The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 156

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good, is essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man. - James Madison

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

Thread 151

Thread 152

Thread 153

Thread 154

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 155

[malakhi]

And you have all the Jews in Hollywood!

Nice, China. Wanna talk about Jewish bankers next?

I don't think you can use fairly look to a Kennedy as a example of Catholic teaching.

Duh, I wasn't. I was using him as an example of a bad (dissenting) Catholic.

[the808bass]

I would venture to guess that it had to do with particular doctrinal differences, of small or great significance

I would venture that of those 28000 denominations only a max of 200 have any kind of significant outside study done of them. I would also venture that the doctrinal differences are not what they are using to distinguish, but names. If there's a name, there's another denomination.

A recent book that I looked at (can't even remember the name) listed denominations and one of their qualifications was that the "denomination" must have over 5000 adherents (really small number really). They had about 120 or so listed, including some quasi-Christian groups - Quakers, etc. and some outright cults - Muslim, JW.

[the808bass]

How do you account for Jesus changing Simon bar Jonah's name,was it just whimsical?

It was definitely to help in the establishment of God's church here on earth. Peter was, no doubt, the central figure of the early church, specifically at the day of Pentecost and the following several years.

The fact that Peter's name is changed does not necessarily mean
1) Peter was the first Pope
2) The church that was established was specifically the RCC

and definitely do not mean that
1) Peter's keys make him the "gatekeeper" of the Kingdom or
2) Peter had the ability to forgive sins

We can agree on the fact that Christ changed Peter's name without making a leap to Roman Catholic doctrine

[malakhi]

I am sure you can identify with how Catholics feel about geeks like two of the four you mentioned

Of course. I specifically chose those two because they are dissenters.

They simply are not Catholic

I disagree. They were baptized Catholic. They are presumably members of Catholic parishes, and receive the sacraments. McBrien is a priest, fercryinoutloud. By your own doctrine, the priestly sacrament cannot be revoked. They are dissenting Catholics. Neither has been publicly excommunicated. You can call them "bad Catholics", but you cannot say "they are not Catholic".

The Catholic Church,much like our country has been infiltrated by persons claiming beliefs and values,in accord with the "true believers".

They are not infiltrators. They are home-grown.

And finally, Cardinl Ratzinger and Mother Angelica are both pretty darn orthodox Catholics despite disparate styles.

I agree. Let me repeat my contrast, for clarity:

GOOD CATHOLIC	BAD CATHOLIC
Cardinal Ratzinger	Fr. Richard McBrien
Mother Angelica	Ted Kennedy

Good or bad Catholics, they are all Catholic. MY POINT WAS, THERE ARE GREATER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "ORTHODOX" AND "DISSENTING" CATHOLICS THAN THERE ARE BETWEEN SOME PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS. I'd go further and say that Cardinal Ratzinger has more in common theologically with Billy Graham than he does with Richard McBrien.

[malakhi]

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

Funny that he doesn't mention faith or salvation, but does mention "good works".

[malakhi]

and definitely do not mean that...Peter had the ability to forgive sins

I'm assuming you mean that the name change did not give Peter the ability to forgive sins? Because he and the other apostles were, elsewhere in the gospels, certainly given this authority by Jesus.

[SoothingDave]

It was definitely to help in the establishment of God's church here on earth. Peter was, no doubt, the central figure of the early church, specifically at the day of Pentecost and the following several years.

OK, bass. But that's not an answer. If you buy Havoc's Greek lesson then Our Lord was, in fact, insulting Peter. Rubbing his nose in it. The fact that he was just a tiny insignificant stone, compared to the greatness of Jesus Himself.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Good morning Havoc. The808bass can try to answer this as well, as he has Greek training. You analysis of the Petra/Petros seems thorough. Except for one little thing.

Suppose in an alternative universe, where black is white, and water runs uphill that Jesus actually was changing Simon's name to "Rock" --- "Big Rock" at that. How would one go about naming a man with a feminine word?

Thank you.

SD

[SoothingDave]

The only way you could possibly cite this number is if you count each individual independent (that is, unaffiliated with any larger church body) church as a separate denomination. But this is unreasonable

Is it? I admit I don't know how the number is chosen, but think about it for a moment. With what I have seen here it is entirely conceivable that each "independent non-denominational" Christian church is teaching its own particular version of Christianity. There are enough variables for this to be so. Imagine you move to a new town and are looking for a good "Bible-based" church. So you start going to Pastor Bob's. This seems good until one Sunday he starts talking about free will.

Well, that's out, so we go to Pastor Rick's. Things are good for a months and then, out of the blue Pastor Rick starts totally screwing up his sermon on Revelation. Darn, gotta find a new church.

Then you go to Pastor Bill's. He seems reasonable, then one day he starts talking about when Jesus became God. He thinks Jesus became God at His Baptism. Well that's just wrong.

Pastor Mike's church is very friendly and we asked a lot of questions before we decided to join. And then last week he revealed that the Holy Spirit told him that Jesus was a second God.

Do you see the pattern? Without a written Catechism and strongly influenced by the pastor's own personal interpretation it is entirely conceivable that no two "independent" churches teach the same thing. And the people in the pews are only there as long as the pastor agrees with them.

SD

[malakhi]

angelo: I'm assuming you mean that the name change did not give Peter the ability to forgive sins? Because he and the other apostles were, elsewhere in the gospels, certainly given this authority by Jesus.

allend: Proddies don't believe that.

Protestants (and other and sundry non-Catholics), is this true? If so, how do you interpret

[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:22-23)

[SoothingDave]

That's nice. But the question is "If the Bible (Sola Scriptura) is the ultimate rule of faith, why does the Bible call the Church the foundation and pillar of truth?" You would think the Bible would call itself the pillar and foundation of truth.

Let me break this down and see if I can make sense out of it.

(Translation)
If you receive all your faith from the Bible, why is the Church called the foundation and pillar of truth?

Where do you find that?

In the Bible. Peter I think. I'll find it for ya.

1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

So which is it? Is Jesus the foundation or is it the apostles and prophets? We know Peter can't be "the Rock" cause the Bible calls Jesus "The Rock" elsewhere. So why can "the foundation" be two different things in two different places?

My foundation is in Christ, then his word helps me to better understand what he wants of me and how I should conduct my self, and who he is.

Let me say this, if all the Bibles were destroyed, I would not loose my faith, since I have already established what I believe.

I don't know another way to answer this, but if it's not satisfactory, it's not because I'm avoiding it, it's because I don't understand it.:-)

I think it's because you redefined the question again. It is not about where your faith comes from, it is about the logical conflict in Sola Scriptura. I'll break it down.

Sola Scriptura is the idea that Scripture is the ultimate judge of everything else. It is the "last chance to get it right" appeal to which all Christians should listen. Scripture is what sets the standard of what is good and what is bad. What is true and what is false is determined by our inspired reading of Scripture. God and Scripture decide things together working in our hearts. Scripture is the source of all that is true.

Scripture itself calls the Church the "pillar of truth." This is in direct conflict with the idea of the Bible being the pillar of truth that is Sola Scriptura.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Just a few threads ago I was told that that only referred to forgiving personal sins done to our fellow men. This forgiveness didn't include sins against God, which only God can forgive.

I asked why they were allowed to separate sins into two categories, when Catholics get hell for doing such things.

I also asked why Jesus would bother restating the obvious. If you sin against me and I forgive you, then your sin is forgiven (by me). This has Jesus talking to no apparent purpose than to re-state the bleeding obvious.

There was no response.

SD

[malakhi]

What you fail to note is that Pastor Bob's teaching in one town could be identical to Pastor Frank's teaching in another town. They would be counted as two separate denominations, even though they were teaching exactly the same thing. There are only so many possible permutations.

[JHavard]

sara, I'm glad to see you are reading the Bible with out headquarters interpretation and approval, but there is one problem with making such an issue out of the fact that Jesus surnamed Peter, because then you also have to figure out why he surnamed James and John,"Boanerges"? and of all things it means "son of thunder" Could it mean that Zebedee their father was a loud talker, or he ate a lot of beans? Lol

Mk 3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; V-17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: NOTE< This is a smiley face---> :-)

[SoothingDave]

Bass, I would like to address the flack you have been geting lately about your idea of Sola Scriptura. Not all of it has been fair. You must realize that in no way are you as "hardcore" as some of our other participants. Like you said, not all Protestant are afraid of philosophy. I think many are missing the point you are making, that we can use our minds and other historical sources and other types of thought to create our theology. But that none of the influence from non-Scriptural sources can be allowed to contradict Scripture.

Others will say that no outside influence can be used, but this is delusional, as there are always outside influences in how we think.

In this regard your denying "Scripture only" makes sense. Yes, you can use other ideas.

In the sense in which we Catholics regard the term, there is no difference between you and the others. You still use Scripture as your final (or primary) authority. So while it may not be the "only" authority in your thought, Scripture remains the only final authority. Hence the term Sola Scriptura still seems to fit.

I issued the 10 million dollar challenge on the previous thread. Quote a bit of the oral tradition of the early church (1st century would be nice).

How about "He is risen"? That would seem to be oral tradition in the first century. There certainly wasn't a lot written then and a lot of people couldn't read anyway. but the oral tradition of Jesus rising from the dead sure spread around.

Please deposit the funds in a Swiss account. I'll freepmail you the number. :-)

(Or wold you like to re-define the question?)

SD

[SoothingDave]

What you fail to note is that Pastor Bob's teaching in one town could be identical to Pastor Frank's teaching in another town. They would be counted as two separate denominations, even though they were teaching exactly the same thing. There are only so many possible permutations.

I don't think I did. If there are 100 things about which we can differ, yes-or-no answers only, then there are 1.26E30 variations.

If there are 50, 1.12E15; if there are 25, 33 million.

We have certainly discussed at least 25 things here. I realize that there are issues which group together so not all possibilities will be likely. But then again, consistency and implications of belief are not strong suits of many.

SD

[SoothingDave]

This from a church which contains such opposites as Richard McBrien and Cardinal Ratzinger, Ted Kennedy and Mother Angelica. You should be a little more forthright in acknowledging doctrinal dissent within your own church.

You used the correct word, dissent. While the Church isn't in the habit of kicking folks out, it is at least recognizable when person A conflicts with written official statement B. Such "diversity" in Catholic thought is a scandal. Such "diversity" in Protestant thought is a blessing. (apparently)

SD