Posted on 11/28/2014 2:33:31 PM PST by NYer
It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.
“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.
“No, I don’t think so.”
A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.
I started crying.
I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.
Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.
But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”
I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.
But let’s rewind back a few years.
I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.
It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”
Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.
So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.
David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.
The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.
During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.
For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.
I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.
I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.
Thank you. It is good to make these distinctions between what different individuals and ecclesial communities mean by “born agin.” It is not helpful, though, to say Catholics are not “born again” -— it only serves as a scandal to other Catholics, who know very well that WE ARE born again, and a provocation to others, I regret to say.
Of course not.
So what??? It's the one that fits the context...
If you were correct, Nicodemus would have to have said, 'How can a man be born from above?'...But he didn't...He said how can a man be born a second time from his mother's womb...
Tertiary??? (which means 3rd in the list of definitions)...No objection to the other 'tertiary' Greek to English translations in the verse??? Or the bible, which there are hundreds if not thousands???
Here's the verse:
Joh 3:3 JesusG2424 answeredG611 andG2532 saidG2036 unto him,G846 Verily,G281 verily,G281 I sayG3004 unto thee,G4671 ExceptG3362 a manG5100 be bornG1080 again,G509 he cannotG1410 G3756 seeG1492 theG3588 kingdomG932 of God.G2316
Let's break it down...
To see the absurdity of your claim, let's write the verse with the 1st definition of each work as you demand...
Jesus to conclude and speak her amen, amen, ask thee if not any bear from above, no be able to see the Royalty a deity...
Perhaps you should have invested in a different school...
"Iesous" ("Jesus," #2424) is only translated as "Jesus" in the AV so it will remain for our purposes.
"Apokrinoma" ("answered," #611) is always translated a "answered."
"Kai" ("and," #2532) is also translated as "also" 515 times, "even" 108 times, "both" 43 times, etc.
"Epo" ("said," #2036) is translated "speak" 57 times, "tell" 41 times, "bid" 5 times, etc.
"Autos" ("him," #846) is also translated "them" 1148 times, "her" 195 times, "it" 152 times, etc.
"Amen" ("verily," #281) is also translated "amen" 51 times.
"Lego" ("I say," #3004) is also translated "speak" 61 times, "call" 48 times, "tell" 33 times, etc.
"Soi" ("thee," #4671) is also translated "thou"14 times, "thy" 4 times, etc.
"Ean me" ("except," #3362) is also translated "if not" 16 times, "but" 3 times, etc.
"Tis" ("a man," #5100) is also translated "certain" 104 times, "some" 73 times, "any" 38 times, "anything" 24 times, etc.
"Gennao" ("born," #1080) is also translated "begat" 49 times, "bear" 2 times, "bring forth" 1, etc.
"Anothen" ("again," #509) is also translated "above" 5 times, "top" 3 times, "from the first" 1 time.
"Dunamai" ("cannot," #1410) is always "cannot" with #5736. "Eido" ("see," #1492) is also translated "know" 282 times, "wist" 6 times, "perceive" 5 times, etc.
"Basileia" ("kingdom," #932) is always "kingdom."
"Theos" ("God," #2316) is also translated as "godly" 3 times.
You have the weakest of weak arguments...So weak as to be non existent...
Thank you -— quick and acurate. That’s a very good verse. It shows how the new Christians continued to honor the Temple as a focus for their religious actrivities, as well.
As you know, James said faith without works is dead. So what “saves” us, a living faith or a dead faith?
I would hate getting rid of my bible too.
I recognize the truth of what yhou say, that they were 24/7/365 Christians who witnessed to Christ with every fiber of their being.
I did not, however, say that they were once-a-week churchgoers. I said that Sunday beame a special day so prayer for them when they gathered. This --- as well as fervent daily devotion and action for Christ -- is attested to in Acts and in the earliest hisrtorical records we have.
Both --- daily lively faith life, and weekly special gtherin on Sunday --- are from the earliest times.
I know that is what you have been taught. I know that is what you believe. But that is un-Biblical. Jesus was accused of profaning the Sabbath but in reality He never did. He defined it. The transferrence of Sabbath to Sunday as Gods day of rest is not in recorded history. It happened in the early centuries as Sun god worshipers were inducted (along with other pagan practices) into churches. The Pharisees were a devout sect as well but they were just as wrong as Christ denounced them.
The Temple is where animal sacrifices were done...The first Christians were Jews...Eventually, as Paul became prominent and pagan Gentiles were being added to the churches, they moved away from the Jewish religious traditions and the Temple...
The councils that met to put the bible together...were they guided by the Holy Spirit or by their own assumed authority? Is the Holy Spirit chopped liver? Did they not mean for the those scriptures to be used for “doctrine and reproof” or did they mean for traditions not supported by those scriptures to take precedence over those scriptures?
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit can’t think for himself? Yeah I know all about the apocryphal books’ controversies...they were controversial back then too! The early councils didn’t find one book they could have included that supports Mary having no original sin? Some early apostle must have said something about that...what nothing written down from Paul or John? Jesus must have said something about his mother being sinless from birth...somewhere? Sola Scriptura is a guard against sentimentalist based traditions posing as hard truth!
I think the attacks against Sola Scriptura come from a place inside many Catholics that is more emotional and sentimental as opposed to reasoned faith. It skews the comfortable narrative Catholics have about themselves in terms of their man made traditions and that Church’s tendency over history to blend in a syncretic fashion with pagan practices to make their “wafer” more palatable spiritually speaking to the various cultures over time.
So much “blending” was done that by the 1500’s I believe God sparked the reformation, and inspired the printing of scriptures in the vernacular so that preaching of the SAVING KNOWLEDGE of Jesus’ Gospel would not be lost from the world.
I asked that same question to God...And his answer was in Ephesians
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
AND
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
I believe that James was written doctrinally to people who missed the Rapture and are stuck in the Tribulation; that works along with faith are required for salvation...
I also believe James was written to Christians of the church age for the spiritual understanding that good works are the result of faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior...
First, and which eliminates the other "How could Scripture possibly answer this question?" polemical queries, SS does not presume to be or need to be operative at all times and in all places, esp. in its full sense, any more than its alternative of sola ecclesia (the church is the sole supreme authority, as possessing the charism of perpetual assured infallibility of office), does. Even White holds, "You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” - http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/06/26/the-council-of-jerusalem-and-enscripturation/
Yet in principle we can see its supremacy and material sufficiency at work as the word of was written. God spoke to certain men to a limited degree and scope before there was anything written, yet as written, the comprehensive Torah became the supreme transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. (Is. 8:20 etc.)
And to which more complimentary writings were added, in conflation with them, and by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power the Lord validated His mission and message, as was the oral preaching of NT. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And which writings and men even common souls could correctly discern as being of God, essentially due to their Heavenly qualities and attestation, without a perpetual infallible magisterium.
And which oral transmission and recognition of the word of God, and its progressive enscripturation Scripture provides for, as the supreme and sufficient (more materially earlier) standard.
In contrary to which is sola ecclesia, in which the historical magisterium is infallible, and essential to assuredly know what men and writings are of God, and the veracity is RC teaching rests upon the premise of assured infallibility of the church, and indefectability of the magisterium.
But which was not the basis under which the NT church began.
God also communicates to men via the light of nature, and can in others ways (as during the offering: most every preacher hopes:), and and even pagans may speak some Divine truth, all is subject to testing by Scripture, which body is uniquely wholly inspired of God, which Rome cannot even claim for her "infallible" decrees.
Who had the authority to decide, in the year 100 A.D., that the book John was writing on the isle of Patmos was divinely inspired? How could Scripture possibly answer this question? Who had the authority to decide in the year 250 A.D., which books constituted Scripture, when the canon of Scripture was still debated?
Though there was no complete canon for most of Rome's history, the magisterium is to affirm both men and writings that have become established as being of God by consensus, as they were before.
But as with the Pharisees, this question presupposes that they magisterium cannot be wrong, the question is who had the authority to decide whether a prophet was or a book was of God and authoritative before Christ? In other words, how could any have authority if they without an infallible mag.?
How could Scripture possibly answer this question?
As a now question that is answered above, for as written it provided for more writings and men being provided and discerned as being of God and authoritative. And for the magisterium affirming such. But as only Scripture as a testable tangible body ( unlike amorphous tradition) is wholly inspired of God and unchangeable, unlike men, then it alone is the supreme sufficient (in formal and material aspects combined) standard.
Thus your other like questions are also answered
Jesus reveals the "transcendent supreme standard for obedience" in Scripture, yet this is ignored by Protestants. ...Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Wrong and a strawman based on a superficial understanding, as SS does not negate ecclesiastical authority, but in fact affirms it (as Westminster does), and in its OT form its binding judgment could mean the death penalty. (Dt. 17:8-13) But not as though such was or is infallible. Lack of assured infallibility does not negate authority as some RCs imagine, as even Rm. 13:1-7 makes clear. Nor does is prevent transmission and preservation of Truth and faith and people of faith.
Your argument also fails to consider the basis upon which the church established itself, which was not upon the premise of assured infallibly of the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and recipients of promises of God's presence, leading and preservation, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) Without which foundation there would be no NT church.
The "keys of the kingdom" referred to in the OT [Isaiah 22:22] represented authority over Israel delegated to the majordomo in the Davidic king's absence.
Where is this infallibly taught as referring to Peter as vicar? Or even in the CCC? Does being read in Mass every 3 years along with May. 16:18,19 make it official teaching?
For while its language and concept of a key and policing authority is used in Mt. 16:18,19 (Paul even uses language of the Philistines) this does not make it a prophecy of Peter's power, and much less necessitate that the real subject will have successors.
For instead, not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT - as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 3622, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually foretells that,
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it. (Isa 22:25)
Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, as it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it certainly did not here.
However, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).
For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6)
And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7)
And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)
Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over from the Father).
as the vice-regent of the Kingdom of David was during the Davidic king's absence.
Rather, if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.
“After this many of His disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. John 6:66”
Matthew 4: 1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
What is the Flesh of Christ, what is the blood of Christ...but that very word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Does not John declare that “in the beginning was the Word, and the word was God and the word was with God”? Does it not say (vs. 14) ...and the word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us?
We take wine and wafer as a remembrance of Christ as commanded... but does not the Bible say...the entrance of thy Words giveth light(Psalm 119:130). A “consecrated” host can molder and “consecrated” wine can evaporate. But the God in Flesh who died and rose again has given us spiritual bread and spiritual drink...which is the very spoken word of God which regenerates us day by day by means of the Spirit.
Galatians 1:7 that is not another, except there be certain who are troubling you, and wishing to pervert the good news of the Christ;
So we need to find out what that "pervert the good news of Christ" means. We go on to verse 10;
Galatians 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant (doulos) of Christ.
There we begin to see what he is talking about. Pleasing and looking for approval of people and being a servant to them instead of Christ alone. Look at the word "servant". The Greek word used there is "doulos". Follow that through and we find the word "dulia". Paul said "dulia" was due Christ and not to any other. We owe "dulia" to Christ alone and not to Mary. Think I"m off on that translation? Thomas Aquinas spoke of it when he said;
"Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the Lordship of God. [Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, A.D. 1270]
Now Catholics have elevated Mary into a position not taught by the apostles. A position where they claim she is to be given that "dulia" rather than Christ as Paul taught calling it "another gospel". The gospel (good news) includes the teaching that we owe servitude (dulia) to Christ and NOT to Mary. Catholic teaching of servitude (dulia) to Mary is preaching "another gospel". Seeking the approval of man (Mary) rather than the approval of God is teaching "another gospel".
We could also go into the Greek word latreia and find that it means service or servitude. Catholics don't give servitude (latreia) to Mary you say?
Order of Friar Servants of Mary [http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dqosm.html]
Servants of Mary (Order of Servites) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09750a.htm]
Consecration to Mary by Catholics from one of their prayers to Mary.
"O Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth, and tender Mother of men, in accordance with Thy ardent wish made known at Fatima, I consecrate to Thy Immaculate Heart myself, my brethren, my country and the whole human race."
Catholics preach another gospel.
Now, please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and servitude (dulia) to her.
See: Matthew 27:50, Galatians 4:9 (which uses both palon and anthon for different words.). A perfectly good word used numerous times in the New Testament that has one meaning and is not a tertiary meaning.
You have been told the truth, I can do no more, it is now up the Holy Spirit.
It most certainly is another gospel.
Emotionally invested in Evangelical faith. Not invested in the faith of Christ. Their entire struggle was with what men would think. What their family would say. What their friends would say. Their struggle had nothing to do with their relationship with Christ.
Will still keep them in our prayers, Is this her first?
“John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
Nicodemus’ own question suggests that he understood the (”from above phrase” translation vs “the born again” translation dispute) question to mean “born again”. It doesn’t mean he understood the sense of birth at first that Christ was trying explain to him. He heard it as “you gotta be born twice’. If Christ had said...”born from above”, I would have trouble believing that Nicodemus would have responded with the words he did unless Nicodemus was that spiritually insouciant.
I see there is an argument over the Greek translations. I do find it interesting that the Catholic English Bible the Douay Reims that many Catholics swoon over translates the phrase as “Born again!”
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.