible's creation through its' official pronouncements of the Canon etc.

If Moses documented Genesis, then it is God who spoke first to Adam and Eve in guiding His plan for their lives. And since we both include in our Bible the Genesis account of Creation, as the Word of God, then we must agree that the Word of God came before the beginning of the church era which started on the Day of Pentecost.

In Matthew 16:18 where Christ says that He will build His church is in the future active indicative tense; so we must come to the conclusion that the church only began when the Spirit was outpoured in the Upper Room. All of the O.T. writings were written long before the church took its first steps.

I was taught in seminary that Luther did not want to start a new church but merely wanted to purify the present one that was filled with doctrinal impurity. He had crawled on his knees up cathedral steps, down the church isle, and up to the altar in an attempt to please God and to find inner spiritual peace. Martin Luther never found this in the Roman Catholic Church. He had been a priest representing other people and was not personally saved himself. When Luther came to the understanding that it was only his faith that brought about a union with Christ, he was more than ready to rethink things and ultimately to disregard the trapping of a church that did little to nothing for his inner and spiritual needs. It was not Romans 5:1 that brought him to and into his relationship with the Lord, but the concept of faith alone was what turned his life around for the good of himself and multi-millions of Christians since the Reformation.

Authority is not to be found in a church building, denomination or a one man prelate, but is found in the Word of God which has come to us from the Living Word, Jesus Christ. It is true that God has great respect for the church but it is merely His instrument in bringing people together where the things of God can be preached and taught.

There are many Protestant and independent church in the United States and around the world. Churches are developed around various aspects of what the Bible has to say to His people. Some Christians see the holiness of God emphasized so you have Wesleyan and Nazarene Churches. Other people of God notice the sovereignty and security that is found in a living and dynamic relationship with Christ. These people often join a Baptist or Presbyterian Church. Some believers enjoy a relaxed worship service where they are not tied to a strict liturgy so they attend an Assembly of God church, where the Holy Spirit is honored in a very special way.

The apostles and women were among the number of the 120 in the Upper Room but the reverenced person there was the Holy Spirit. [Acts 2] Without His Presence there would never have been what we call a church. As much as we value the Communion Service it was not the wafer or the wine that was emphasized in the first church. God came on the people in a mighty way and they experienced the great joy of the Holy Spirit because it was the Lord God Who was establishing His church. Was it not 3,000 souls that were brought into the Kingdom of God, because the Spirit was at work among the people?

 

Steven:

 

I was taught in seminary that Luther did not want to start a new church but merely wanted to purify the present one that was filled with doctrinal impurity. He had crawled on his knees up cathedral steps, down the church isle, and up to the altar in an attempt to please God and to find inner spiritual peace. Martin Luther never found this in the Roman Catholic Church.

THAT, sir, is ENTIRELY LUTHER'S FAULT. He was a very sick individual psychologically. If you have ever read any of his biographers, you would immediately recognize that he grew up in a HIGHLY DYSFUNCTIONAL family environment and as a result, had a LOT of mental "baggage" to deal with. He is a classic case in psychological profiles.

Furthermore, he lacked faith. He did not believe the promises of Christ regarding the Sacraments. The Sacraments and the covenantal promises attached to them have brought peace and comfort to UNTOLD NUMBERS prior to Luther -- believers who faced martyrdom and torture in total peace because they trusted the promises of Christ. CATHOLIC (and Orthodox) believers.

Luther, on the other hand, could not find peace in the Sacrament of Pennance. He could not find peace because he believed that God was just like his father -- a stern and unrelenting taskmaster, impossible to please and ready to condemn.

He had been a priest representing other people and was not personally saved himself.

Baptist crappola. Luther was baptized and that makes one saved -- period. Your baptist heresies don't hold a drop of water. Baptism makes one a member of Christ (Gal. 3:27) and enters one into Christ's death and resurrection to new life (Rom. 6:3) Baptism removes sins (Acts 2: 38). Your sixteenth century doctrine is man made and wrong....period.

When Luther came to the understanding that it was only his faith that brought about a union with Christ, he was more than ready to rethink things and ultimately to disregard the trapping of a church that did little to nothing for his inner and spiritual needs.

Being deceived by the evil one quite often brings peace to people....just ask the Buddists who have "peace".

It was not Romans 5:1 that brought him to and into his relationship with the Lord, but the concept of faith alone was what turned his life around for the good of himself and multi-millions of Christians since the Reformation.

Not what the Bible says regarding eternal life and the Judgment Seat of Christ according to Romans 2: 5 - 10 and John 5: 28 - 29. The only mention of so called "faith alone" is condemned in the book of James. But you know, the human mind is a funny thing. Just look at Alcoholics Annonymous. There are people in there who have totally changed their lives for decency and morality while using a clock radio as their higher power. You see, you can be brainwashed into believing just about anything and having a positive emotional response to it.

Authority is not to be found in a church building, denomination or a one man prelate, but is found in the Word of God which has come to us from the Living Word, Jesus Christ.

Yup. And Jesus gave HIS AUTHORITY to the men whom He personally discipled and trained to bear it:

Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

In case you forgot, forgiving sins is the perogative of God alone, right? But Christ gives that authority to "mere men".

It is true that God has great respect for the church but it is merely His instrument in bringing people together where the things of God can be preached and taught.

Make up your mind. First you trash the Church, now you claim that God has "great respect for Her". Which is it?

There are many Protestant and independent church in the United States and around the world.

Nope. You must have a duly and properly ordained priest to be in "THE Church". What you have are assemblies of people who use the name of Jesus the Christ.

Churches are developed around various aspects of what the Bible has to say to His people. Some Christians see the holiness of God emphasized so you have Wesleyan and Nazarene Churches.

And they claim that those in other churches who do not share their theology are not saved. Nice.

Other people of God notice the sovereignty and security that is found in a living and dynamic relationship with Christ. These people often join a Baptist or Presbyterian Church.

Sovereinty. That is the buzzword of Calvinism. The same Calvinism which teachs a "god" who damns babies to hell because they are not "elect" children. Sorry. Not THE God of the universe. He is LOVE, according to the Scriptures, and does not act that way.

Some believers enjoy a relaxed worship service where they are not tied to a strict liturgy so they attend an Assembly of God church, where the Holy Spirit is honored in a very special way.

Been in those services. Most of them are serious nutcases. Has more to do with entertainment of the massa damnata than it does worship. Worship is supposed to reflect that which happens in Heaven (Heb. 8:5) This doesn't. Glad God delivered me from that mess.

As much as we value the Communion Service it was not the wafer or the wine that was emphasized in the first church.

You obviously have a very strange reading of Church history. The Eucharist was the center of the worship service, and even Scripture records this, stating that they met daily to break bread (Eucharist).

Was it not 3,000 souls that were brought into the Kingdom of God, because the Spirit was at work among the people?

Just like it was the Spirit of God who used the Catholic Faith to change entire pagan civilizations and bring BILLIONS to salvation in the Catholic Faith over the next 15 centuries. Seeing this, one wonders exactly WHAT spirit it was that fostered disunity, rebellion, and schism in the Church?

 

I will not bother to answer your diatribe against Luther. You obviously know nothing about the man. It was precisely because he believed in the promises of Christ that he rejected the false penance of the Roman Church.

 

Ed,
But what of Romans 3:28 which states: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law/"?

Or Romans 11:6: "And if by grace it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."?

 

Sure, I pray for people everyday and people pray for me everyday. BUT, we go to Jesus in pray. I do not have to go to another person to get to Jesus. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

But you do go to another person to get to Jesus when you ask another person to pray for you.

That's his point.

 

Ed,
But what of Romans 3:28 which states: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law/"?

Or Romans 11:6: "And if by grace it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."?

Well, now you have a problem, don't you? Because you see, the Scriptures are VERY CLEAR, YEA EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD that on the Last Day, Jesus the Great Judge, will sit and judge every man on the basis of his works. Those who have done good shall obtain eternal life. Those who have done evil shall obtain eternal death.

Here. Look for yourself:

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

So now we have a problem (or so it seems). The premise of "faith alone" makes the Scriptures, as interpreted by Protestants, contradict the very words of the Lord.

Your question is good. It is the premise which is wrong. You see, Protestantism taught (and teaches in many cases and places) that since Jesus kept the whole of the law for us, we do not have to keep the law of God. But is that what St. Paul is saying?

Not at all.

The problem is that we do not think in the Jewish paradigm and do not understand what is being spoken of here. The phrase "works of the law" has to do with the Jewish ceremonial law, and most especially circumcision. Remember that the thrust of St. Paul in Romans 1 - 3, leading up the the "faith chapter" of chapter 4 was to convince the Jews that THEY TOO would stand in the Judgment. Jews believed that by virtue of their circumcision, they had a free pass through the pearly gates right into the prescence of God.

Do not stop at Judgment. Do not collect any penalties.

St. Paul says, in effect, with the passage you have quoted above, that the works of the law (i.e., CIRCUMCISION INTO THE JEWISH COVENANT) is of no avail now that Christ has come. Paul is NOT invalidating the need to keep the MORAL LAW OF GOD, for it is the keeping of that moral law which indeed makes us covenant keepers rather than covenant breakers.

Salvation, being freed from the general condemnation we have in Adam (Rom. 5:12) is indeed a free gift. We are adopted by grace into the family covenant of God. We are adopted sons and daughters. But like all families, our Kingdom Family has rules by which we keep covenant with our Father. By breaking those rules (sin = violation of the moral law of God) we interrupt our fellowship with God, and certain sins, called "mortal sins" actually completely SEVER OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM. A picture of a mortal sin is the Prodigal's profound insult to his father a subsequent leaving of his house for the "far country" of sin. That is what sins like murder, apostasy, and adultery do. They completely break the covenant relationship we have with God and our covenant family, and if not repented of, make us lose the inheritance of eternal life.

Salvation is free. Eternal life is also free. But eternal life is the covenantal inheritance for the adopted children of God and like any other inheritance, it can be lost!!

So when you see St. Paul decry the "works of the law" in Romans, remember that it is a reference to Jewish trust in ceremonial laws, especially circumcision, for their entrance into the state of covenant with God and salvation thereof, as opposed to trust in Christ, which those of the "circumcision party" in Jerusalem were violently opposing. St. Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans 2: 5 - 10 that ALL MEN will stand before God's Christ and receive according to what we have done in the flesh.

Thanks for the good question. Excellent point!!

Cordially in Christ through the Theotokos,

Brother Ed

PS It is faith which makes us work. Works are the icon of the faith we have within. No works = no faith.

 

I was taught in seminary that Luther did not want to start a new
church but merely wanted to purify the present one that was filled
with doctrinal impurity. He had crawled on his knees up cathedral
steps, down the church isle, and up to the altar in an attempt to
please God and to find inner spiritual peace. Martin Luther never
found this in the Roman Catholic Church.

THAT, sir, is ENTIRELY LUTHER'S FAULT. He was a very sick individual
psychologically. If you have ever read any of his biographers, you would
immediately recognize that he grew up in a HIGHLY DYSFUNCTIONAL family
environment and as a result, had a LOT of mental "baggage" to deal with.
He is a classic case in psychological profiles.

Furthermore, he lacked faith. He did not believe the promises of Christ
regarding the Sacraments. The Sacraments and the covenantal promises
attached to them have brought peace and comfort to UNTOLD NUMBERS
prior to Luther -- believers who faced martyrdom and torture in total
peace because they trusted the promises of Christ. CATHOLIC (and
Orthodox) believers.

Luther, on the other hand, could not find peace in the Sacrament of
Pennance. He could not find peace because he believed that God was just
like his father -- a stern and unrelenting taskmaster, impossible to please
and ready to condemn.

Ray-You might be a tad bias here. If Luther would have gone back into the RCC you would never have penned the above words; he would only have been a zealous churchman. The fact is in his medieval spiritual darkness he could not find his way out of the maze. The Word of God brought about his spiritual awakening and quickening of the Spirit.

He had been a priest representing other people and was not
personally saved himself.

Baptist crappola. Luther was baptized and that makes one saved -- period.

Ray-The thief on the Cross was never baptized and Jesus promised him paradise; and yet he made it to Heaven.

Your baptist heresies don't hold a drop of water. Baptism makes one a
member of Christ (Gal. 3:27)

Ray-Galatians 3:2,3,5,14 all speak of the mighty and faithful working of the Holy

Spirit.

and enters one into Christ's death and resurrection to new life (Rom. 6:3)

Ray-Some Baptists and also you believe that Romans chapter six is speaking of water baptism, when in fact, the Apostle Paul is communicating the fact of a Spirit baptism when a person receives Christ as personal Savior. I'll cut you a $1,000. check in your name if you can show me one drop of water in all of Romans chapter six!

Baptism removes sins (Acts 2: 38).

Ray-Read this verse again. There is more than baptism involved in it. First, repentance, water baptism only in Jesus' Name-which means the person acknowledges the importance of Christ and has accepted Him. Only then do they have ministered to them the Spirit of God. Acts 2:21 makes your theory that water baptism saves an error.

Your sixteenth century doctrine is man made and wrong....period.
When Luther came to the understanding that it was only his faith
that brought about a union with Christ, he was more than ready to
rethink things and ultimately to disregard the trapping of a church
that did little to nothing for his inner and spiritual needs.

Being deceived by the evil one quite often brings peace to people....just ask
the Buddists who have "peace".

Ray-Have you ever talked to or witnessed to a lost Buddist? You and I both no there is no inner peace except coming from Jesus Christ.

It was not Romans 5:1 that brought him to and into his relationship
with the Lord, but the concept of faith alone was what turned his life
around for the good of himself and multi-millions of Christians since
the Reformation.

Not what the Bible says regarding eternal life and the Judgment Seat of
Christ according to Romans 2: 5 - 10 and John 5: 28 - 29. The only
mention of so called "faith alone" is condemned in the book of James.

Ray-The Book of James was written to remind us that we need to maintain good works as Christians. In other words, just because we are saved by Christ alone through simple faith, [John 1:12; Acts 2:21; Acts 16:31; John 3:3; Romans 5:1; II Cor. 5:17 etc.] Don't neglect obeying the Lord and doing good things in the Name of Christ, which accents our Christian faith.

But you know, the human mind is a funny thing. Just look at Alcoholics
Annonymous. There are people in there who have totally changed their
lives for decency and morality while using a clock radio as their higher
power. You see, you can be brainwashed into believing just about anything
and having a positive emotional response to it.

Ray-True. A good example of this is found in I Timothy 2:5. Some people still try to tell the Lord that He really doesn't mean the word, ' . . . one.'


Authority is not to be found in a church building, denomination or a
one man prelate, but is found in the Word of God which has come to
us from the Living Word, Jesus Christ.

Yup. And Jesus gave HIS AUTHORITY to the men whom He personally
discipled and trained to bear it:

Ray-I agree with you 100% on this point.

Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

In case you forgot, forgiving sins is the perogative of God alone, right?

Ray-I think you will agree with my statement now. No priest or minister can remove sins until the sinner first repents and turns from them. By this I mean Christ cleanses and forgives the sins and only then can the priest/minister declare their sins forgiven.
But
Christ gives that authority to "mere men".

It is true that God has great respect for the church but it is merely
His instrument in bringing people together where the things of God
can be preached and taught.

Make up your mind. First you trash the Church, now you claim that God
has "great respect for Her". Which is it?

I have never trashed the church; we are His Bride. My understanding of things is you do not have a lofty enough concept of Who is seated at the right hand of God, meaning our Lord. The Apostle Paul speaks of the ' . . . terror of the Lord' [II Cor. 5:11] He is awesome beyond all of our mental concepts.

There are many Protestant and independent church in the United
States and around the world.

Nope. You must have a duly and properly ordained priest to be in "THE
Church". What you have are assemblies of people who use the name of
Jesus the Christ.

Ray-The Apostle Paul and Peter speak of themselves as apostles and servants, not some kind of a robed, masterful, distributive person who hands out grace and the promise of eternal life because of super charged bread and wine. Grace only comes from Christ alone. [John 3:16]

Churches are developed around various aspects of what the Bible
has to say to His people. Some Christians see the holiness of God
emphasized so you have Wesleyan and Nazarene Churches.

And they claim that those in other churches who do not share their
theology are not saved. Nice.

Ray-Most Christians in various denominations understand that other brethren know Jesus and love Him. Where did you get your idea from as noted above?

Other people of God notice the sovereignty and security that is
found in a living and dynamic relationship with Christ. These people
often join a Baptist or Presbyterian Church.

Sovereinty. That is the buzzword of Calvinism. The same Calvinism which
teachs a "god" who damns babies to hell because they are not "elect"
children. Sorry. Not THE God of the universe. He is LOVE, according to the
Scriptures, and does not act that way.

Ray-Again, I agree with you. Hyper-Calvinism is the teaching of another man who thought he knew everything, just having stepped out of Roman Catholocism. No one becomes a theologian over-night delivery.

Some believers enjoy a relaxed worship service where they are not
tied to a strict liturgy so they attend an Assembly of God church,
where the Holy Spirit is honored in a very special way.

Been in those services. Most of them are serious nutcases. Has more to do
with entertainment of the massa damnata than it does worship. Worship is
supposed to reflect that which happens in Heaven (Heb. 8:5) This doesn't.
Glad God delivered me from that mess.

Ray-There are extreme people in all churches. We think that people who pray to a dead man, like Padre Pio, have to be out on the edge also. Saints die and go to Heaven to worship and adore Christ, not to be hypothetical, errand men and women for things going on down here on the earth.

No disrespect to you, but when I have gone to the RCC I felt like I was visiting with a dead God. I found no joy or happy celebration. I did, however, notice reverence for Christ and Mary. We need a big measure of respect for the House of God in nearly all of our denominations.

As much as we value the Communion Service it was not the wafer or
the wine that was emphasized in the first church.

You obviously have a very strange reading of Church history. The Eucharist
was the center of the worship service, and even Scripture records this,
stating that they met daily to break bread (Eucharist).

Ray--Again I agree with you. The Christians did celebrate the Holy Communion, possibly every time they met, but who was the object of their worship and veneration? Their center of focus was on Christ and not deceased saints, angels, or even the mother of our Lord.

 

And thanks for the good response.

As a Protestant, I've kind of grown up on the "Roman Road"-type gospel presentation which now seems to be woefully truncated. Having read Romans many times over the past few years it seems that Paul is somewhat flexible in his defintion of "works" and the "law". Depending on the context, Paul can be referring to the works of the ceremonial law or the works (ex.Romans 3:27-31) of rightousness (esp. Romans 2:5-10)by which we'll be judged. In regards to the "law", he refers to natural (or moral) law, the doers of which will be justified (Rom 2:13), and the ceremonial law which cannot justify (Rom 3:28). This is important to keep in mind, so one does not mistakenly set pit Paul and James (for instance) against one another.

That sounds about right.