Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

Your beliefs can be traced back to the Reformation and the likes of Calvin.

Except for your pretribulation rapture scenario. That is of much more recent fabrication; like I said, about eighty years.

 

Your beliefs can be traced back to the Reformation and the likes of Calvin.

Except for your pretribulation rapture scenario. That is of much more recent fabrication; like I said, about eighty years.</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong again.
First, I am not a Protestant, I am a Baptist, and I have nothing in common with the Reformation. Try as you will, you cannot link me with the Reformers.

Second, No matter who you link me with, I don't really care. The fact of the matter is that I can back every one of my beliefs up with the Word of God. That is something that you cannot do. You need to rely on Tradition, and the Church Fathers time and time again. My authority is the Word of God, and that alone. My beliefs go back to 2000 years ago for they are founded on the Word of God. I can back every one of them up by Scripture.
DHK

 

How old were these pictures. Probably hundreds of years old, and well after pouring had become an acceptable mode of baptism. That doesn't make it right. One would have to be quite naive to believe that the early Christians baptized in any other way except by baptism. They went to the Jordan River because "there was much water there." The pictures depict him waiste up in water because he was about to be immersed. The reason that the Ethiopian Eunuch stopped at a place where there was much water was to be baptized by immersion. If pouring was the acceptabe mode, he was a man of great means. His canteen would have done just fine. They both went into the water and they both came out of the water, the Scripture says. For what purpose? To be baptized by immmersion!
The symbolism of baptism represents death, or burial to our old life, and resurrection to a new life in Christ. Pouring destroys the symbolism which it is meant to portray (Rom.6:3,4).
The very word baptism in the Greek is translated immerse. Baptism is only a transliteration of the word "baptidzo." The actual meaning of the word is immerse.

In further references to the methods of baptism as known and used in the early Church, I quote a paragraph from a pamphlet published by the Rev. Matthew Poetzl, O.F.M.: "There are many representations of baptism left on monuments of various kinds, but not one of them indicates immersion. In mosaics of early churches, in ordinary pictures, on domestic objects such as dishes, immersion is never depicted. It is never sculptured or engraved on marble. Invariably the person being baptized is represented as standing, with his feet only in water, while water is poured on his head with the hand or a vase. Is it not strange, I ask, is it not wholly incomprehensible, if immersion were regarded as the only valid form in early Christianity, that all the early representations of baptism indicate the method of infusion?"[/QB][/QUOTE]

And how many hundreds of years after the death of Christ was this written? It is only indicative of early error that crept into the church. I have already shown to you from the Bible what is the teaching on Baptism.
DHK

 

Like I have said numerous times.... merely your interpretation of Scripture.

Every other sola scripturist that shows up on this board with very different beliefs than yours makes the very same claim.

Your claims don't carry much weight if they are contrary to historical Christianity.

 

You are going to look up Catholic testimonies to verify your claim that the Waldensies were "baptistic" in their beliefs?

You are right, it will take some time... a very very very long time, because it doesn't exist.

 

The problem with your position is twofold.

First, you only have your Bible because of the tradition of the Church. Without that tradition you would not know what writings are or are not inspired.

Second, Scripture does not support sola scriptura. The verses which you claim for support are a long way from that.

Now as to your false witness against me, I do believe Scripture to be the Word of God. What I do not believe is your interpretation of it.

 

More proof that one must believe like DHK to enter into Heaven. If you don't believe like DHK, "Your beliefs do not stand on the Word of God." This is what happens when you [DHK] leave the Church; you make yourself your own pope.

Congratulations,

Grant

 

I am not referring to you not believing the Bible. I take you at your word, when you say you do. But you also believe the many traditions and unbiblical doctrines that Catholic Church holds to, such as purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, indulgences, etc. These are unbiblical. This is what you can't back up with Scripture. In saying this, I am not bearing false witness.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]Again, this still comes down to a matter of your interpretation.

I believe that Scripture tells us that Jesus gave authority to the Church; authority to definitively define doctrine.

I also believe that Scripture tells us that God's revelation is also transmitted to us through not only Scripture but also through tradition.

I do not believe that sola scriptura is Biblical. In fact, I believe it to be in direct opposition to Scripture.

So, it comes down to a matter of interpretation.

I believe that my understanding is in line with historical Christianity. Yours is not. Yours is a relatively new invention of men. You may say that you are not a Protestant, but you are certainly a product of the Reformation.

Ron

 

Greetings DHK:

Not to get you lads off topic, but I have to interject here. Purgatory is pretty clear in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. The Catholic Church has no unbiblical doctrines. They can be found both biblically and historically.

Keep on climbing brother...Although I disagree with you greatly on some theology issues, I do respect your zeal for standing up for what you believe(even if its in error)

 

DHK:

This was a belief held by Christianity well before 1950. As most of the reformers held this belief also, it was not an issue until coming under attack as many new denominations grew. Much the same way the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially made formal until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Of course all of Christianity believed in the Trinity, but when it came under attack, the Church officially declared it as dogma so there would be no misunderstanding about it.

Regarding the Assumption of Mary, I do believe it can be supported biblically and that, of course, will take us to Revelation 12. But I guess we will have to start a new thread as this is getting away from the topic here.

[ December 03, 2002, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Logan ]

 

Logan, I know this is off topic but I can't let this go. (moderators please forgive me).
You said that Mary was the woman in Rev. 12, right?

RCC belief is that Mary was without sin when she gave birth to Jesus right? Actually, maybe the position is that she was made sinless, without original Sin, before the conceiving of Jesus. Either way, and its probably the second, she had NO SIN when she gave birth, according to the RCC. Read now the first two verses of Rev. 12

Rev.12
[1] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
[2] And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

What do we see here? A woman having pain in child birth. Pain in child birth is only for those woman "under the curse", which we know from Genesis. ( I don't think I need to post the verse). Mary, according to the RCC is without original sin and would therefore not be subject to the "curse".

Logan, you can't have it both ways. She cannot be the woman in Rev. 12 or is not sinless. Which belief are you going to throw out the window here??

Take care and God bless,
Brian

 

I'm still waiting for one of my sola scriptura friends to prove sola scripture from Scripture.

Did it take almost two millenia for the fundamentalists to dream up this "Left Behind" doctrine?

Glass houses, DHK.

Ron

 

Brian, Mary as the woman of Rev. 12 is not a teaching of the Church, so I don't need to thow it out since it was never actually "in".

Ron

[ December 03, 2002, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]