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

[JHavard]

You know, Jim, I gave out the Sentence of the Day early yesterday and I probably shouldn't have. You get at least a share in the title for this one.

Thank you very much, and so you know I believe in that statement, I will post it again just for you, and with no caveats.

Our differences are not salvation matters, they are personal preference matters, that have everything to do with personality, and nothing to do with salvation.

[JohnnyM]

I get that 2nd question a lot too, and I still reply Christian. That 2nd question is a natural response and its up to us Christians to remove these distinctions. We all want unity. And one way to promote this unity, is to have unity in name. Just like being called an american increases unity and national pride, the same would hold true for Christians. I think we all can agree on this

JM

[SoothingDave]

What matter is it whether they "got along" or not? Can you imagine any Apostle ignoring the "Pope" as if he didn't even exist?

Can you imagine the state of flux involved in starting a new world-wide Church? Many things which the Spirit and Jesus revealed were not fully grasped at the time. The early church was going through an almost unimaginable period of growth. Only when the church was more fully established and settled was protocol likely to become an issue. While being persecuted by Jew and Roman there isn't a lot of time for establishing formailties.

SD

[SoothingDave]

That 2nd question is a natural response and its up to us Christians to remove these distinctions. We all want unity. And one way to promote this unity, is to have unity in name. Just like being called an american increases unity and national pride, the same would hold true for Christians. I think we all can agree on this

Nope, sorry. Unity in name will follow from actual unity in belief. It does no good to attempt to "patch over" serious differences with band aids like clinging to the same "name" and avoiding modifiers.

Denominations happened for a reason and they are not all "personal preference" reasons. There are very real differences in belief among the various denominations. Only when this is recognized can the differences try to be resolved. Pretending differences don't matter and papaering over them with verbal obfuscation just doesn't cut it.

SD

[JohnnyM]

"Here in America people are usually more interested in knowing what type of Christian one is"

That is total bunk. Just like in saying I'm an African-American is telling what kind of an American I am. Please. We are all Christians. It is a matter of unity. By being distinctive you are saying I am a Catholic first and a Christian second, just like saying I am an African first and an American second. I take offense at you accusing me of some sort of elitism (Liberal Playbook?). We are all Christians. Paul put it best in 1 Corinthians when he says "Is Christ divided?".

1 Cor 1:10-15:
"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius; lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name."

JM

[SoothingDave]

Thank you no, that is not how one should read the Bible. You can't break it down, and you can't interpret it your self.

This statement says it all. You are admitting, just as the RCC says, that the Catholic layperson is not qualified to interpret the Bible. Why then do you even bother to read it at all?

Technically, he was admitting that you aren't qualified to read the Bible. Actually no one single person is. Our reading of Scripture has bounds. There are certain faulty ideas or lessons that, if we draw them from our own reading, then we are mistaken.

Wouldn't it be nice to have bounds before someone, oh I don't know, reads his Bible and finds out there are two gods?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Excellent quote from St. John Chrysostom. He’s one of my favorites. Also demonstrates the high regard Catholics have for the scriptures. However, my point was Luther claimed everybody could interpret scripture for themselves and did not need the teaching authority of the Church. In St. John Chrysostom’s day, this was unheard of.

And my point was that the concept of Sola Scriptura was not a novel idea in the early Church. In fact, it was the prevalent idea. The "novel" idea was that the faithful needed the "authoritative" interpretation of Scripture by the Church.

[SoothingDave]

We are all Christians. It is a matter of unity. By being distinctive you are saying I am a Catholic first and a Christian second, just like saying I am an African first and an American second.

By being distinctive I am being honest. I am a Christian first, a Catholic type of Christian to be exact. You are a Christian first, a 20th century American fundamentalist type to be exact. Sorry. It just is.

"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Well, if we look at the emphasis given here I think we can put aside any notions of unity. We are tasked to be of the same mind and same judgment. This is unity. We are not united. And no amount of verbal patches will make it so.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Oh by the way, the Council of Nicaea was convoked by Constantine. It’s primary purpose was to refute Arianism. I also find it interesting we have documentation of the Catholic Church refuting this heresy and no record of a non Catholic Christian Church refuting it. Where were you guys?

I am well aware who called the Council. I am also aware the "Pope" didn't even attend. Who ran the Church at that time and, at what time in history did the "Popes" finally convinced the world they had Primacy and would call their own Councils?

[pegleg]

And my point was that the concept of Sola Scriptura was not a novel idea in the early Church. In fact, it was the prevalent idea.

And you base this statement on what? A St. John Chrysostom homily? If anybody in church history was in communion with Rome and recognized the teaching authority of the Church it was him. This is simply not a true statement even though you would like it to be.

[SoothingDave]

Just curious..what does Matt. 23:9 mean to a Catholic? Seriously.

And here I thought it was something new. Turns out it's our old friend:

8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
10 Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.

What this means, obviously, is that the word "father," the word "teacher," and the word "master" must never cross our lips. No more going to school, we might find "teachers" there. No more learning music or going to the symphony, we might find a maestro there. We must take this passage very literally because it obviously condemns the entire Catholic Church. Right at face value. The stupid Catholics didn't even know this was in the Bibles they were copying.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Re. St. Augustine and "Rocky".

Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...’You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15 - 19).

In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4).

So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.

"Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer

(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

[SoothingDave]

I'm sorry you deserve a straight answer. It's not your fault we have gone over this many times and I find it absurd.

The passage is embedded in a lesson Jesus is giving about the Pharisees and about how they like to be admired and were far from holy or humble men. They like to be called "rabbi" he says, don't do this yourself. Meaning don't be flattered or be impressed with such. Don't go out looking to impress people with your holiness. Don't be hypocrites, but rather be humble followers.

That is what it means. It was never meant to be a blanket prohibition against saying verboten words. Good grief, even Protestants send their kids to Sunday School where they learn from "teachers."

St. Paul refers to himself as the Corinthians "father in faith," and it is exactly this relationship which leads to Catholic priests being called "Father." If we are wrong to use the naughty word, then so was Paul.

SD

[pegleg]

I am well aware who called the Council. I am also aware the "Pope" didn't even attend. Who ran the Church at that time and, at what time in history did the "Popes" finally convinced the world they had Primacy and would call their own Councils?

The Pope was represented at this council and no decisions regarding faith and morals were approved without all the Bishops, in communion with the Pope, in agreement. So the church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. Constantine did not vote on anything during this council. And to summarize what the Church taught in matters of faith and morals all you have to do is read Creed of Nicea. This same creed is still recited today.

Now, what about that Arian heresy? What did you guys do to refute it and where can I read about it?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Freepmail is not a secret function. What do you assume mine to IMRight contained and what could it be that would cause your attention, disapproval or concern? I'm unclear on what it is that you keep referrring to here and why.

Just a joke Dfender. Sheesh.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Hey, Jim, I have anews flash for ya! Catholics don't believe they are countering Scripture. We don't interpret Scripture in the same, often simplistic, way you do.

Ya Jim take Matthew 1;25 for example.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Now, what about that Arian heresy? What did you guys do to refute it and where can I read about it?

So what's the big deal? There was false teaching back then. Things don't change much do they? I, with the help of the Holy Spirit (private interpretation)could have figured it out without the counsel convening. You people are too much. Back then and now.

[SoothingDave]

So what's the big deal? There was false teaching back then. Things don't change much do they? I, with the help of the Holy Spirit (private interpretation)could have figured it out without the counsel convening. You people are too much. Back then and now.

And as long as you and the Holy Spirit are OK, nothing else matters. This is the radical individualim of Protestantism that destroys the concept of Communion of the Saints.

OK, Steven, you and the Holy Spirit have a good thing going. What about the next new Christian who comes along? Maybe he ain't so good at figuring things out and might be susceptible to false teachers.

Wouldn't it be a good thing, a Christian thing, to have prepared for this new Christian information about exactly what teachings are wrong, how to recognize them, and why they are wrong? Maybe even write this information down for use by future Christians?

Nope. Let them and the Holy Spirit figure it out anew.

SD