Posted on 05/09/2011 10:59:18 AM PDT by Bokababe
.....The guidelines I used in interpreting Scripture seemed simple enough: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. I believed that those who were truly faithful and honest in following this principle would achieve Christian unity.
To my surprise, this “common sense” approach led not to increased Christian clarity and unity, but rather to a spiritual free-for-all!
Those who most strongly adhered to believing “only the Bible” tended to become the, most factious, divisive, and combative of Christians-perhaps unintentionally. In fact, it seemed to me that the more one held to the Bible as the only source of spiritual authority, the more factious and sectarian one became. We would even argue heatedly over verses on love! Within my circle of Bible-believing friends, I witnessed a mini-explosion of sects and schismatic movements, each claiming to be “true to the Bible” and each in bitter conflict with the others. Serious conflict arose over every issue imaginable: charismatic gifts, interpretation of prophecy, the proper way to worship, communion, Church government, discipleship, discipline in the Church, morality, accountability, evangelism, social action, the relationship of faith and works, the role of women, and ecumenism. The list is endless. In fact any issue at all could-and often did-cause Christians to part ways.....
(Excerpt) Read more at journeytoorthodoxy.com ...
tell me where you see the words “symbolized” or something to that effect in either chapter. this is a clear example of you, in your mind, not taking the clear meaning of scripture, but rather believing doctrines taught no where in the scripture. you keep naming forgiveness of sins before the cross, name anyone who had their sins forgiven after the cross without baptism.
let’s look for the “symbol” in either verse:
acts 2:38 “and peter said to them “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”
clearly no symbol there, let’s see what Acts 22 say:
Acts 22:16 “and now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name”
again, no symbol.
maybe your Bible contains the word symbolic in these passages, if so, please tell me what version you use!!
Acts 16:31 Paul and silas say to the jailor, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved..." They were baptized after, but here it is belief which is spoken of as saving them.
Paul often talks of belief as sufficient for righteousness. I will give you one example. "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." Obviously Abraham was not baptized.
I'ts not a pie-in-the-sky "lone ranger" interpretation to believe that baptism doesn't CAUSE regeneration but is an outward proof. It is believed by many based on Scripture.
Gutenberg was a Papist and the Bible was the Vulgate.
Why in the world would a Catholic call an Orthodox Christian a heretic? (mind you, there is one sedevacanist who posts here who also calls the Holy Father a heretic...but that individual doesn't count)
should have put this in a Caucus....
Good point, sometimes the knee-jerk reaction is “aarghs&$^&$! Caflix!”
Whoa -- so it's not sola scriptura for you? You need some "handbook" to interpret scripture for you?
Ah, so it is NOT sola scriptura for you? you "consult other's opinions"? -- Including Church Fathers?
Oh, that's gotta burn sas!
-- All part of orthodoxy, not of some invisible group that resurfaced as Lamanites.
The Gutenberg Bible was a Catholic Latin Vulgate
The Bible published by Gutenburg included the Deuterocanonical works (what some call incorrectly the Apocrypha) of Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach
you can see the digital images of this here: http://prodigi.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/search.asp
Just a hunch, as most RCC I’ve seen on FR have a problem with anyone who doesn’t submit to Rome. That being said, while there are some areas I am still hesitant about, I find myself much more in agreement with the Orthodox viewpoint than most other Protestant denominations. I’m still not sure where that will lead, but so far I have little to disagree with them about.
Granted, particularly as far as most Protestant /Evangelical /Fundamentalist/ Charismatic groups are concerned. The disagreement between the EO / OO and the Chair of Peter are of a totally different genus than that from our non-Catholic / non-Orthodox brethren.
That being said, while there are some areas I am still hesitant about, I find myself much more in agreement with the Orthodox viewpoint than most other Protestant denominations.
Good. The EO, in particular, espouse orthodox theology that is in line with the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Although the doctrines might be expressed in a different way, the vast majority are fundamentally in agreement with the Latin Church (as an example, they may use the term "toll houses" while we use the term "purgatory", but the concept is still the same).
I’m still not sure where that will lead, but so far I have little to disagree with them about.
The angels in heaven will celebrate.
You surely did not intend to classify Orthodox as Protestant. Did you?
No, I understand that the Protestant denominations came from the Protestant Reformation and split off of the Roman Catholic Church while the Orthodox Church is directly descended from the original Church. It was a linguistic slip on my part, nothing more.
As I’ve said before, while I identify most closely with the old style Fundamentalist/Evangelical Churches, it’s because I find in them a desire to obey and worship God as fully and as closely to His word as possible. That obedience to God, above all else, is what I’m seeking, both in a Church as well as in myself. The Holy Spirit has guided me this far and if I find that the Orthodox Church is where the Spirit leads me next, I’ll follow Him there. He was sent to be a Comforter and Guide to the Body of Christ and that’s what I’m trying to allow Him to do. The areas that are still strange to me or that I have a hard time accepting aren’t, so far, deal breakers so we’ll see what develops from here.
Oh, now you’ve bloody well gone and done it! LOL.
I’ll take “He Doesn’t Know the Difference” for $1000, Alex.
Jesus in Mark 2:5 told the paralytic his sins were forgiven when he saw faith. There was no mention of baptism. Same for the thief on the cross
************************************************************
So if you take that view, do you believe that Jesus did not have to die for them? There is no mention of Jesus Death.
Read Romans 6, Baptism is in the likeness of Jesus’ death and Resurrection, The two cases you gave Jesus had not died and arose yet, they only knew the baptism of John then.
I think Church 1st - Acts people were added to the Church, also many of the scriptures were written to Churches so they had to exist before.
But it was not written 300 year later, these letter were written long before the council in 300’s AD. There were arguments before that referenced the 4 gospels, others listed the writings to the churches, even in some of the epistles they were aware of the other writings.
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.