The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 159

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

[malakhi]

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

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

Thread 151

Thread 152

Thread 153

Thread 154

Thread 155

Thread 156

Thread 157

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 158

[SoothingDave]

For instance, do you agree with Havoc that Jesus isn't God?

I don't think that he did, but he will have to clear that up for you. As for me, "JESUS IS GOD".

I asked for a clarification, a simple declaration like you have just made, and was given no response. Glad to see you on board with us believers in Jesus' divinity.

SD

[malakhi]

Rush doesn't profess to be a Christian

Rush DOES profess to be a Christian. He does not, however, see the purpose of his radio show as an evangelical tool or a forum for theological discussion.

[malakhi]

Re: your #118: very perceptive, REGGIE.

[OLD REGGIE]

You just figured this out? What do you think we've been talking about for the last 158 threads? Since we discount "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Alone) you must have guessed that we didn't consider Scripture alone ("by itself") as authoritative.

===========================================================

Dave, you have shown the openness to accept a definition of "Sola Scripture" which is not limited to Scripture Alone, but which asserts Scripture First.

You have now reverted to the narrow, and incorrect, definition of Sola Scriptura. (The "straw man" theory). Why????

Why can't you accept the interpretation of the concept of Sola Scriptura as defined by St. Augustine and many of the early Church Fathers? Is it possibly because it would show "Scripture" to not only be authoritative but to be the primary authority"?

[SoothingDave]

Dave, you have shown the openness to accept a definition of "Sola Scripture" which is not limited to Scripture Alone, but which asserts Scripture First. You have now reverted to the narrow, and incorrect, definition of Sola Scriptura. (The "straw man" theory). Why????

I have shown an openness to the idea of Sola Scriptura meaning that other sources can be used to develop the Christian's thoughts. I also explained that if Scripture is your "primary" authority, on a plane all by itself, that it is essentially "alone." It is this that I mean -- other sources can affect the mind, but Scripture holds the status as ultimate judge of any other source. It is the sole source used to judge the others. It is alone as the primary authority. Scripture. Alone.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Forgive me if I misunderstand the context in which you make this statement. (I confess, I have not read all the pertinent posts). It seems to me, and Mirriam-Webster, that "Diversity" and "Ecumenical" are mutually exclusive terms. It wouldn't be surprising that those who espouse "diversity" would be skeptical of "Ecumenism".

Hey, I thought we had a rule from way back about not using the dictionary! (I know I always get crap when I do it.)

Anyway, you do make a point. Allow me to re-phrase my complaint.

When the "diversity" of thought among the Protestant sects is brought up by Catholics (usually to make a point about the chaos of individual interpretation), Protestants usually rally 'round the idea of the diversity in thought and worship being insignificant, or in "non-essential" areas.

When the idea of ecumenically trying to address and smooth out these very same "insignificant" and "non-essential" items of Protestant theology, all of a sudden the very same people become convinced of the absolute rightness of every facet of their personal belief.

I found it ironic, excuse me if my previous pithy statement didn't explain adequately.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Don't flatter yourself. You attack Catholicism, but when it comes to non-Catholic false teachings or historical errors, you take an "any enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. This is why non-Catholics can deny that obedience is neccessary for salvation, claim that the Son and the Father are two separate gods, deny that a suffering Messiah is prophecied in scripture, or post a lot of anti-historical spam to the effect that Peter never resided in Rome, all without a peep out of you, or maybe even with your agreement. Your interest is in attacking Catholicism, not standing up for the truth.

Go back and read post#11 thread 158. I'm a fundamentalist and don't agree with most prostestant faiths as I believe most of them are a works based as well as the catholics are. But they are a lot closer to the truth than you are and can learn unlike the catholic church members that have to recieve their truth at the hands of their leaders.

These threads started as a debate on baptist & catholics and if you can't take the heat.......

Oh yeah not spam just facts, Peter was not in Rome.

BigMack

[OLD REGGIE]

we need to pray for him. (Rush, that is).

Maybe we could (most of us) choose a particular time for one huge prayer.

[SoothingDave]

I'm a fundamentalist and don't agree with most prostestant faiths as I believe most of them are a works based as well as the catholics are. But they are a lot closer to the truth than you are and can learn unlike the catholic church members that have to recieve their truth at the hands of their leaders.

The point allend was making is that you never point out any of the flaws in the thinking of other Christians, only Catholics. One would think that a professed "Bible" Christian who claims that Jesus is a second God would warrant a mention from some non-Catholic, any non-Catholic. Ditto for a fellow Christian who isn't sure if Jesus is God or not.

You yourself just said that at least Protestants can learn. Why not take this opportunity to teach them?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

You are being silly. There are other reasons why Paul would not have said "Peter is with me." (1) Peter may have already been martyred. (2) Peter may have been imprisoned, but at a different location. (3) Peter may have still been on the lam, in which Paul's mentioning him as being in Rome would caused the Romans to initiate a man hunt in the city.
-----------------------------------------------------------

And I suppose that also explains why Paul never mentions Peter in ANY of his letters to, or from, Rome.

[OLD REGGIE]

I have shown an openness to the idea of Sola Scriptura meaning that other sources can be used to develop the Christian's thoughts. I also explained that if Scripture is your "primary" authority, on a plane all by itself, that it is essentially "alone." It is this that I mean -- other sources can affect the mind, but Scripture holds the status as ultimate judge of any other source. It is the sole source used to judge the others. It is alone as the primary authority. Scripture. Alone.

-----------------------------------------------------------

All well and good. This is, then, not the "Sola Scriptura" you attacked previously?????

----------------------------------------------------------

You just figured this out? What do you think we've been talking about for the last 158 threads? Since we discount "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Alone) you must have guessed that we didn't consider Scripture alone ("by itself") as authoritative. SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Boy it sure has been dead in here the last couple of days. Did I miss them waving a white flag or something ? :) Its goina be hard hitting 200 threads at this pace.

They're waving something. I'm sure it aint a white flag. Perhaps its a picture of the "magic sternum".

[OLD REGGIE]

When the idea of ecumenically trying to address and smooth out these very same "insignificant" and "non-essential" items of Protestant theology, all of a sudden the very same people become convinced of the absolute rightness of every facet of their personal belief.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Ah Ha!! You have found the difficulty in putting your arms around just what a "Protestant" is. It is similar to just what "Sola Scriptura" is.

I suppose all that is left for you is to set up the "straw man" and attack him.

[SoothingDave]

All well and good. This is, then, not the "Sola Scriptura" you attacked previously?????

The one, same, and only Sola Scriptura. I accept that folks (well, some folks) will use philosophy, history, tradition, their God-given minds, etc., to develop their Christian thoughts. However, if they submit these thoughts to examination by the light of Scripture as their "primary" authority, then they are engaging in "Scritpure Alone," or Sola Scriptura.

It doesn't matter where one gets their ideas from, or how many sub-authorities one deigns to submit to. When push comes to shove there is only one authority which is, ahem, authoritative. This authority stands alone, no other claim is given the least bit of creedence if it contradicts the one authority. This authority is solitary. There may be secondary and tertiary sources which are plural; but singular, one, is the final (or primary) authority.

There is thus only one authority. It is single. It stands alone, on its own plane, at the summit of judgeship. It is solitary, the only authority to which final judgment is rendered.

In other words it is Alone. Scripture is this authority. Hence it can safely be said that any Christian who holds Scripture as his "primary" authority holds it as his only authority. Ultimately. What other source of authority are you suggesting they hold as a "co-primary" authority?

SD

[SoothingDave]

They're waving something. I'm sure it aint a white flag. Perhaps its a picture of the "magic sternum".

I'm waving something, all right. ;-)

SD

[SoothingDave]

Ah Ha!! You have found the difficulty in putting your arms around just what a "Protestant" is. It is similar to just what "Sola Scriptura" is. I suppose all that is left for you is to set up the "straw man" and attack him.

Yeah, I guess. You sure aren't helping me to understand anything.

A Protestant is any Christian who recognizes only the authority of the Bible, as interpreted by himself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as binding on the conscience of the believer.

How's that?

SD

[JHavard]

Scripture holds the status as ultimate judge of any other source. It is the sole source used to judge the others. It is alone as the primary authority. Scripture. Alone

Good comment. Would you agree that from the canon Scripture we can go in any direction of thought as long as we can come back to the scripture when finished, and can find no contradictions between it and our new observations.

If you agree, then you see "scripture alone" as I see it.

Were you sledding at Seven Springs, I have skied there and rode their down hill sleds, I'll bet it has really changed in the last 15 years. :-)

[JHavard]

we need to pray for him. (Rush, that is).

Maybe we could (most of us) choose a particular time for one huge prayer.

We had Art Bell on last night as I went to bed, and he is so upset over Rush's condition, that he is calling on a unified time of prayer for him tonight on his program, "Art Bell Coast to Coast AM".

I know he is into some weird programming at times, but he has some great guest on at times also. He is not a Christian or any faith, but he believes in miracles, so he is calling for his listeners to pray for Rush all at the same time tonight.

While I wouldn’t normally go along with something like this, I may make an exception for Rush.