Words for Roman Catholics to define

If these truths are 'self-evident', then we'd all agree on them. You are also accepting here that not all truth is contained within the canon of Scripture...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

If these truths are 'self-evident', then we'd all agree on them. You are also accepting here that not all truth is contained within the canon of Scripture...

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Here are the two verses that were being discussed.
In 2Thes.2:15, Paul uses the word tradition, which simply means the truth (of Scripture) which he passed down to Timothy either orally or written.
Some of it was obviously inscripturated as we have I and II Timothy. Since Timothy traveled with Paul on his third missionary journey, was with Paul day and night for a long period of time, it is also quite obvious that not every thing that he taught Timothy would be written down. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be Scripturally based. I cannot imagine Paul teaching Timothy anything that was not Biblically based (unless it was the art of sailing or meteorology). He wasn't going to teach him Hinduism. He didn't have the Book of Mormon. he taught him the Scriptures.

Then, according to 2Tim.2:2, he commanded Timothy to teach these same Scriptural truths that had been taught to him, to other faithful men, who in turn would teach other faithful men, etc.
This is the means of discipleship.

Simply because we have everything written down for us in the Bible doesn't mean that everyone will agree on it.
Beale, in his book, "In Search of Purity," defined a fundamentalist in this way: "He is not only one who believes all the Bible, but one who as much as is humanly possible obeys all the Bible."
Many will say they believe the Bible, but sin permits them from obeying the Bible, and they often justify their sin regardless of what the Bible says.
DHK

 

An interesting study:

Look up the Bible accounts every encounter Jesus had with the scribes, pharisees and sanhedrin--the religious leaders contemporary with the First Assembly.

Compare what Jesus said to present day religion.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Er, no, because it would appear they've been banned, thus just leaving us Protestants to argue up our own backsides as usual. So it doesn't looklike you're going to get any meaningful answers on this particular BB

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Having enjoyed membership on this dynamic site I would NOT DREAM of putting forth the definitions as originally requested as how a Roman Catholic sees them. It is extremely boring the vitriolic response that then ensues. Also as a Baptist Board, most folk here are deep dyed in their FAITH as I am in mine.

An interesting aside from a tv program, there are 2 types of religiosity: those who are prepared to KILL for their faith and, those who are prepared to DIE for theirs, a possible poll maybe..

God Bless all for this Advent season preparatory for the Christmas season from a RC who worships the Divinity of Jesus the Christ and the Father and the Paraclete.

 

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the words of men."

Is that a true statement? How does one know?

"They searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were so."(The (living) saints of Berea)

Were they looking in "The Word" or having a conclave of cardinals to facilitate "papal bulls" and other dogmas of the "holy see"???

Paul, the Apostle, told Timothy to "bring the books--especially the parchments(gk./lat: membrana). Why? Jesus had already shown Paul many glorious things. There is something unique about the written Word of God.(jots and tittles)
He said exactly what He meant--and He meant what He said.

The only reliable source of verity is that which has been given and preserved by God. "Sanctify them through thy Truth, thy Word is Truth"--Jesus to The Father, Jn. 17:17.

The Word of God has been handed down through the ages, preserved by God--in spite of the tactics Satan has used to try to corrupt the Divine Revelation.

Satan used the same tactics to beguile Eve: "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Gen. 3:4-5. Sure sounds like "New Age"--which is really nothing new.

The battle still rages for the souls of men. Who is on the Lord's side?

Beware: There are wolves in sheep's clothing, and Satan himself is become an "angel of light".

The enemy is well equipped, disguised and camouflaged. He has the "religious world" very confused--nothing new again.

Where is your sword and armour?

It is time to: FALL IN.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Where would the Jesuits fit into these two types? How about the Albigenses? Waldenses? Anabaptists?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The Albigenses were gnostic heretics; I hope we're not going to have the tired old line that they were really misunderstood proto-Baptists...

Ps104_33, I'm really not sure I can do the Catholics any justice here, since I gave up on that particular church when I was 12 without fully understanding all its teaching. But, I'll have a go: the Scripture to which you referred establishes the PRINCIPLE of Tradition as reposing in the Apostles and their successors in title/ office (the Bishops); it is that which is important to them, rather than what traditions Paul was referring to here.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

A really honest question. Who wrote the history of Albigenses?

 

I would recommend Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's 'Montaillou' on the subject. Yes, I get your point that history is only ever written by the victors, in this case the Catholics. But 'Montaillou' contains testimonies ie: primary source materials from those who called themselves 'cathari' (ie: Albigenses), which confirm that they were gnostic dualists, regarding matter as evil eg: after being admitted to the ranks of the 'perfecti', the cathar would receive the consolamentum (essentially a conversion-initiation 'sacrament') and would then eschew all material sustenance including food and would hence starve to death.

Now, please either come up with a primary source document demonstrating that the Cathari/ Albigenses were Baptist in faith and polity, or enlighten me on which one of the Baptist distinctives I'm recounting in the above paragraph...

Yours in Christ

Matt

Yours in christ

 

Hmm....I really have no idea, that's why I'm asking. Whether Baptist trace their lineage to them or not doesn't really bother me so long as Baptist trace their teachings to the Bible.

 

If a Baptist tries to trace his/ her lineage back to the Cathars, I'd be severely bothered, I can assure you!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The question was regarding:

willingness to kill for one's religion/willingness to die for one's religion.

Regardless of who might have been heretic, the Jesuits(the military arm of the Vatican), ruthlessly slayed those who were willing to die for their religion--those who would not recant--that is an historic fact--even in the Vatican Library.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

This is true Bro. James and so we could get onto a merry go round of finger pointing about people so blinded in their arrogance to kill another human being a being created by the Trinity. It takes my breath away at the presumption of human beings to impose their will rather than allow the WILL of God- this is however straying from the original path..... something I do well
God Bless You