Whats the beef between RCC and Baptist anyway?

Hi Stephen, Hope you had fun at the lake. I am taking my family to a waterski show today at a lake. Anyway, I am comfortable with your explanations for rep. prayer if you are saying it is worship in the sense of giving God glory because of His awesome greatness. However, you likened the rosary and the repetitive prayers to Mary, to asking people on earth to pray for you. Are we able to agree that there is a difference and leave it at that?

When I posted that thing about not saying Mary is more righteous then you or I, I knew why I did it but now I don't. Sorry about that. I think I may have been thinking that once washed clean by Christ we are all just as righteous, whether in Heaven or on earth. Clean is clean. Washed by the blood is washed by the blood. The blood does not wash in degrees. If me and you are washed clean we are as clean in God's site as Mary. Well, that may have been the point but maybe not.

Stephen, thanks for the kindness and manor for which you have "spoken" to me. It seems you lowered your standard with that post to Kelly. I am thinking you were just being sarcastic. Kelly meant well by her post but I think it could have been worded much more loving. I feel now that many Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ and am enjoying learning more. I know more about Catholic teaching now then any of the Catholics I know, ones that still go to Catholic churches to this day.

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

But Brian, you know us, don't you?

Seriously, the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd did a lot of damage to the Church over the past 40 years, including making sure that whole generations were never adequately taught their faith. Happily, that loud rushing sound you hear is a very large pendulum heading back in the other direction!

 

Vatican II happened when I was first in seminary. Vatican II for Catholics and non-Catholics, to my thinking, opened the church to a more revealing frame of mind. No longer was the Latin Mass hiding much of what the real liturgy was saying. It is my understanding that this present pope, John Paul, encourages Catholics to read the Bible. This is a good thing. When people study the Word of God they will begin to drop the superstition and errors of ecclesiastical doctrine and teaching and find themselves sitting in the real light coming from Jesus Christ, our Savior.

 

Frank wrote:

Let's try this again.. First of all I have never claimed "the confirmed authentication of the scriptures by divine power does not prove authority or divine origin" of scripture ... Never. Not once .. Nor will I ever claim that.

Can I be any more clearer.

Here is where we differ: The question is on what basis we claim the "confirmed authentication".

Your basis for believing that the scriptures have been confirmed as the authentic Word of God is scripture itself. That is circular. Scripture proves scripture is your take and does so (most importantly)EXCLUSIVELY. You admit it, you don't deny it. You just can't back it up logically. And when you try to, what do you do?: You use more scripture. Circular, circular, and more circular.

In contrast, I believe the Bible is what it claims to be as the inspired and inerrant Word of God not because my authority and proof of the claim come from the source in question, but because of the Church that Christ established with authority in these and like matters has said so definitively; and in a manner that those that adhere to the church's teaching authority can accept.
In short, Christ through His Church tells me the Bible is His word. Does that mean that the Bible doesn't stand by its claims? Of course not. Does that mean that the claims can't be substanciated by the means of scientific or historical review? Of course not.
All that it says is that the premise of the Bible proving its claims in and of itself exclusively does not logically hold water. The premise I've supported, to me at least, makes sense as the Bible is the product of the Church. You seem to take it as a given that the Church is the product of the Bible.

You have tried numerous times to change this discussion to one whereas you paint my statements into doubts or contradictions of the Bible's inerrancey or divine origin. That is not the case, and I think you've known exactly all along what the discussion surrounds. The discussion is strictly on HOW we have independently came to the same conclusion that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God.

My points throughout this discussion have pertained to what I think of as the faulty premise that ANY book (the Bible included) could make ANY claim and then EXCLUSIVELY prove that claim in and of itself. The key word is "exclusively". Think about it. Books that make claims appeal to outside authority to prove their claim. The church is the logical "prover" of the Bible's claims, as it was the Church that commissioned its existence.

A funny thing that happens with people who make the claim that the Bible itself exclusively proves its' claims is the fact that not only can they not logically make sense of their premise; they themselves in actuality prove the premise that an outside (or extra-biblical) source is required.

For example, let's look at what you've written:

Let's call that the claim.

Now in the same paragraph as the above, you've written:

By your premise, you can't use mans evolving sense of science as a basis of proof, because you must use the Bible only. Yet you appeal to it as noted above. You make appeal for support to an outside authority (the general scientific community) and still say that your proof comes from the Bible exclusively.

Another way of proving that the Bible-only crowd contradicts themselves is by showing that in their exercising their preferencial use of the Bible version they subscribe to they MUST logically defer to an outside authority.

If you adhere to the original KJV. Then you accept the 1611 commitee's authority that recognized the deuterocanonicals as being a part of the inspired word of God. If you prefer the later versions that by committee removed these books then you must readily aknowledge an outside or extra-biblical authority to do so. If you claim (as I think you do) that the authority to determine matters of the faith can only come from the Bible, then you have to show us in the Bible where we find the OT and the NT canon defined. You have not and can not.

Both KJV committee decisions came in regard to recognizing the canon of scripture. Something I think we would all agree on is something that would require the guidance of the Holy Spirit to decide.

Continuing.... you've written:

First of all the Catechism is not a "new Gospel" or a counter-claim to Christ's Gospel. It is precisely what the Church instructs as Christ's authority on earth. There is no contradiction between the Bible and the Church. It is the practical application of the Biblical teaching of the faith. The Catechism is the Church's teaching that derives from it's authority and mission. It is both supported by scripture and incorporates sacred scripture.

you have written:

As you have yet to answer my simple question as to which authority you acknowledge in the issuance of the KJV. So how do you jive your statement on "revisions" with the fact that the version was changed.

You further compound your faulty premise with statements like:

I seriously do not believe you intend to open the logical can of worms you open here.
As there have alsways been grammatical errors in virtually every Bible version ever transposed. Would typesetters errors be exempt? Oh, and by who's authority? If you believe that the Bible is inerrant in its grammatical content as well asits theological or doctrinal content then what say you of the 1631 version that had for Ex. 20:14 "Thou Shalt commit adultery."

If the readers of that Bible version were Bible only people it seems that the Bible led them astray. Fortunately, most had an outside authority to appeal that quickly recognized the error and taught them otherwise. Or is it you contention that they were to commit adultery?

In finishing, you've written:

1.) I canThe most reli

 

Ray,

"Spirit of Vatican II" was used by many liberal elements within the Church to justify doing anything and everything they wanted, regardless of, and very often in direct defiance of, the actual documents of Vatican II. For example, regarding the liturgy and Vatican II, here's an interesting article: The Mass of Vatican II

 

Brian,
Thanks, We did have an exceptionally good time at the lake. My son and all the Varsity Football team and Senior Dads went camping , cookout and recreation etc.

You wrote:

I think so as well, with perhaps one further piece of clarification. It is indeed giving God glory through a meditative means and via our supplications made while honoring the same instrument that God chose to bring salvation into the world.

I know Mary is in heaven, which is one way it is diffrent from asking someone on earth to pray for me. That is a statement on her having received salvation as opposed to those on earth who are "working out our salvation in fear and trembling". I realize we may differ here as it relates to the OSAS debates. so I include this for context not necessarily for debate. Another reason for our prayers to God through Mary are also that God chose Mary to bring Life into the world. This Life she presented, as a vessel made pure for the process by the singular grace of God.
This Life is Jesus Christ and is made available to us through our faith in Him. What I mean in "honoring" the means has to do with aknowledging Mary's role as someone, I believe made particularly available for the delivery or presentation of our prayers.
So yes in a way all who are made righteous are righteous. But not everyone has identical purpose, effect, or benefit in God's eyes to the body of Christ. Just like your eyes can't do the work of your legs.
I believe Mary brought the physical body of Christ to life in the world in her unique and singular way. She gave the Word Its' flesh. And in a special way by God's grace and to His greater Glory; through her prayers (being answered by God) strives to bring forth life in the spiritual Body of Christ.

You conclude:

You are right. And I apologize for my sarcasm. Perhaps Kelly meant it in a loving way, but however nice you couch terms that basically say that the Catholic Church is the devils mouthpiece, I find highly insulting. But it is funny how my response is what drew your critism.

God Bless
Stephen

 

Stephen:
You do not get it. One would expect any CLAIM of INSPIRATION, GEOGRAPHICAL FACT, MENTION OF CHARACTER, and CONTENTS THEREOF to be proveable by internal investigation. Anyone who who has taken a course in apologetics or criticism of historical documents knows this fact. Just because you are ignorant of them does not make them invalid. The fact you refuise to examine the claims and refute them does not make them invalid because of your failure to do so.

I do not need Catholicism to confirm that which was AUTHENTICATED BY IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. It would be redundant, verbose, and a foolish enterprise. When the scriptures were confirmed in the presence of eyewitnesses by the power of God, THEY NEEDED NO MAN MADE MAGESTERIUM, NOR DID THEY HAVE ONE, TO AUTHENTICATE THAT WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED AUTHENTIC.

God provided the confirmation by power. The authentication by eyewitnesses. These documents were sent from one location to another as they were written. NOTE: Colossians 4:16  And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. IThes. 5:27  I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
Rev. 1:4.4  John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Revelation 2:1  ¶Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
8  ¶And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
12  ¶And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
18  ¶And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;Revelation 3:1  ¶And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
REV.3
7  ¶And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;14  ¶And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Galatians 6:11  ¶Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.

II Cor. 7:8.  For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.

There have been a number of men who have collected the documents of the Bible and translated them. However, They did not CONFIRM THEM. They did not AUTHENTICATE them. This was done by God's a miraculous power in the presence of irrefutable eyewitnesses. Mark 16:20, II Cor. 12:12, I Cor. 15:1-8, John 11:47, John 19:19, Mt. 27:54, I Cor. 14:37, II Pet. 1:15, 20,21.
Now, REFUTE THE EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES MY POSITION AND PROVIDE THAT WHICH PROVES YOUR ASSERTION!!!! If one wants to see a true exercise in circular reasoning, all he has to do is read your responses to the questions posted, that is if you actully do answer.


Question: How do I know the Catholicism has the AUTHORITY TO CONFIRM THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. WHAT IS YOUR PROOF? I Thes. 5:21.

Question: Since the Pope and magesterium are UNINSPIRED, Who gave them AUTHORITY TO MAKE THEIR DECLARATIONS? Luke 24: 44-51, John 16:13, Acts 2:1-4.

Question: If the pope and magesterium are uninspired men, and they are, how does one know they have authority and are truthful? Mark. 16:20.

 

Stephen:
By the way, there are over three thousand grammatical errors that the MORMONS claim are directly translated by God and NOT SUBJECT TO HUMAN ERROR. Excuses me, but even if the three thousand grammatical errors were typesetting problems they still fail their own claims. I believe that typesetting is, indeed, a HUMAN ERROR! Unless, that is, you know of another species that can perform this intricate task. By the way, they still are revising their book to remove their " typesetting errors."

Furthermore, the internal evidence indicates the BOOK FREE OF HUMAN ERROR contradicts itself about the divine institution of marriage. This is one of many contradictions one finds through INTERNAL INVESTIGATION. I guess it was just a human oversight on your part to ignore the point, or perhaps knowing the stance of the Catholic church on marriage, I guess you chose not to "open up that can of theological worms."

Finally, Man is commanded by GOD to prove all things hold fast that which is good. I Thes. 5:21. It is by his authority and instruction one must prove, not accept the uninspired claims of men or magesteriums without confirmation of their authority to do so.

Question: Where did God authorize the magesterium to authenticate anything?

What makes their mind more logical and rational that the mind of others? And, how do you know?

Furthermore, I use about 5 different versions of the Bible. The KJV is just one of the 5. However, I do consult a book that contains 26 translations of the Bible.

 

Hi Stephen, Glad to hear you had fun with your son and the other dads/sons. You wrote:

"But it is funny how my response is what drew your critism."

Maybe the reason it drew my attention is because of where my expectations were

Thanks again for your answers. If I don't have more questions on this topic I am sure we will "debate" in the future on some others.

MikeS, Your right I guess I do "know" Catholics here, in a stange sense anyway so I revise my statement to say that I know more about Catholic doctrine then any of the Catholics in my area that I have met face to face. There, that should have it covered. Bye for now.

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

Frank,

Just as I had indicated you would, you continue to compound your error by appealing to more scripture to "prove" that scripture validates itself. And does so "exclusively". This time you add a few questions for me to answer, while it must be 10-12 posts now that you refuse to answer my questions. I've labelled these unanswerable by your logic, so you've proven my point time and again by not answering them! Go ahead and scream in caps that you prove your premise by quoteing more scripture, which actually only proves my contention. It would be downright laughable, but actually sad that you actually believe the nonsense you write!

Case in point:

First of all Frank a document or book can be consistent in its message,claim, etc. But just because it is consistent within its own pages does not mean that because it is so "proves" its claims! For as I've maintained all along a book or document cannot prove, validate and confirm its' own claims.

You accept the circular logic of the claim that the Bible is self-validating because you are impressed that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. We all are, but that shouldn't be construed as a proof of the claim necessarily; as you've implied.
It takes an outside or extra-biblical knowledge of history or science or in the case of agreeng and accepting the canon, theology; just to better see that the Bible does indeed not contradict itself.

Your premise is proven deficient simply by your appeal to an outside base of knowledge. As your claim is that by the Bible only do you know it as the divinely inspired Word of God.

Frank, do you believe everything you read?
A book makes a claim and then will support that claim with evidence . It will not, no matter how much you SCREAM and act like a child validate, authenticate or confirm itself. It is by appeal to something else that we confirm the claim.

Cite one author , one book, one quote from these courses of apologetics and critism of historical document courses you've taken that support your claim.

You see this little course in public crow eating is a study within a study. You say books and documents validate and confirm their own claims by internal investigation. And then make a further claim that anyone who has taken a course in apologetics or hist. doc. review would know this.
Well to prove your premise wrong I'll use your own written post quoted above.

Franks' Claim: any CLAIM of INSPIRATION, GEOGRAPHICAL FACT, MENTION OF CHARACTER, and CONTENTS THEREOF (one would expect) to be proveable by internal investigation.

Frank offers for his "Internal evidence": Anyone who who has taken a course in apologetics or criticism of historical documents knows this fact.

Therefore we are to conclude:
1.) That you must appeal to an outside source to confirm your claim (hence the mention of "anyone who has...)
and
2.) Since you mentioned it. Show me your "anyones;. show us one quote from any book, from anything reputably published, in other words no Jack Chick or other anti-Catholic garbage that supports your claim that a written document is self-validating.

You've had a serious lapse of reason, if you think that we are gonna swallow your contention just because you make the claim and quote some artificial support. We are not all Frank. We weren't born yesterday. We, your readers require validation, confirmation and verification outside of yourself.

Frank continues:

Correct, They needed a God-made authority to designate and define them as being the inspired word of God. Otherwise how did we differentiate the books of the canon from other inspirational Christian writing of the era, like The Didach, or The Acts of Peter,(containing the Quo Vadis story) or Acts of Pilate. (containing the story of Veronica's Veil)etc.


Frank says:

Frank your use of the Bible versions you use to provide the scripture quotes disproves your claim. It is absolutely absurd to claim that a book confirms and validates its own claims. Otherwise show us the canon defined in scripture. You can't! Show us where anyone had the authority to define the canon,and change the canon (as the subsequent KJV was, or Martin Luther did). You appeal to an outside authority everyday you aknowledge the Bible as the Word of God. yet you believe you don't because you prefer to fool yourself (and others naive enough to believe you) that your sole authority for recognizing the Bible is the inspired Word of God is the Bible itself! What Folly.

Get off the tact of trying to twist my words into some sort of claim that the Bible is not the inspired word of God or that the BOM is. Or that the Bible doesn't indeed make the claim.
The whole discussion is on the authority to define the Bible to be what we both believe it to be.

Let's get to the real gist behind these discussions. For I'm sure some would think that we really just believe the same thing (that the Bible is inspired) and we both just arrived at this conclusion through different means. The ends justify the means in other words. And that it is a futile and inconsequential discussion.

But, you Frank know all to well what these discussions are all about. that is why you so adamantly hold to a absolutely absurd premise that the Bible proves itself as the Inspired word of God.

The real question has to do with Authority. I will defer to a Church as having the authority to define matters of the Faith. Supported by and consistent with the Church's greates possession- the Bible.

You on the other hand, MUST defer to your self as the authority. You claim the Bible has this authority, but it is obvious that this is a farce of a claim or we wouldn't have THOUSANDS of differing Bible only proclivities masquerading as Christ's church. Of course all those that differ from Frank are the ones who have misinterpreted the Bible. By you not answering the question of how you recognize the canon and the related questions you have also more than proven the premise of the Bible only advocates as being untenable and full of holes.


Scream and posture all you want about me not wanting to answer your questions. The readers of these posts aren't ignorant. They see who it is that refuses to answer the questions. If you would like me to pose the questions from my previous posts that you refuse to answer I could do so. Let's just stick to the one posed over and over ad nauseum, as even I am sick of seeing it unanswered by you.

Quoted from my previous post:
The original KJV Bible had the deutercanonicals included within it. They were subsequently removed. Which issuing committee was led by the Holy Spirit, the one that included or excluded the books AND HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Frank finishes with:

I have no idea what you are referring to. you sound as if I'm a believer in the BOM. It is a farce, not inspired by anything more than an over imaginative mind with too much idle time. i don't even have to read it to confirm this as the Church is definitive on "other so called inspired writings" . You on the other hand by your premise would most likely be required to read it so as to check out its claims and proofs by "internal investigation". Next is the Koran, and Edgar cayce etc. I guess. As I think they make the claims as being inspired by God also.

Finally Franks wrote:

But the Bible is self-validating. By going to the other books for translations what are you appealing to. I'll exempt you from necessarily having to answer that as I'm sure you will answer that you are comparing the Biblical texts for varying translations. And in doing so it never even dawns on you that you are appealing to outside bases of information in doing so. (greek lexicons, Hebrew studies etc.) or do you find these things in the Bible as well.

Blessings
Stephen

 

Frank,

What d'ya say we take this to the Sola -scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura thread and see if we can contribute anything there. It seems to have a little more momentum presently.

P.S. I'll accept your answers to my long standing questions in that forum.

 

Stephen:
No , I do not believe everything I read. That is why I first investigate the internal contents of the document. One must first read it to have any idea as to it's contents being accurate.

Translating any document into one's native tongue is a human enterprise. This fact proves nothing. By reading all transaltions available, one can internally from the inspired language know the truth. Again, this requires internal investigation and comparison. I am not questioning this fact. However, one who compares the original language with the langauge of his mother tongue can know the truth. John 8:32.

The points made about the BOM are valid. Your dismissal, as usual without evidence in rebuttal, proves nothing.

I have answered your question about how I know the bible is inspired without the aid or approval of any ecclesiastical organization. You have not rebutted the evidence. You just do not like it!

Fact, men knew the inspired word of God in the first century. How? Divine evidence. Mark. 16:20, II Cor. 12:12.

Fact, The proof of inspiration was confirmed by eyewitnesses. Acts 1:1-4, II Cor. 15:1-8, II Cor.12:12.

Fact, The word of God both oral and written has been confirmed by the miraculous events that have been authenticated by those who were eyewitnesses to them. II Pet. 1: 15. Note: Those who claimed to be inspired but failed the test of inspiration were and are LIARS. Rev.2:2. How did they know these men were liars? They knew this truth because the one who made the claim could not PROVE IT. In other words, he could not authenticate his message by the miraculous power God manifested for inspiration. Mark 16:20.

I can do the same thing today. If one claims his message is inspired, not subject to fault, failure, contradiction or falsehood, he must comnfirme it by signs following. II Cor. 12:12. I can know this from examining the proofs from the internal documentation of the new testament. The veracity of these proofs being authenticated by eyewitneses to the miraculous power. The confirmation of proof and testimony of Paul, Peter, Pilate, the centurion, and the 12 apostles are without question to the rational mind CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF INSPIRED WRITING. The book of Acts, alone, is a HISTORY OF THE ACTIONS OF THE INSPIRED APOSTLES. This may be confirmed by the harmony of the places, events and eyewitnesses to these things. Now, in order to disprove this fact, one must find internal contradictions or inconsistencies of the documents. Or, if he chooses to do so, he may attempt to disprove these facts through uninspired sources. At this time, NNE HAS DISCREDITED THE MESSAGE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. If I am wrong about the INTERNAL CONTENTS BEING FALSE, please prove it! I do not care what source you use. YOU WILL FAIL!

Logic dictates that if the INTERNAL CONTENTS ARE NOT INSPIRED ONE COULD PROVE THIS BY INTERNAL EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE. I have shown how the BOM fails this examination!!

Furthermore, If a document has been authenticated by miraculous power as it was written, WHEN DOES IT CEASE TO BE AUTHENTIC? And, How do you know? Objectively speaking, of course.

While internal harmony of the documents is not the only proof for inspiration, It is most vital. For if there were no miraculous power manifested to confirm, and no eyewitnesses to testify to these events one could not have scripture!

Without these PROOFS, anyone could claim to speak for God, being his infallible ambassador! This would be the case as there would be NBJECTIVE STANDARD TO MEASURE THE CLAIMS. This would allow Benny Hinn to speak for God as he would not have to prove it. This would allow the Muslim clerics to speak for God as he would not have to prove it by OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. This would even allow the Pope to speak on behalf of God as he would not have to PROVE IT BY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS! This would allow any council, synod, magesterium to speak with the authority of God. WHY? THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO MEET GOD'S OBJECTIVE STATIC STANDARD FOR PROOF! This is utter FOOLISHNESS!!!

Internal examination, while not the only proof, is vital in determining the authority and inspiration of the document.

 

Stephen:
I will post any further response in the " Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura" thread.

 

We have the bible, the Holy Spirit testifies to the truth it contains.

It is not the version that matters, nor is it the language that is important. It is the message that one reads in it and the spiritual impact that it has on you that matters.

For some who are not inclined toward spiritual life, the message content of the bible is foolishness. To those who are spiritually inclined, the message is the bread of life.

If you are not eating the bread of life, then you may well not be receiving the message! Your spirit may be hardened against the things of the God, and the message can't get through to you. If you want to receive the message, simply submit your will to God, and He will incline your heart toward Him.

If not, you lose!