|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/24/2008 2:56:15 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1784
Status: offline
|
quote:
My hypothesis is that the role of Church is reserved to be that authority - to guard and defend the faith from heresy and error, and to assure its conveyance to the faithful - both now, and in the future.
Firstly, let's clarify the term "Church". Scripture is quite clear that the Church is the Body of Christ -- every individual who is joined to Christ through the New Birth and through the baptism "by" the Holy Spirit. Therefore to equate "Church" with the RCC and its claims to supremacy is unacceptable.
Secondly, Christ is "the Head" of the Church (His body). The Head delegated some authority to the apostles, and the apostles delegated some authority to the pastor/elder/bishops. However, that authority can never replace the supreme authority of Christ and His written Word. "Thus saith the LORD" is still the final word. And that is why Peter was corrected by Paul when he failed to adhere to Gospel truth.
Thirdly, you will never find the apostle Peter assuming or acting as though he were the supreme apostle or had some special position apart from the other apostles. Indeed Peter simply considered himself a "fellow elder" with all the others he was writing to. To create a "tradition" that Peter somehow usurped the place of Christ is to contradict the plain truth of Scripture.
Fourthly, if indeed the RCC considers itself to be "the authority" delegated the responsibility of guarding and defending the faith from heresy and error, how is it that this same RCC is the leading proponent of heresy and error within Christendom? Every doctrine and dogma of the RCC is rife with error and plainly contradicits Scripture. Amazingly, the fox took charge of the chicken coop!
Therefore we are back to the authority of Christ as the Head, the Holy Spirit as the Divine Teacher, and the infallible Word of God as our sole foundation and source of Divine truth.
You seem to disregard the leading, guiding, and teaching of the Holy Spirit, but it is as real today as it was when the apostles walked this earth. Every local church and every local body of elders is to be scrutinized by Scripture, whence the command "Prove ALL things. Hold fast to that which is good".
The RCC (the church of Rome) and its bibles have been carefully scrutinized and found to be severely defective. Hence the Reformation and the Reformation Bibles. But the Council of Trent simply entrenched all the errors of the RCC in response to the Reformation. Therefore the RCC can never claim to be the"Church" which guarded and defended the faith. In fact, the true Church must guard itself against the seduction of Rome, since many evangelicals are being seduced by Catholic false doctrine and the idea that "Tradition" is of equal authority with Scripture.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/24/2008 4:58:54 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Every doctrine and dogma of the RCC is rife with error and plainly contradicits Scripture. This is patently false! RCC doctrine teaches that God is a triune God, consisting of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost; that Jesus is the Son of God sent to die for the sins of the world; and that in accepting Jesus and serving Him, believers are granted life eternal. These are all Scripturally sound essentials of the Christian faith. I certainly agree that numerous other RCC teachings are riddled with unbiblical errors, however.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/24/2008 9:44:16 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
2Preacher
I believe that we both agree in tradition and Scripture working together. I think I put a more emphasis on tradition and you put more on scripture and yet we both know that you cant have one without the other. Catholics believe that scripture and tradition are of equal importance.
As far as made up traditions, the bible never states faith alone for salvation: it states by faith, faith and love , and faith and works. ( I know that there is a discussion on this, that is why i am keeping it relative to topic) Faith Alone is a tradition that was added after 1500 years of Christianity, so this is a tradition that was added. Scripture alone, is also never in scripture, yes it is profitable for good works, and it never says it is the only necessary for good works. So scripture alone is another tradition added over time.
We also both know that protestant beliefs have changed over time. In the begining of the reformation, Luther believed all of the current Catholic teachings on Mary. Now very few protestants accept this. the way protestants worship and split in branches everytime they dont agree with something is also something Luther wrote about and was against in his later years.
You claim that we have added tradtions, and you yourself must admit that you have added tradtions that have not always been taught. And some of your traditions are not explicitly stated in scripture.
When Jesus tells you and I to settle our disputes as christains where does he tell us to go? He doesnt tell us to go to the bible, he tells us to go to the Church. And why does he tell us to go to the church and not the bible? Why does he tell us the pillar truth is the chruch and not scripture? I believe God knew what he was doing as he guided the writers of the bible. Our authors of the NT could have easily said, the only you must do is follow the bible as your soul rule of faith, and yet they didnt, why? They could have said you are saved by faith alone and nothing else, and yet they didnt, why? The could have not said, follow traditions because it is a command from Jesus, but they did why?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 2:54:08 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3897
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2Preacher
I fully agree with your post but I do have one small "bone to pick". The word of God is essential in knowing and doing his will. It is essential in knowing God himself. It is essential for KNOWING THE WAY OF SALVATION. It is essential for ALL doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. Yes, that's what I was saying. Too often, in the attempt to prove the Bible less than what it is, some will posit that it merely uses the word "profitable". When we see how that word is used in Scripture, we see that it encompasses the meaning of "essential" - a very strong word, indeed.
quote:
quote:
We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word of the New Testament. It is not just the NT which is INSPIRED. The writings of the OT are as well. The OT has just as much authority as the NT. That goes without saying. Because logo79 was appealing to "tradition" and actually going so far into error as to call it inspired, I pointed out that aside from the NT there is not one authoritative or inspired word of Christ or the Apostles. Therefore, it was futile to appeal to it - "tradition".
quote:
Thank you for your post. I sincerely hope that the statement I questioned was an oversight on your part and that you do not deny the inspiration of the OT. Rest assured I do not deny the inspiration of the OT. I believe the Bible in its entirety to be inerrant and the only rule of faith God gave to us - the rest?....the invention of man. So, it appears there was simply a miscommunication.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 3:31:08 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3897
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Kelman:
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
We are commanded in the name of Jesus to withdraw from those who do not follow traditions. How much more inspiration do you need, then a command from God himself.
Nope, that's not what it says. You're simply repeating RC hype.
Paul is talking about excommunicating a disorderly brother. How is he disorderly?...by bringing in heresies. We see this in chapter 2; and, in 3:2 he calls the same "wicked men".
We find Paul writing similarly(excommunication) in 1Cor 5. So the content of the "tradition" spoken about here is actually what Paul had preached to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians; and, of course, it later became the written word. All of which bears not the slightest resemblance to what passes for "tradition" in RC.
To settle disputes or to teach doctrine Christ always appealed to Scripture - "it is written". When disputing the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, He proclaimed, "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition..." (Mark 7:13).
Scripture, therefore, determines whether tradition is acceptable.....and RC "tradition" does not meet the criteria of Scripture.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 3:38:08 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3897
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Kelman:
1 Tim 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
So the church is the pillar of truth, and we should learn from it while he is gone? interesting he didnt leave scripture as foundation of truth. Last time i checked Jesus is truth, as is the holy spirit and now he leaves truth to the church, and not scripture.
Without the written Word of God, the church is a useless conglomeration of people. Whatever authority the church has is derived from the written Word of God. The Gospel that was preached and later recorded is what produced the church. Scripture derives none of its authority from the church, it is inherently authoritative and truthful because it is the very words of God: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Tim. 3:16).
Jesus Christ is the authority for both the church and the believer. However, Christ the Living Word has delegated His authority to His Apostles, who through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit recorded the written word (John 14:26; 2 Pet. 1:21).
Therefore, Scripture has become our authority because as the infallible record of God's self-revelation it perpetuates Christ's personal authority. Scripture is objectively the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16), and as such is authoritative.
Only insofar as a church upholds the ultimate authority of Scripture can it be called "the pillar of truth". And, frankly because of the introduction of so many antiscriptural doctrines, RC long ago lost the privilege to be called the "pillar of truth".
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 8:24:13 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Thank you for your post. I sincerely hope that the statement I questioned was an oversight on your part and that you do not deny the inspiration of the OT.
Rest assured I do not deny the inspiration of the OT. I believe the Bible in its entirety to be inerrant and the only rule of faith God gave to us - the rest?....the invention of man. So, it appears there was simply a miscommunication.
I didn't think so. Just checking. I greatly enjoy your posts and am reminded of many things through them.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 8:27:41 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Post #407 is addressed to Kelman. Sorry it did not have his name on it.
I am still getting use to posting and sometimes things don't happen the way I intend them to happen.
Kelman's statement is the second one in the quotation. The first is mine.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 10:02:55 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
Matthew 15:3, "And why you do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" So why do the Catholics break God's Commandment in Ex. 20:4 for the sake of their tradition? They have actually omitted this commandment from the Ten Commandments for the sake of their tradition to keep carving statues of people, kissing and bowing down to them. So why do you do that? 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 11:07:57 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
I certainly agree that numerous other RCC teachings are riddled with unbiblical errors, however.
And I liked the rest of your post so much! I'm sorry, Mary, but it's really not about what we like or dislike. Sound doctrine must be based on the authoritative, inerrant Word of God and there are numerous examples where the RCC's doctrine fails that test. The real issue is whether those specific teachings should be considered essentials of the Christian faith (RCC position) or personal interpretations/denominational traditions (Protestant position). That appears to be the crucial point where we disagree.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 11:32:43 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
quote:
I certainly agree that numerous other RCC teachings are riddled with unbiblical errors, however.
And I liked the rest of your post so much! I'm sorry, Mary, but it's really not about what we like or dislike. Sound doctrine must be based on the authoritative, inerrant Word of God and there are numerous examples where the RCC's doctrine fails that test. The real issue is whether those specific teachings should be considered essentials of the Christian faith (RCC position) or personal interpretations/denominational traditions (Protestant position). That appears to be the crucial point where we disagree.
Omitting one of the Ten Commandments has to do with doctrine and disobedience. Paul also tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:4-15 that if anyone preaches a different gospel than the one they preached, that they are false apostle, "deceitful workmen masquerading as angels of light."
And preaching that Mary was sinless and a virgin all her life, and omitting one of the Commandments is definitely a different gospel than Paul, Jesus, and the apostles preached!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 11:48:19 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believe that we both agree in tradition and Scripture working together. I think I put a more emphasis on tradition and you put more on scripture and yet we both know that you cant have one without the other. Catholics believe that scripture and tradition are of equal importance.
Loco79: My friend, I would only agree with your statement above in situations where "tradition" and Scripture AGREE 100% on what is being taught. In any other area, there would be total disagreement. TRADITION, whether RCC or P, MUST AGREE with the SCRIPTURES to even be considered as accurate. Wherever tradition, RCC or P, disagrees with the SCRIPTURES, the Scriptures will always be in the trump position. God's Word is ALWAYS the FINAL AUTHORITY. As I have posted before, IF GOD SAID IT, THAT SETTLES IT. No one, no organization, no religion, has the right or authority to question what God has said.
quote:
protestant beliefs have changed over time.
This is so. I agree, but, just in case you don't remember or have not read it in one of my posts, I do not consider myself or the Baptist faith to be protestant. This does not mean that Baptist beliefs do not vary or have not changed over time. If they hadn't changed, there would not be "Heinz 57 kinds of Baptists" as some folks say.
I am "first of all a Christian and second a Baptist by conviction." By this I mean that I am a Christian because I have been "born again" and am a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. I am a Baptist, because I believe that Baptist doctrine is closest to Biblical doctrine. If this situation ever changes, I will cease to be Baptist. I will never cease, however, to be a Christian.
"Christian" speaks of my relationship to Jesus Christ. "Baptist" speaks of my religious persuasion as it lines up with Scripture.
quote:
You claim that we have added tradtions, and you yourself must admit that you have added tradtions that have not always been taught. And some of your traditions are not explicitly stated in scripture.
I "claim" nothing. There are many things which the RCC teaches which the Scriptures do not i.e. purgatory, prayers for the dead, prayers to the saints and Mary, Mary as co-redemptrix with Jesus and as co-mediatrix, Confession of sin to a priest, the infallibility of the Pope, etc.
All of these things are taught by tradition with a few "proof texts" from the Catholic Scriptures thrown in for good measure. All you have to do is look at the other threads on this forum to see them.
You are correct, and in all fairness, I must admit that there are "traditions" which are taught in Baptist churches which are not found in Scripture i.e. order of services, formal as opposed to informal worship, church building design (whether one has a steeple or not), choir robes, vestments for the minister, baptism in running water as opposed to a baptismal tank, foot washing as an ordinance of the church, placing the pictures of church members who have died around the walls of the sanctuary, using hymnals during congregational singing, etc. You can't and I can't find any of these in the Bible. So, I suppose we are on equal footing here. You have your traditions and I have mine. (my particular Baptist church does not practice "footwashing" as an ordinance or the placing of pictures of our departed members in the sanctuary (no one I know of prays to these pictures). These are practices of a different sect of Baptists)
The difference is RC's claim that their tradition is inspired. Baptist do not although some of our tradition is based on Scripture texts. RC's claim that tradition is essential. Baptists do not. It is simply the way in which we worship. We can worship with or without the use of hymnals, order of services, choir robes, etc. The RC tradition dictates doctrinal interpretation of the Scriptures. Baptist tradition does not. Tradition influences our belief and practice, but only the Scriptures dictate doctrine.
quote:
When Jesus tells you and I to settle our disputes as christains where does he tell us to go? He doesnt tell us to go to the bible, he tells us to go to the Church. And why does he tell us to go to the church and not the bible?
Correct. This is true, but the final authority is always what does the Bible say on any issue. Even the church decides issues based on the SCRIPTURES. Where does the RCC go? They go to tradition, the magisterium, the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishop, etc. ANY THING AND EVERY THING BUT THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
I am sorry if I have been blunt, but I have experienced no less from your side of this discussion. We could go around and around about this all day and get absolutely no where with each other. It is futile.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 12:04:15 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And preaching that Mary was sinless and a virgin all her life, and omitting one of the Commandments is definitely a different gospel than Paul, Jesus, and the apostles preached! Sorry, Carico, but these are not essential doctrines of the Christian faith. If you had stuck with 2 Cor 11, then you would have a real argument. Paul blasted the Judaizers who were heretically changing the true Gospel to works-based salvation. Some might compare this to the RCC doctrines of penance and absolution which could easily represent teaching salvation by works. That would be more relevant to preaching a false gospel than fussing over Mary's virginity!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 3:01:03 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 566
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Omitting one of the Ten Commandments has to do with doctrine and disobedience. Paul also tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:4-15 that if anyone preaches a different gospel than the one they preached, that they are false apostle, "deceitful workmen masquerading as angels of light."
What commandment did the Catholic Church omit? As I pointed out in another thread, we group together the commandments differently, but the commandments are based on Scripture and Exodus 20:4-5 is virtually the same in the NAB and the NIV.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 5:02:57 PM
|
|
|
Catholicandloveit
Posts: 318
Joined: 1/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I'm sorry, Mary, but it's really not about what we like or dislike.
Your right its not.
_____________________________
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 7:22:50 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Am I Correct? There have been many additions to "the tradition" since the days of the apostles and they are still adding things to it. I believe you are incorrect.
Faith continues to be revealed to the faithful by God - in my case, through Church. Thus, I know the discernment of the Church regarding cloning and stem cell research and the proper use of the Internet, because my Church has taken a view on these things, given its discernment (and I take it with the authority that it has for me).
The Church has not "added to" but simply "kept up" with what has been required to deal with changes in government and leadership, changes in society and changes in technology. Protestant faiths have done this as well, but since belief is not codified in something like a catechism, the challenge of addition and change cannot be leveled in the same way.
Since it tends to be much more "every man for himself" in regards to discerning the will of God in modern-day issues and challenges for Christians, a measure of this change is rendered invalid. This same argument can be used to demonstrate the lack of authority of the Church as it is seen and practiced in non-Catholic faiths.
I agree with some of the above material that asserts that this lack of recognition of the authority of the living entity that is the collection of a body of like-minded believers kbown as "Church" is anti-Scriptural.
Steering this back to the Bible - the Bible is the witness of and testament to the ministry of Jesus. As it does not contain any specific instruction regarding stem cell research, we must seek the discernment of those so gifted among us to provide that rendering, under the authority of Church to whom God is revealing this truth and instruction, which is the pillar of Truth as stated a number of times in Scriptures.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 7:41:54 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Doghouse, my friend:
Nice to hear from you again. I was wondering where you went. You never answered my last few PM's. I'm curious as to why? PM me with your answer if you like.
As for this last post #417, Hey what do you know!! Finally we find a point of at least halfway agreement on something. Sometimes I wish that we Baptists were a little more like you RC's with regard to taking a stand on issues such as Abortion, stem-cell research, etc. Many preachers I know seem frigthened to speak to them. Some go over board with it. There really isn't a "codified" response to many of those things which is sad in a way because the members of our churches often do not know where the church stands on those things.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 10:09:03 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
2Preacher:
I am going to try and get back on the topic of the diffences in our bibles.
To me the real issue at hand is: whether the two councils in 393 and 397, had complete authority to close the books that would be in the bible?
To me either you accept what was decreed and passed on down as inspired or you dont. In our previous discussion i addressed the fact that there is no table of contents for the complete word of God (pertaining to the written part anyway). Since the decision by those men is protected by the holy spirit, then either the books they named are part of the bible or they arent. And since the deuterocanonical books were added with the guidance of the holy spirit, then how does Luther garner the authority to remove books from the bible, which the scripture clearly teaches against.
From 397 anytime a christian addressed scripture it contained the deuterocanonical books, and they were cosidered holy. So my second question is (it s a two part question): do you personally believe these councils to be guided by the truth of the holy spirit? And when does guidance of the holy spirit begin and end? For example some have said the men were guided when they added the books of the NT but not when they added the deuterocanonical.
For me, I believe the process as a whole was led by the holy spirit, and when they made their final decision on what books consists of the new christian bible, the end result is guarded by the truth of the spirit. And since this was the official closing of scripture, Luther nor anyone else has the authority to take away what God has put together. For if these men of the councils didnt have complete authority to close scripture, then how can any one possess the authority to atest to what is the scripture of God.
I know that we have been going around in cirlces as to what tradition and all that good jazz, and in the end, it is these councils from which you have learned what scripture is. And if Luther or anyone has the power to take one book away from God, then wouldnt they have the power to take away any book they want at any time to fit their personal needs. This is why Luther originally took out the book of James, because he believed that what these men had done was not holy. And once we go down that road, the foundations of christianity begin to crumble. If i can pick and choose what events i deem holy or not, then i can pick and choose whatever i want to believe. And this is why i think we have so many quote un quote christian interpretations and bibles.
Jesus tells us that we (christians) will be one, just as he and the father are one, and if we look just at scripture we can see this is certainly not true, and then that carries over to our worship, which again we are not one, and our theology is not one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 10:13:57 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Faith continues to be revealed to the faithful by God - in my case, through Church. Thus, I know the discernment of the Church regarding cloning and stem cell research and the proper use of the Internet, because my Church has taken a view on these things, given its discernment (and I take it with the authority that it has for me). These issues are not essential to salvation, are they Doghouse? Why call them "faith"?
quote:
Sometimes I wish that we Baptists were a little more like you RC's with regard to taking a stand on issues such as Abortion, stem-cell research, etc. Many preachers I know seem frigthened to speak to them. Some go over board with it. There really isn't a "codified" response to many of those things which is sad in a way because the members of our churches often do not know where the church stands on those things. Sounds like you need a Wesleyan/Holiness denomination to learn from, 2preacher! Our Manual has an extensive list of current moral and social issues and the Bible's stand on them as understood in our tradition. One does not have to be Catholic to understand the importance of tradition in matters of godly behavior.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/25/2008 11:35:32 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Drmark:
quote:
Sounds like you need a Wesleyan/Holiness denomination to learn from, 2preacher! Our Manual has an extensive list of current moral and social issues and the Bible's stand on them as understood in our tradition. One does not have to be Catholic to understand the importance of tradition in matters of godly behavior.
I didn't mean that the way it sounded. I only meant that some ministers I know avoid issues when preaching. They do that because of two things. Number one because it tends to polarize the congregation. Secondly, because those "issues" are not , as you told Doghouse, "essential to salvation." The main concern in preaching is to preach the Gospel not issues.
We Baptists do take stands on issues. We just do it through different venues than most. There are many different Baptist news papers and magazines. We also take on issues at associational and fellowship meetings for the different church groups. You may have heard of the new paper called the "Sword of the Lord" published in Murfreesboro, TN.
This is off topic so I will leave it there. Do with it as you please.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 12:31:23 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Loco79:
You don't have to convince me that God has preserved his Word. As you have noted, I feel very strongly about the Scriptures and will not back down on my belief, because you believe about your church's teaching on the subject, so I believe concerning mine - We are right. The problem is we tend to "butt heads" a lot because we feel and believe so strongly.
From an earlier post of mine, please remember:
quote:
Norman Giesler and William E. Nix, in their book, "A General Introduction to the Bible" state that "canonicity is determined or established authoritatively by God; it is merely discovered by men." (pg. 221)
"Canonicity is determined or established by God" not men. The Scriptures are the Word of God. His fingerprints are all over them in prophecy and its fulfillment etc. The Bible does not "become the Word of God" to me. It IS the Word of God for me. The authority of the Scriptures is not subjective. It is an objective fact that is to be accepted and believed by faith.
David said in the Psalms "Forever,O Lord, thy word is settled in Heaven." (Psalm 119:89) God's word was in his mind long before it was written down by men. It is "settled" i.e. firm. It does not change.
The written word is the earthly confirmation of the "settled" word, given by Inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God to the writers and written under his supervision. Every word of the Scriptures is written down just as God wanted it to be written. (II Timothy 3:16-17)
I also believe that God has preserved his word so that the bible which I hold in my hand is as much the Word of God as were the original manuscripts in every way. Jesus Christ taught this in Matthew 5:18. None of God's word will fail or pass away till all of it is fulfilled.
The second have of my quoted statement above deals with man's part in canonization. "Canonization is merely discovered by men." This "discovery" process is man's part in canonization. It was, as you said and I believe, guided and overseen by the Holy Spirit who granted wisdom and discernment to those who performed the work. I agree with this and no one I know who is a true minister would disagree with you here.
It is also true that we are indebted to the CC for this. It was the Church Fathers and members of the Councils whom God chose to use in this process and in the preservation of his word.
I will have to write more later. It is very late where I am (12:30 am.) I have to get up in the morning. Much to do.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 10:37:17 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I didn't mean that the way it sounded. I only meant that some ministers I know avoid issues when preaching. They do that because of two things. Number one because it tends to polarize the congregation. Secondly, because those "issues" are not , as you told Doghouse, "essential to salvation." The main concern in preaching is to preach the Gospel not issues. If a congregation is "polarized" over abortion and same-sex marriage, that church has a whole lot deeper spiritual problem than a wimpy minister! The main concern in my opinion is to preach Christlike behavior to the Believers attending church. We Believers need to go out and share the Gospel with the lost who are not coming to church!
quote:
We Baptists do take stands on issues. We just do it through different venues than most. Indeed, I enjoy Dr Richard Land's talk show as much as any I hear on Christian radio. He leaves little doubt as to the Baptist stand on moral issues!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 12:34:56 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11506
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: online
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Topic, please. Thanks!
Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 4:25:36 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Turretinfan:
Tradition is also "given by inspiration of God",
No. Scripture only says that about Scripture.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
so then it should have equal authority by your standards
a) In fact, no one can document "unwritten" apostolic traditions (for obvious reasons); and
b) Councils and popes are not inspired (in fact, they don't normally even claim to be).
So, no. If we were in the time of the prophets, when public revelation was being given, we would follow true prophets, but that time has ended.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
