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

[malakhi]

As I pointed out and as I recall angelo agreeing, binding and loosing referred to imposing religious obligations on people or releasing them therefrom by authoritative decision.

Actually, you are both right. 'Binding and loosing' does refer to interpretation of the Law. Now, the Law clearly deals with matters of religious obligation, so interpretation of the Law necessarily entails imposing and releasing people from these obligations.

As far as how this might apply to Christian churches, that is for you guys to hash out.

[JohnnyM]

"Now where's your scriptural support showing that God's grace is limited?"

I have given numerous scriptural passages that say only those who believe in Christ will have eternal life, will be saved. John 3:16. Roman 5:12-21, Luke 16:19-31 and the list goes on. Now show me where it says you can enter heaven without accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

JM

[IMRight]

Lol, but seriously, the first time I ran a search on the subject that the Holy Spirit would manifest it's self as being of one mind, I expected to find dozens, but to my surprise I found none.(^g^)

No, but I wasn't quite refering to being of one mind (although "may they be one, Father. Even as you and I are one" is close). If each man is his own interpreter of Scripture there is no authority - or each man is the authority, to extend to determining the canon of Scripture. If the Protestant response is that God is the authority (true) and he works through the spirit (true) to ensure that we interpret without significant error (hmm - everyone?) then either Protestants would not disagree on matter of salvation or they are wrong about the influence of the HS or some small number of them have the Truth and the rest are deluding themselves and are no better than the Catholics.

[malakhi]

Yes I remember that, but I don't see the connection. Sorry sometimes I rather thick:)

I was just pointing out that when you start saying that some passages of the gospel apply to people today, and some don't, that you then run into a problem with determining which apply and which do not. If Jesus's admonition to the rich man applied only to his personal situation as someone tempted to greed, then perhaps his counsel regarding fasting applied only to his immediate audience as well.

[OLD REGGIE]

Don't jump on me if this is a Catholic v. Protestant thing... but I thought they were still called "the twelve" when one had died and they were replacing him?

I don't see how this could be a Catholic v. Protestant thing. They all agree on the Apostles.

As to still being called "the twelve", I think, note I said think, the "twelve" refer to the original ones. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong.

[JohnnyM]

And I agree that Jesus died for all, but only those who accept Him will receive the gift of eternal life. I have showed you countless Scriptures that say no one has an excuse, and your response to this is human reasoning with NO SCRIPTURAL support. I have showed you countless number of Scriptures to refute what you think is reasonable and fair and just, but we are only justified through Christ Jesus His Son. We are only justified through ACCEPTING Him as our Lord and Savior. The Bible says the message has reached the ends of the earth, yet you have no faith in that. The Bible says that none have an excuse, yet you have no faith in it. Where is the Scripture that supports your case??? I will ask you again. How does someone who has sinned become justified before God without accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and please, please, please, please, please cite Scripture or your argument will be baseless.

JM

[malakhi]

what are we discussing then? You said EVERYONE is under the blood of Christ, whether they accept him or not, and I am refuting that statement. Is there something else we are talking about?

Perhaps I can help clear this up?

< mode theology=Christian > Jesus died for ALL. So in a sense, all are redeemed by his blood.

BUT...

Only those who avail themselves of this redemption are 'saved'. 'Redemption' and 'salvation' are not identical terms. < /mode >

Does this help?

[malakhi]

Don't let anyone tell you that nursing is an effective form of family planning!

Actually, children are the most effective form of family planning. :o(

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I am a member of an independent baptist church. The scriptures tell us that the pastor is our authority. Now if he does or says something I personally don't think is scriptural and a serious error, I can go before the congregation and state my case. I believe they would then vote on what is right, then take approprite action. If I didn't like the way the vote went I could change churches.

I hope that I would be a big enough person to admit I was wrong if it was shown to me that I was, things like that are hard to say till you've been there.

I know I recently had a question about topic that I did not realize at the time was a sore spot between the Sunday School teacher and our preacher. I asked the question to them both together, and well, all h--l broke loose. The Sunday School Teacher left the church and took half the people with him. It was a very crushing experience, but I had to agree with the answer that the preacher gave, he backed it up with scripture. Any way, I believe the pastor is in authority of his church under Christ.

Becky

[IMRight]

I don't see how this could be a Catholic v. Protestant thing. They all agree on the Apostles.

Oh good... I thought you were laying some kind of trap for me (which I guess I'm about to step into).
The argument goes something like this:

If they were called "the twelve" even when there were only eleven, that implies that "apostle" is and office which is passed from person to person (just like the one who held the keys to the house in the OT was an office - starting to see the connection?). If "apostle" IS an office which is passed down, and we already agree that the apostles had authority (Paul spoke of it when choosing not to exercise it), and could speak infallibly (they certainly did when writing scripture)...then where did all the men holding that office go? You want some hints?

I've heard that some translations render that verse "the eleven" to avoid the argument.

After teasing two other posters, I'm going to hit "post" again since this didn't show up.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

OOOOHHHHH...:) I think what Jesus said to the rich man does apply to us today. It showed all of us his sin so we would not be guilty of the same.

Becky

[OLD REGGIE]

Is it just me, or you difficult to deal with?

Were these questions answered to your satisfaction?

I don't think He was ever bad, I could be wrong. Perhaps you can give us a Biblical reference?

I think most catholics forget the human side of life, and she was just as human as you were, I think when he was 12 years old, he told them in more or less words, get a life Mom and Dad, I have my Fathers work to do.

First, I don't think they minded. Second, I really don't think Jesus would say that to His parents. After all, wouldn't that be braking His own rules?

Were these questions answered to your satisfaction? I would appreciate an answer before you go flying off in another direction, change your words, and then accuse me of not paying attention to what you say.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Does this mean that after one or two you think twice about more because of them, or does it mean they sometimes hinder mom and dad from .... well you know:)

Becky

[malakhi]

Are you referring to King Hezekiah?

Not necessarily. The context of the Isaiah 7 does not specifically indicate that it refers to Hezekiah. Presumably "the young woman" in question was someone known to both Isaiah and Ahaz. It could perhaps be one of Isaiah's sons referred to in Chapter 8. The important detail was not the specific identity of the son, but rather the timeframe in which God would save Israel from invasion.

[IMRight]

I hope that I would be a big enough person to admit I was wrong if it was shown to me that I was, things like that are hard to say till you've been there.

And that, my friend, is precisely the key. We are supposed to mold our will to match God's Will. One of our biggest sins if our propensity to alter God's will to match our own (it makes things so much easier on us). If I am the interpreter of Scripture (or I get to pick the pastor that I will give that authority to), that sin is too easy to fall into.

I have recently been called to the mat by SoothingDave regarding Catholic teachings with regard to Mary. I still have some disagreements, but I was clearly wrong on one key point and I don't understand why the Church teaches what it does. The easy thing would be for me to decide that the Church was in error (and possibly mold God's teachings to my own beliefs by doing so) or accept that I am not the author or interpreter of Scripture. It's hard (I'm an egotistical son-of-a-gun), but I know what the right answer is.

[SoothingDave]

All right, both of you. Just say:

Jesus Christ - sufficient for all, efficacious for some

and be done with it.

SD

[Havoc]

Actually, you are both right. 'Binding and loosing' does refer to interpretation of the Law. Now, the Law clearly deals with matters of religious obligation, so interpretation of the Law necessarily entails imposing and releasing people from these obligations.

The point I was seeking to make in the exchange is that Binding and loosing in the original sense would have allowed creation of new law *only* insofar as it was meant to clarify existing law. Is that not correct; because as of this date, that is my understanding of the matter. Which I don't mind researching further - not like there are no jewish rabbis in this town to ask LOL.

[malakhi]

Does this mean that after one or two you think twice about more because of them, or does it mean they sometimes hinder mom and dad from .... well you know:)

Both, Becky, both. Not a whole lotta time for romance when you have two little ones. ;o)