Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protestants and Sola Scriptura
Catholic Net ^ | George Sim Johnston

Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 2,181-2,191 next last
To: AlaninSA

Naw . . . likely chock full of disinformation.

But the best disinformation has shards of truth in it.

I really can’t think of a major motion pic or TV series of sci fi in the last 50 years which wasn’t somehow full of at least significant propaganda toward globalist goals and against Christianity.


421 posted on 05/04/2008 9:12:36 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98

Many of these anti-Catholics have so obviously never been to a Catholic Mass or an Orthodox Liturgy.


422 posted on 05/04/2008 9:37:42 PM PDT by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: ChurtleDawg

But a lot of us have or are married to former RC’s.

And the old canard “they weren’t taught properly” is utter hogwash.


423 posted on 05/04/2008 9:42:47 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

“I know you’ve at least HEARD about them.”

Of course I have and that was addressed in a subsequent post.


424 posted on 05/04/2008 10:04:42 PM PDT by Grunthor (You can't perform a circumcision with a chainsaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: proudtobeanamerican1
I don't claim to be a Bible scholar, but I understand that no content differences exist between the Protestant Old Testament and the Jewish Bible. Of course, there are some differences; for example, the Jewish Bible combines several books (Chronicles and Kings, for example) that the Protestant Bible separates. And the Jewish Bible combines many of the shorter books near the end of the Old Testament into one book and calls it the Minor Prophets.
Roman Catholics add several books to the Old Testament that both Jews and Protestants consider apocryphal, eg the Book of Maccabees.
As Protestants believe in “sola scriptura” it is essential that the Old Testament mirror the Jewish Bible, as the Bible came from the Jews and is the record of God's revelation to the people of Israel.
425 posted on 05/04/2008 10:19:20 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Your answer supports my assertion. Since no definitive canon exists, Christians are free to select those books that they feel express the tenets of mere Christianity. I've read parts of some of the books in the RC edition that are not included in the Protestant Bible, and I'm not impressed. I don't see that these books add much of anything to the story of God's revelation to humankind.
426 posted on 05/04/2008 10:30:13 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Church history, going back to the church before Christ - Israel - is shaped by the continual cycle of man's sin and God's chastisement. What Protestants rejected was not history and tradition, but rather cumulative corruption that is found not in the church, but in human nature. The Catholic

What Protestants (this Protestant anyway) share in common with Catholic and Orthodox brethren is a veneration for the ecumenical creeds, formulated at a time of relative spiritual vigor in the church, a faith in the divine wisdom imbued to the men at the Council of Carthage as a means by which God would preserve His word, and in those ordinances explicitly commended in the NT and by Christ Himself. What we reject is any notion that our Lord's kingdom is of this world, or that He is to be worshipped on "this mountain or that." His kingdom is not of this world, not built with brick or stone but through His Word and Spirit.

As to the sufficiency of Scripture, the Bible as a whole, written over centuries by a phalanx of authors, testifies to its own sufficiency in its completeness and excellency through its wisdom, prophecy, and fulfillment, which could in no wise have come from the mind of man, but from God. It needs no external support nor the approval of man.

427 posted on 05/04/2008 10:32:26 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

And you believe that by reading these books, your relationship with Jews will become more intimate?
Do you believe that the New Testament in general and the Gospels in particular lack an insight into the life, character, and person of Jesus that can be gained by a study of these books?


428 posted on 05/04/2008 10:34:54 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Well, you are casting your net just a little too widely...

I would content that anyone who's beliefs are compatible with the creeds (Apostles and Nicene) is Christian. That's the entire reason we have the creeds.

This requires believe in the Trinity, and outs the Mormons among others. Liking has nothing to do with it, I have plenty of Mormons who I get along with really well. Of course, the same could be said for my Hindu and Islamic friends; but it doesn't mean we have compatible religions.

-paridel
429 posted on 05/05/2008 1:21:06 AM PDT by Paridel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Paridel

May I ask then about Christians who don’t rely on creeds but upon the Scriptures themselves. Are they only Christians who know the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed? What about those who believe in the Triune Godhead solely upon the authority of the Scriptures and not upon the creeds written by councils; those who believe in the fundamentals of New Testmanet Christianity as per the Scriptures. Those who don’t have any creeds published in their church literature; but the believers carry their Bibles to meet togather and worship — what about them? Are they on the outside?


430 posted on 05/05/2008 1:36:12 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland
You noticed the expression in the article,

“. . . some other party not mentioned in the Bible . . .”

This was written by someone using circular reasoning to infer that the Roman Catholic Church is mentioned in the Bible.

There are certain Baptists who believe that they are able to trace an unbroken line of succession all the way back to John the BAPTIST. They will say, “See, we can find ‘Baptist’ in the Bible.” And there are actually some of these churches which have constructed (concocted) elaborate histories of “Baptist” peoples and churches all the way back to Christ, they say. These are wrong, of course. They use that circular reasoning.

And Rome uses circular reasoning to find itself in the New Testament. The Church of Christ (Campbellite and the Disciples of Christ denomination) basically does the same thing. In fact, you can earmark many successionist groups, including Rome, by their insistence that Matthew 16:13-19 must always refer to themselves or to their system. The “church” which Jesus would build must always be their church. Circular reasoning.

People interpret the New Testament in this way: “We exist, and we do it this way, so us and our way must be what the New Testament is really talking about.” Circular reasoning.

As much as I disagree with the Baptists who declare that the Bride of Christ is exclusively a Baptist Bride, I do recognize a distinction thusly: No Baptist-Brider I have ever met or read would say that the salvation of the soul or fellowship with Christ is in and through a Baptist church. Even the strictest Baptist-Briders will declare that regeneration and salvation is through deliberate personal faith in the Person and Merits of Jesus Christ alone, and can not be through a church; no, not through any church on earth.

No true believer in Christ and His New Testament has “jettisoned the Church” as suggested by the author of the article. The Church of which all true believers are members has one and only one Head, and that Head, Christ, is far above all heavens. The Holy Spirit which made us members, did so by a baptism unfelt and unseen (1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 2:11, 12) — “the operation of God,” not of any earthly priest; not even of any earthly minister at all. No member of Christ can jettison Christ's Body, the Church (Ephesians 1:17-23; 4:4, 5).

The Roman Catholic Church, along with the Baptist-Briders and others, tend to over emphasize the earthy assembly and earthy ministers to a twisted extreme, denying the oneness of the Body of Christ by the spiritual work of God. And this is what the author is doing — only seeing the earthy visible church with visible leaders and visible structures and sacraments and ordinances performed by sinning men in clerical garb.

ON CHRIST THE SOLID ROCK I STAND, ALL OTHER GROUND IS SINKING SAND is the correct position. And IN CHRIST THE HEAD OF THE TRUE CHURCH I SIT IN HEAVENLY PLACES (Ephesians chapter 3), regardless of the insistences of Rome or the Kentucky Baptists.

431 posted on 05/05/2008 2:08:52 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
I'm not saying you need to know the creeds to be Christian... simply that what you believe should coincide with the creeds. I see no reason why one cannot be completely unaware of their existence and yet be a valid Christian (however, I think this would raise considerable questions about the quality of such an individual's history teacher).

Someone who believes as you describe solely on the authority of the New Testament should have no issue with the creeds. There is nothing new in the creeds; they were written to essentially to serve in the function I described, as a litmus test to separate heretic from believers by men far more knowledgeable (are more adept at dealing with heresy) than myself.

However, if one rejects the trinity (as the Mormons do)...

thanks,
-paridel
432 posted on 05/05/2008 2:10:14 AM PDT by Paridel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
As to the sufficiency of Scripture, the Bible as a whole, written over centuries by a phalanx of authors, testifies to its own sufficiency in its completeness and excellency through its wisdom, prophecy, and fulfillment, which could in no wise have come from the mind of man, but from God. It needs no external support nor the approval of man.

That's just silly. The Bible nowhere testifies to its own sufficiency, nor completeness. It doesn't even list its own contents.

433 posted on 05/05/2008 2:20:29 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Paridel
However, if one rejects the trinity (as the Mormons do)...

++++++++++++++

I gota reply.

As I see it (this is my view, formed before becoming a “Mormon”) a creed is where a group of men got together and compromised on what should be gospel and what shouldn't be part of the gospel.

I see the cannon of the Bible also as a compromise among men.

434 posted on 05/05/2008 2:25:49 AM PDT by fproy2222 ( Jesus is the Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: fproy2222

“I see the cannon of the Bible also as a compromise among men.”


The issue always comes down to this: FINAL AUTHORITY. Who has it? Or in what document is it invested.

Concerning the Scriptures and the canon of Scriptures, it is my observation that we always leave God out of it. God Himeslf promised to preserve His Words, and I believe that He is pro-active in doing so. No matter who might claim to have come up with the canon or order of the books, or what books were included or excluded, I believe ultimately it was God Himself Who superintented and brought to every generation His preserved Words.

God did NOT merely give His Words to the human Apostolic authors and then go off and leave them to the devices of men and to the human wisdom of church or other councils. He has Personally and deliberately superintended the preservation of His words, SOMETIMES PERHAPS TO SPITE THE LACK OF REAL WISDOM OF COUNCILS.

If God had given His words by inspiration (2 Timothy ch. 3), and then just sat back and (in affect) said, “Okay, now lets just see what men will do with them; will they handle them properly?” I would in that case agree with you that the canon on Scripture is no more valid than the opinions of mere mortals, or their creeds. But I believe in the case of the Bible, God ultimately pulled the strings, regardless of the intentions of men.

There are more references in the Scriptures to Divine PRESERVATION of the Words of God than there are to Divine INSPIRATION. Both doctrines are found in the Bible, and one is actually useless without the other.

If some human councils sat early in the history of the church, close to the days of the apostles, to decide which books should be in the Bible, I believe God had the power to direct and control the outcome, even if the men in those councils had motives inconsistent with the will of God, the Author, Inspirerer and Preserver. The outcome would astound the hearts of even those men, so that to every generation, God’s Words are preserved, just as He promised.

Don’t leave the Divine Author and Preserver out of the equation.


435 posted on 05/05/2008 2:50:56 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: fproy2222
It is the LDS position that we (that is, non-LDS Christians) are (and have been, since the beginning) in a state of apostasy is it not?

I would think from an LDS perspective as well it would be good to clearly delimitate the differences in belief. I don't understand why, given that the LDS church rejects the trinity, they insist on being called a name (Christian) that has for 2000 years followed such heresies (in their mind) as the trinity.

It almost seems like me wanting to be called a Gnostic... but then of course pointing out that the Gnostics were a bunch of heretical kooks...

Anyway, I hope you don't take offense at this. I know enough to say that I have some clear doctrinal issues with LDS teaching, but I have a great respect for those I personally know in the LDS church. Not to mention John Browning and his contributions to my personal security ;-).

-paridel
436 posted on 05/05/2008 2:57:39 AM PDT by Paridel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

WHERE did you get THAT? (And what were you doing there?)


437 posted on 05/05/2008 3:33:31 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Love it.

I figured it would be very meaningful to some on here.

However, it also wouldn’t surprise me if far too much of that turned out to be true—too true for comfort or laughter.

No doubt some will use this as proof.

438 posted on 05/05/2008 3:52:03 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Do a Google Images search for “conspiracy theory” and you will find all sorts of weird stuff.


439 posted on 05/05/2008 3:55:44 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
To me it's really simple. Read the Bible, the whole thing in context and test everything you hear against that.
I am finishing up a 32 week study of the book of Matthew right now.
The end of Matthew talks about the temple curtain being torn to give us direct access to God. We don't need anyone else to intercede for us.
Every Christian needs to set the man made traditions of their faith aside and fall at the feet of Jesus.
It doesn't matter if you are in a mud hut in the Amazon or in the Crystal Cathedral. Black, white Asian, whatever; it doesn't make any difference.
It doesn't matter if the music in your church is contemporary praise music, hymns from the 1800’s, or native type music from Africa; it is all man made and should have just one purpose.
440 posted on 05/05/2008 4:52:10 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland ("We have to drain the swamp" George Bush, September 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 2,181-2,191 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson