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

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Breathtakingly anti-intelectual.

There ya go again Dave. Just how intelectual and scholarly might one have to be to attain salvation and beyond to your spiritual heights oh great one? And where do we find this in scripture?

Here's one for ya Dave since you're keeping the "intelectual meter" on these threads. "1 Corinthians 8; 1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Time for a little perspective around here. Pay particular attention to verse 2.

[the808bass]

Is this historically accurate?

I think it's missing the point. Luther was rebelling against a corrupt ecclesiastical authority. I don't think that that is disputable. Rather than change the corruption or fight it, the RCC started humming "la la la - I can't hear you." So, in a very real sense, the Catholic church's corruption at the time of the Reformation is as responsible for the Reformation as Luther was. This will undoubtedly be hotly contested.

[SoothingDave]

"...the bloodshed caused by the decision of the Reformers simply to ignore 1500 years of Church history and to reconstruct Christian doctrine on the basis of the Scripture alone."

Very interesting. I suppose there was no bloodshed, no executions, deaths, murders, of "heretics" in the first 1,500 years? The sole reason for the Reformation was based on "Scripture Alone"? No bloodshed was caused as a result of the "Counter Reformation"? And just where did you learn your history?

Reggie, really. That the Reformation, or more properly, its aftermath, caused widespread warring and bloodshed as prince fought prince for "control" of the Church is well known. Not that there were not wars and blood spilt before, but it does not compare. Unless you believe Catholics killed 70 million Baptists during the middle ages.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Just how intelectual and scholarly might one have to be to attain salvation and beyond to your spiritual heights oh great one?

I think if one wants to engage in apologetics and be taken seriously, he needs to be somewhat intellectually open.

SD

[the808bass]

A little more than 50% support abortion.

I believe it depends on the wording of the question. I think it's about 60-40 for both these questions (which have opposite consequences).

1) Do you believe in the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion?
2) Do you believe in the rights of the unborn child?

But I do think that there's a sense of communal guilt (which we see in the OT) that we, as an individualistic nation have gotten away from. Our actions do affect others. Our sin does affect others. To pretend otherwise is to put our heads in the sand.

[SoothingDave]

Luther was rebelling against a corrupt ecclesiastical authority. I don't think that that is disputable. Rather than change the corruption or fight it, the RCC started humming "la la la - I can't hear you." So, in a very real sense, the Catholic church's corruption at the time of the Reformation is as responsible for the Reformation as Luther was.

Luther was impatient. He wanted individual satisfaction and he wanted it NOW. There was already a true reform movement going on in the Church and it would eventually have taken care of the abuses. But Luther needed to soothe himself immediately. If you want to be honest about Luther, he was obsessed with "knowing" that he was "saved." It was this obsession which drove him, not worries about abuses.

It was theologoical, not ecclesial.

SD

[the808bass]

How so? The Council was held in 325 A.D. and the NT canon was not closed until 397 A.D.

While there was not an official Canon until after 397, the early church did not use just the OT as your statement said. As the Muratorian Fragment, the writings of Ignatius and others clearly show us, there was a well-developed NT canon (though unofficial) which the Church used for doctrine.

[the808bass]

The conceit of the revolutionary is that he has been chosen by God, but as he goes about his work of destruction, it becomes only too evident that he has been chosen by Satan. So that when he dies and comes face to face with Jesus, the Lord says, only "I do not know you.

I'm glad you're not God

[OLD REGGIE]

Protestants are driven to one of two things. Either the "all history is worthless" approach of some of the people on these threads, or like this, saying that the Church jumped off into heresy immediately after the deaths of the Apostles, and stayed that way until modern fundamentalists come along.

Since I assented to youu calling me a "Protestant" I imagine I have a right to respond. This "Protestant" believes in a slightly diffenent scenerio:

The Church began well, slowly drifted into heresy at an ever accellerating rate until, finally, Reformation was necessary. Oh! That and the fact the printing press was available to publicize this heresy.

[SoothingDave]

Also if you take Ex 20:4, and De 4:16 to mean you can't make ANY image of a man or woman, than you have to include photos as well, and tv and film. They are all made by us and they are all images.

Not to mention that the "images" we see here on our computer monitors. I guess if we post a graphic, or even a picture of little Hannah, it could lead Havoc to temptation. He should avoid any such threads.

SD

[malakhi]

Therefore if the Church produces bad fruit, it must be shredded to the foundation and replanted - this is why God judged the world with a flood. It is also why the new covenant was made.

So if the Christians blow it badly enough, will there be a new new covenant?

[the808bass]

Since accurate history is so sorely lacking in most fundmentalists it is a good point.

So first I'm cynical, then you give reason for my cynicism.

preferring to think of them [heresies] only as cudgels Catholics use to beat people with

Vendettas are not always based upon their stated purpose. I would imagine that many theological battles were motivated by things other than theology. Surely you could admit that as well. This does not denigrate the usually fine job (with some exceptions, I gotta be a proddie) that the Catholic church did in protecting doctrine, especially in the Early Church.

Do you not agree that many today hold the same position as heretics of old?

Of course, because human nature is still (gasp!) human. So, whether or not Luther would have come along, there would have been many many splits from the Church, always have been, always will be.

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, really. That the Reformation, or more properly, its aftermath, caused widespread warring and bloodshed as prince fought prince for "control" of the Church is well known. Not that there were not wars and blood spilt before, but it does not compare. Unless you believe Catholics killed 70 million Baptists during the middle ages.
-----------------------------------------------------------

SD, Really. I agree that the Reformation, and its' aftermath, resulted in untold numbers of deaths, with neither party innocent. I imagine you believe the Church completely innocent in the killing during the Crusades. After all, the killing was done by people, not the Church. The same is true of the various Inquisitions. Right?

[the808bass]

Is your understanding of God the same now as it was when you were first saved? Does that mean God or the Truth changed or does it mean you understanding grew?

I was gonna let this one slide, but since you reposted it...

This comparison cannot be made. And that is because Catholics refuse to see the Catholic church as made up of human beings. If it was simply a group of human beings gathered together, then it would be fallible. This is not possible with those ideas of the Magisterium, et. al.

So you cannot compare an individual's understanding and development of doctrine with the Catholic church's understanding and development of doctrine without redefining what you believe the church to be. But that would be a drastic change of your theology.

[malakhi]

Taken to his logical extreme, we really can't even offer explanations on Scripture. In fact, we can't even include the point we're trying to make by citing a particular VERSE in Scripture, because to do that would be to introduce our own 'man made' expositions on what Scripture means, and of course, all we need is the Bible (according to him). So from now on, we should all just float Scripture citations back and forth and try to intuit what the other is trying to say. And actually, we have to float the original autographs in Greek (or Hebrew if we're doing O.T.), because they're the only things that are actually inspired, and not the English translations (which were, of course, done by fallible men, and not guaranteed to be free from error).

[malakhi]

It's not what you say that counts or if you've really said anything - it's how many posts you've had that really counts.

LOL!

(another reply for me! ;o)

[SoothingDave]

This comparison cannot be made. And that is because Catholics refuse to see the Catholic church as made up of human beings. If it was simply a group of human beings gathered together, then it would be fallible. This is not possible with those ideas of the Magisterium, et. al.

So you cannot compare an individual's understanding and development of doctrine with the Catholic church's understanding and development of doctrine without redefining what you believe the church to be. But that would be a drastic change of your theology.

Say what? The Catholic Church is indeed made up of human beings. What are you saying?

Certainly there is a difference between a communal understanding and an individual's understanding. I accept that, and we can discuss it when we get to it. The point for now is to try to get some folks to realize that Truth remains the same, but our understanding of it grows.

Can anyone understand this point? (And just this point for now.)

SD

[pegleg]

While there was not an official Canon until after 397, the early church did not use just the OT as your statement said. As the Muratorian Fragment, the writings of Ignatius and others clearly show us, there was a well-developed NT canon (though unofficial) which the Church used for doctrine.

I see the confusion here. I did not mean to imply the Church had only the OT prior the NT canon being closed. My point was in the year 325 A.D. there was not a published and bound copy of the NT as we have today. Therefore a Christian trying to refute the Arian heresy would have had a hard time reading thru his/her bible to figure this out.

[dignan3]

I think it's missing the point. Luther was rebelling against a corrupt ecclesiastical authority. I don't think that that is disputable. Rather than change the corruption or fight it, the RCC started humming "la la la - I can't hear you." So, in a very real sense, the Catholic church's corruption at the time of the Reformation is as responsible for the Reformation as Luther was. This will undoubtedly be hotly contested

What you say is true, IMO. When Luther hit the scene, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V begged the Pope to call a Council. The Pope, influenced by politics and an inability to understand just what the hoopla was all about, didn't. For that reason, I think that the Church bears a lion's share of the blame. If the Church called the Council of Trent 20-25 years earlier, I don't think events would have snowballed the way they did. History sure would have been quite different if that had happened, that's for sure.

Pray for John Paul II