The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

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

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[malakhi]

Hi magglepuss, welcome aboard!

[malakhi]

If Jesus saves, then he better save Himself, from the gory Glory seekers, who use His name in vain.......

OK, I welcomed you, but now I'm wondering if you are here to contribute or to disrupt.

[OLD REGGIE]

"Of course, you forget asking for any reference to the sufficiency of Scripture in the Bible."

Yes, I guess I do forget asking for this. Are you sure it was me?

No, it wasn't you. It seems there were about four of us participating on this question. In my addle-pated manner, I confused your reply with the original question. Sorry for the confusion.
------------------------------------------------------------

"In all seriousness, have you ever read the Bible?"

Yes, I have read and do read the Bible. Why would you ask such a thing?

Once again, it wasn't you I was thinking of. Sorry one more time.
------------------------------------------------------------

In my defense, it was this reply to JHarvard that I was responding to.

Show me where the passage from John says that what is written is all that is needed.

If you think this is true, explain why God didn't rely on only the Gospel of John being written, but instead saw the need to establish a visible, teaching church with bishops, deacons, and

This was your response, once removed, from this posting:

John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
Does this indicate we need anything beyond what is written?

Does this indicate we need only what is written?
------------------------------------------------------------

I think you can see it appeared you twisted my John 20:31 posting to indicate I even implied only the Gospel of John is required.

Whew!

[IMRight]

Steven, looks like you got yourself some competition in the quantity of posts race! Feeling pressure from IMRight? ;o)

Hey, IMRight ... congratulations! Your Redskins are no longer the worst team in the NFL! Boy, am I glad Dallas had a bye week this week.

I guess you can't lose 'em all. I don't think Steven has much to worry about...I run hot & cold with my posting (& I'm way behind some of the regulars).

[malakhi]

But it doesn't really matter because He was God. So whether he had brothers and sisters is irrelevant (except when you're trying to fight Arianism and you're losing). The fact that He was God is hard to believe. Not that He might have brothers and sisters. You Catholics have been so careful to stress Jesus' humanity (and I think rightly so). Why not stress his humanity here? Jesus Christ was human. Crowd: How human was he? Johnny: He was sooo human, He had brothers and sisters.

Excellent point, bass. They can believe that Jesus is God, but have difficulty accepting that he could have brothers and sisters?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

This brings up an interesting thought. It's kind of ironic that when scientists find traces of organisms on another planet, they say that they have discovered that life once existed on that planet and most of the world agrees with them or at least takes them at their word. Yet, when a woman has an "organism" in her womb, there are those that say it's not a life, it's just a blob of cells. Silly, isn't it?

You nailed it Al

[Titanites]

Let me ask you a question. Is the existance of the Bible necessary for salvation?

[IMRight]

Amen.

[malakhi]

if the sinful nature were passed through the human father to the child (as I believe).

Can you explain this belief in a little more detail? How did you arrive

[al_c]

I guess you can't lose 'em all.

Yeah, just when I thought the Cowboys could be perfect at something, they go and beat the Skins ... barely. I guess Snyder just relishes in being worse than Jones. ;o)

[OLD REGGIE]

Who says that Peter was a "pope"? The papacy is a historical. development.

Doesn't the RCC say Peter was the first Pope? I certainly didn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The wandering preacher's successors became also the successors to Caesar in Rome, as pontifix maximus, but that could change in the course of time. John Paul II deliberately put away the imperial trappings and his successors may even move away from the Vatican, for these are non-essentials. The appointment of bishops is likewise a historical devlopment. To keep the Church from becoming a toy of monarchs, like the Russian Church, the pope finally won the right to "rule" the church after a thousand year struggle with Catholic princes, ironically after he lost a thousand year battle to remain a territorial prince. But his relationship with the organizational church will undoubtedly change. although in unforeseeable ways

You had better be careful. Not out of "Catholic Answers".
------------------------------------------------------------

In answer to your question, why didn't Peter--the undoubted leader of the Twelve--appoint James? Well, that wasn't Peter's job.

We're in partial agreement. It wasn't Peter's job.

Whether he was the undoubted leader, whether he was pre-eminent, all are beside the point. He was just another Apostle. No more, no less.

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5:

"Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

and.... the Apostles chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem. That was their job.

[OLD REGGIE]

Excellent point, bass. They can believe that Jesus is God, but have difficulty accepting that he could have brothers and sisters?

I'm not sure that is the reason. They can't accept that Mary "did the dirty deed".

[OLD REGGIE]

Let me ask you a question. Is the existance of the Bible necessary for salvation?

If you are asking for my opinion I'll answer for myself. It wouldn't be necessary if the Lord had willed differently. Do I think there are some souls, who have never seen the Bible, who are saved. Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think "Tradition" is necessary for salvation?
Do you think the "Magisterium" is necessary for salvation?

[malakhi]

When John, Mark, and Paul and the others wrote these books, they had no idea they would one day become as important to the New Testament church as the Old Testament scriptures had once been to those of the old covenant, they were simply writing down what they had witnessed and saw, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. It wasn't until these epistles were collected and canonized that man was able to see that everything Christ had told us we needed to find salvation,.. was in these books, and along with that, how to live that Christian life. That is why the apostles never said, "all religion will be based on these scriptures", because they didn't realize from their small part they played, that combined, it would contain everything we needed.

Interesting, JH. This makes a lot of sense.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

By Jim Elliff

The recent Barna report on evangelical beliefs in mainline churches is almost too excruciating to read. In the report, statistics concerning the 12 largest denominations are tallied. Barna polled 6,038 adults with random telephone interviews nationwide. Tim Ellsworth of the Baptist Press summarized the findings. I have included the pertinent data: The study's findings identify an alarmingly high number of church members whose beliefs fall far short of orthodox Christianity.

For example, 41 percent of all adults surveyed believed in the total accuracy of the Bible. Catholics had the lowest percentage (23 percent) who believed the Bible to be accurate, while 81 percent of those attending Pentecostal churches held to the same belief. Only 40 percent of those surveyed believed Christ was sinless, while 27 percent believed Satan to be real . . . . The numbers were better for Baptists [this included all kinds of Baptists] than for the whole sample, but not by much. Of the Baptists surveyed, 57 percent believed works play a part in salvation, and 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless. Only 34 percent of Baptists thought Satan was a real being, while 51 percent believed Christians have the responsibility to witness to others. Sixty-six percent of Baptists considered the Bible to be totally accurate, 81 percent considered their religious faith to be important and 85 percent believed God is the all-powerful creator of the universe . . . .

The two denominations with the highest number of members who hold to orthodox Christian beliefs were Pentecostals and Assemblies of God. Catholics and Episcopalians had the lowest percentage of members reporting a belief in traditional Christian teachings. Just 20 percent of Episcopalians and 17 percent of Catholics believed Satan was real; 33 percent of Catholics and Episcopalians believed Jesus was sinless; and 26 percent of Episcopalians and 9 percent of Catholics believed works don't earn salvation . . . .

I am not posting this to bash Catholics, or even to say that this is what the catholic doctrine is. Is why I am posting it is to show you that this is how even professing catholics UNDERSTAND what the church teaches. This is what I have been trying to say. That catholics don't even understand what catholics teach. I didn't. I will also say that I think the same holds true in ALL faiths. Most people are going to church without even knowing what that church believes. They think just going to church is enough, no matter what it is. That is why there are so many "protestants" fatih out there. There are just as many catholics who don't agree with the catholic doctrine, but they still go by the catholic name.

But when I tried to tell you that these were the beliefs I walked away with after 12 years in catholic schools, you said that I was just being not bright, or not paying attention, or going to a bad school, or that I just wasn't getting it. If that's the case then there are alot of not bright, or not paying attention, or bad catholic schools out there becasue from this survey there are alot of catholic's out there that don't believe the same why you do.

I can hear it now, BAD SURVEY, right:)

Becky

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

The message that the bible tells is necessary for salvation.

Becky

[malakhi]

To this day, polls indicate that the vast majority of Jews in the U.S. are pro-abortion (some polls have it as high as 80%)...Before I end this, however. I cannot lump "the Jews" in one basket like that. There are certainly large numbers of faithful (largely orthodox) Jews who recognize abortion for what it is - murder.

Let me expand on this by pointing out that only 10% of Jews in the U.S. are Orthodox. This poll would include many Jews who are "JINOs" (Jews In Name Only), i.e. those who are completely secularized. Of course the majority of Conservative and Reform Jews are politically liberal, and I suspect that their stance on abortion has more to do with their political affiliation than with any thoughtful consideration of the Hebrew scriptures. Orthodox Jews are overwhelmingly pro-life.

[OLD REGGIE]

"The Church has always professed her belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The most ancient texts, when referring to the conception of Jesus, call Mary simply "virgin", inferring that they considered this quality a permanent fact with regard to her whole life. . .

"The expression "ever virgin" was taken up by the Second Council of Constantinople (553), which affirms: the Word of God, "incarnate of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever virgin Mary, was born of her" (DS 422). This doctrine is confirmed by two other Ecumenical Councils, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) (DS 801) and the Second Council of Lyons (1274) (DS 852), and by the text of the definition of the dogma of the Assumption (1950) (DS 3903) in which Mary's perpetual virginity is adopted as one of the reasons why she was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory."

(Pope John Paul II, General Audience, August 28, 1996; reported by Catholic Information Network)
------------------------------------------------------------

The most ancient texts, when referring to the conception of Jesus, call Mary simply "virgin", inferring that they considered this quality a permanent fact with regard to her whole life. . .

"Inferring". Really? Very powerful, positive choice of a word isn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------

"The expression "ever virgin" was taken up by the Second Council of Constantinople (553

The date speaks for itself. Isn't it great we have "Magesterium" to fall back on when all else fails.