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

[Havoc]

What about the Protoevangelium of James(A.D. 120)?

What about it? If it isn't scripture, it's speculative garbage - and that ain't scripture! So what.

First, and most obvious, universal tradition. Second, writings like the one I referenced.

Ah yes, refuse. Not scripture. It's the Catholic Scripture substitute (wannabe). Does it come in a pink packet with blue lettering. The unlearned can't tell the difference between the real thing and the substitute, But, we understand ya'll think the substitute is better for everyone than the real thing.. Oh and tradition and unauthoritative writings are not scripture if you hadn't yet figured that out. Remember part of what you were responding to was "where's the scripture to support any of it"..

Where in the Bible does it say anything not expressly found in Holy Writ is contrary to it?

Wrong question. But I'll answer by way of example. If the law says no speeding, and a new sherriff is elected, Speeding is no less an offense now than under the prior legal standard. So you can write, speak or shout at the top of your lungs that it is legal to speed - even get a following. But, when you all get caught doing it, the Sherrif's gonna hit them rollers (they aint yer friend when they flash ya like that), pull you over and say, "Hey, where's the fire". The real sherrif, the Lord, is gonna show people the fire. If you're breaking his rules, you're in a real hurry to get to that fire. And who's he to stop you from arriving if you don't want him to....

Why do you seek God in a Book? rather than go to him directly?

Ahh, you think you've made a point. Reading the Bible and talking to God are both permissable - rather, required. Talking to dead people is forbidden by the Law of God. So doing so is willful sin. Big difference there sparky. Your question is a mistatement of fact. I seek God in his Word and directly - not preferring the reading anyway.

Did God tell you all there is to know of him is in that Book?

Did he tell you it is ok to commit sin to accomplish your search for Him? Again, your point is moot.

Do you eat pig? Do you believe that we have to be circumcised?

Can you tell the difference between spiritual and physical law?

[Havoc]

Are you bored? Or just itching for a good fight? :)

Just adding perspective. Poor dumb Luther is beat senseless almost on a daily basis and I never much cared for a lot of what he said; but, startin to figure, where the words are comin from should be at least as important as what's said. The Catholics seem to think so - Shoe on the other foot and all that rot.

[ksen]

Just another example of why I say for God to judge us righteously in this life He must give us a real opportunity to hear the word of God explained by a man or men sent to us from God. I believe this because it follows the pattern of past ages. There are none today that fit that bill.

"[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" - Ro 10:13-15

Thanks for your reply. I do agree that someone must be sent to preach God's Word. Where I disagree with you is that I believe God has sent, is sending, and will send out faithful men to preach the Gospel to the world.

-ksen

[ksen]

To me that says that you were never truly saved in the first place but had only deluded yourself into thinking that you were.

I would also have a hard time believing that someone truly saved would rob a bank, but I do not think that it is impossible.

I was out on visitation once with my Pastor. We were talking to a guy in his early 30's. The man asked Pastor, if he were to accept Christ as his Saviour does that mean that he would have give up drinking beer. Pastor told him that he did not have to give it up in order to be saved, but that as he grew as a Christian that the things he used to like to do would lose their appeal to him.

Pastor likened us to those big oil tankers. Once they get moving they cannot turn on a dime. It takes miles and miles of ocean for them to get headed in the opposite direction. Well I was not saved unitl I was 25 years old. So I had 25 years of going in one direction, I did not give up all of my sinful habits the day I accepted Christ. It awhile to give up some of the things, and I am still struggling with a number of issues. My struggles do not make me question my salvation, quite the contrary, they make me even more grateful for what Christ has done for me, because I could not do it on my own, as I am reminded just about every day.

-ksen

[vmatt]

Where I disagree with you is that I believe God has sent, is sending, and will send out faithful men to preach the Gospel to the world.

I once believed that too and preached in churches myself until I realized that God didn't tell me to do what I was doing any more than He did the others that I looked to for teaching. You see, the gospel has already been preached to the world. Anyone can preach the gospel but not anyone who does is sent from God to do so. Hence we have serious differences even here on this small discussion board, hardly any agreement on who has been sent.

Colossians 1

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Romans 10

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

True. But this doesn't negate the fact that God commands us to be baptized as part of the process of salvation.

God commands us to be baptized as a testement of our faith that he has actually, already, saved us.

It's like the first test of our faith, and the first test is easy for us but will increase our faith for the next test.

James 1:34 Knowing this that the trying of your faith, worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

If your faith is not tested, how do you know you really have it. Baptism is the first test of that faith that we claim to have in the blood of Jesus Christ. If we have that faith we are saved, we prove it to God (who really already knows) ourselves, and others (witnessing to others is also part of God's work that he has commanded us to do), by being baptized.

Becky

[al_c]

For the issue of baptism take a look at the robber who accepted Christ on the cross. Christ said He would see the robber in Paradise, yet the robber never got baptized. Baptism is a very important step for any Christian and it should be done as soon as possible, but the gift of eternal life is not determined by whether or not you were baptized.

I think that under these extreme circumstances, a baptism was pretty much impossible. Surely the guards wouldn't take them both down so that Jesus could baptize the man. But Jesus knew what was in the man's heart and looked upon that. So, IMO ... this is not a very good example.

[al_c]

Excuse me it never says "born again of water."

Word for word ... no it doesn't. But the man asked Jesus how a man is to be born again. Jesus then told him by water and spirit. So, in a roundabout way, the born again of water is a valid statement.

[al_c]

ALL: Okay, so I'm roughly 100 posts behind. Bear with me ... I'll catch up.

[JohnnyM]

"No, the Douay-Rheims version does not have anything added. Instead the KJV has conveniently left this out. Just another one of those little prejudices carried over into King James' book, which is one of the reasons I avoid it. But that's a topic for another discussion."

This is also not present in the NIV, NAS, The American Standard, Darby, Revised and New Revised Standard. Seems only the Douey-Rheims has this "addition".

JM

[al_c]

Does the catholic bible actually have things like that added.

Nope. Here's the passage in question from the NAB ...

Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit."

Nothing added there.

[al_c]

ALL: Good morning, everyone! Still talking about the same things over and over, are we?

Wednesday, October 31, 2001

First Reading: Responsorial Psalm: Gospel:

Romans 8:26-30 Psalms 13:4-5, 6 Luke 13:22-30 Love God, serve God: everything is in that.  -- St. Clare of Assisi

And from the usual source ...

Why does Paul address the subject of prayer in the middle of a teaching on the power of the cross? It seems so out of place. Actually, though, this is probably one of the best places to speak of prayer. Why? Because the cross of Christ has everything to do with our prayer life. Just as we have to die with Jesus to our old ways of thinking, the Holy Spirit invites us to die to our old ways of praying. Isn't it amazing that the Holy Spirit--God himself--wants to be our spiritual director?

Often our prayer can be very self-centered, revolving around what we've done wrong or what others have done to us. But the Holy Spirit wants to raise our minds to our heavenly Father so that we can look at him and delight in him, just as he delights in us. He wants our prayer to be life-changing, both for ourselves and others. He wants to send us out to people who need healing, conversion, and hope so that they can receive all God has for them.

Do you know that this great Teacher of prayer is within you? He is the source of every good intention you have already felt welling up in your heart. Try being more attentive to the Spirit. Look for ways that he may be prompting you to pray, to worship, to intercede beyond what you normally do.

When you pray, try quieting your mind to let it rest on a passage from Scripture. Ask the Spirit to enkindle in you a love for God or a knowledge of his love that surpasses what you already know. As you do this, you may find yourself praying in unexpected ways. For example, instead of automatically asking God to remove a difficult situation, you might be given insight into how God is using the situation for his good purpose (Romans 8:28). Wherever he leads, you can be sure that the Holy Spirit has a far bigger and more glorious plan in mind for your prayer than you ever could imagine!

"Holy Spirit, teach me how to pray. Raise up my mind and heart to see your thoughts and concerns. Give me more of your love so that no matter what today brings, my heart is always set on you."

--------------------

Have a safe and happy Halloween, folks!

[JohnnyM]

"Mar 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned. "

And again, by Jesus, to Nicodemus:

oh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly I tell you, unless a person is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Why should we disbelieve the clear words of God himself?"

First, lets preface this by saying that we are not advocating NOT getting baptized. Get baptized as soon as possible. It is an important and vital step in the Christian walk. We are not saying don't get baptized. What we are saying is that you don't need to be baptized to receive the gift of eternal life. Iowegian pointed this out and it needs reinforcing. In the passage in Matthew it says "but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned." It makes no mention of baptism. So what is this passage saying. Clearly, it states that baptism and belief are neccesary for salvation, but only unbelief will condemn you. So what is salvation here. Lets look at the OT for some answers. First up: Noah. Titanites brought up a great verse that said Noah was saved by water. The flood is a symbol of baptism. So what was Noah "saved" from. Clearly, Noah was saved from the world. The baptism brought Noah out of the world. He was baptized by the flood and made dead to world (or the world dead to him, depending on how you look at it). Now lets look at the Israelites when they left Egypt (a symbol of the world). They were still being hounded by the Egyptians after they fled Egypt. They were still under attack from the world so to speak. Only after they crossed the Jordan, and the Egyptians were killed by the waters, were the Israelites truly "saved" from the world. Once again the world (Egypt) died. The Israelites were baptized by the River Jordan and made dead to the world (or the world was made dead to them, depending on how you look at it). So salvation here points to salvation from the world. We are saved from the world. So when we get baptized, it is our old man, who represents the world, being put to death and being born again as a new man free from the world. So salvation is being brought out from the world. It does not equate to eternal life or condemnation. By accepting Christ we are no longer condemned, but have eternal life, but baptism is necessary as a sign that we are dead to the world. That the world no longer has a stake in our life. We are saved from the world so to speak. Now the term salvation has is used wrongly. I have used it wrongly myself. Most people equate salvation with eternal life, but that is not entirely true. We have eternal life through accepting Jesus Christ our Lord (John 3:16), but we are not saved from the powers of this world until we have been baptised. Baptism is necessary to show the world that are Christ's and that we no longer are alive to them. We are dead to the world and alive to Christ. So being saved means being saved from the word. Salvation is salvation from the world. Eternal life and salvation are two different things, but they have been used to mean the same things, which leads to the confusion. I hope this clears things up.

JM

[DouglasKC]

Doug, would you answer a couple of questions, and they are not loaded.

Sure.

On baptism, is the conflict over the order, baptism then repentance, or repentance, then baptism?

I don't know if there's a conflict on this. The bible seems to say that only a truely repentent individual will get baptized. I am assuming that a saved individual will still sin (albeit much less than an unrepentent unsaved sinner) and still needs to repent. I can only go by what I have experienced.

Are you the type personality that likes structure and hard fast rules?

LOL...no, exactly the opposite as a matter of fact. Before I became repentent, I wasn't obedient to anything, much less God. In my work I have always chosen jobs that make me number 1 precisely because I didn't like working under anyone else's rules. I always thought my rules were better. However, this is changing now as I study Gods word.

Are there people in this Church you know, family or friends there?

No. I pretty much walked in cold.

How did you find it in the first place?

That's a long story. Over 15 years ago I had a job where I had a lot of free time. One of the guys I worked with there would bring in copies of "The Plain Truth" and I would read them. A lot of it made sense to me, but I never really did anything about it. Four or five months ago, when my inner turmoil got to be unbearable, I began to seek the Lord in earnest. I remembered the magazine and tried to find it online. I saw that the World Wide Church of God had changed tremendously (no Saturday Sabbath, yada yada), big splits, big trouble. So I did research on the web and finally found the United Church of Gods website. I read and re-read nearly all the literture there. I also read a lot of C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters, etc.) and some (John?) MacArthuer) all the while verifying against what I would read in the Bible. I began to, for the first time, see myself as God must see me...none too good although from the outside you wouldn't think I was a bad guy at all.

Finally, just 3 weeks ago, I called the number for the local minister here and asked him where the church met so that I could attend a service.

That's the short story. I left out a crapload of stuff.

Are you familiar with any of these names, Ron Dart, GTA, Roger Merideth, David Smith, or David Antion?

None. But now you've got me curious so I'm going to do a short web search.

What are the people like?

Very nice. Some were open and friendly. Some a little standoffish...pretty much like any other group of people.

Do they teach 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tithes plus offerings?

I know that tithing is part of their doctrine. Here is the statement from their website:

We believe in tithing as a way of honoring God with our substance and as a means of serving Him in the preaching of the gospel, the care of the Church, attending the festivals and helping the needy.

I had to think long and hard about this because money is (or at least used to be) pretty much the focus of my life. After much soul searching, and as my belief grew in Christ and his message, I decided that 10% was a small price to pay to help spread the gospel. I've been to two services and there hasn't been an offering. They have passed around cards and suggested donations for congregation members who have were ill and in one case for a member who had recently died.

Do they go away every fall for the feast of tabernacles?

Yes, some, but not all seem to. I asked one of the older ones how that worked. He said they kind of just made it their vacation. They have a few locations where the feast is held, usually in resort areas I think, that they can choose to attend. He said they just save for it like any other vacation. Attend a couple of services a day and the rest of the time do pretty much what they want.

I'm just curious, (^g^)

There's all kinds of information at www.ucg.org or www.gnmagazine.org

[dignan3]

What has me befuddled is the fervency with which you Catholics seek Proddie affirmation Mariological doctrines. You claim that it's for the sake of Christology. I remained placidly unconvinced. If someone affirms a completely orthodox Christology, what's the point in ascribing extry names to Mary (which just ends up sounding really pagan, with apologies from this Classics student)? If I say Jesus was God (imperfect "was") and that He was in the "beginning" (arche beginning), why must I then pile on extra additives for the naturally sweet Mary (no saccharine for me, thanks :))? If I say Mary is the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, why do you attempt to force me to the next "logical" step? Next thing you know, we'll do a logical study of transubstantiation and we'll start to hear all those words like "mystery" and "defies logic" being bandied about by the same lips who decried those who defied logic a post earlier. (I hereby nominate my post for muddled syntax of the day. It might top the "bumble" bit of Havoc's. But I'm too tired to correct it. Muddle through it if you dare.)

I think that it is your side of the aisle who is somewhat obsessed with Catholic Marian teaching or need you be reminded of biblewonk and his obsession with DeMonfort?. Some of your less astute brethren rant and rave against what they think is Catholic teaching and end up denying a construct of their own making. If they are going to deny Catholic teaching, I would like them to deny actual Catholic teaching and not their own strawmen.

It's been said before and I'll say it again. Scratch a Protestant long enough regarding Mary and more often than not you'll see them resurrecting various Christological heresies just so they can deny Catholic teaching. That is what saddens me the most, because everything the Catholic Church teaches regarding Mary is intimately tied to who Jesus is. If one denies those Marian teachings, they do set themselves up for a faulty Christology.

Who initiates 95% of discussions on Mary here? It's you guys. All we are doing is defending the Apostolic Faith to the last.

Pray for John Paul II

[al_c]

Hey, East ... looks like the DBack's bullpen did okay. But the Yanks did better ... it was a good game. Too bad the Rocket got the win. :o(

D'Backs in 6.

[D-fendr]

[State an absolute truth which violates logic.]

"How am I doing?
"My wife loves me."

Truly difficult to believe, but women are illogical ergo… this is not.

"My daughter is beautiful."

Stretches the laws of genetics and probability, but…

"People keep cats as pets."

Masochistic. If you're a masochist, cats are the logical choice.

"God is an uncaused cause."

This we could play with if you'd like?…

[DouglasKC]

Some were saying, ye must be circumncises and keep the law. "and keep the law" these were the 10 Commandments, above and beyond the circumcision

I still don't think so. Nearly every time in the new testament, the greek word "entole" is translated as commandment, and when Christ is talking specifically about the 10 commandments (Mat 19:17, Mat 19:18) that is the word used. The word translated "law" is the greek word nomos.

True, perhaps when the Pharisee told them to "keep the law" he was indicating that they also had to keep the 10 commandments, but obviously cirumcision wasn't one of the 10 commandments.

Acts 15:20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. Note, they were told to abstain from Fornication, which is one of the Ten Commandments, now if they were already keeping the Ten Commandments, why would they tell them again including it with these others?

Well, I guess technically you could say that fornication is adultery. The greek word used in Acts 15:20 for fornication is "porneia". When Christ was listing out the commandments in Mat 19:18, the greek word "moicheuo" is used for adultery. It seems that if they meant fornication in sense of the 10 commandment adultery, they would have used the same word to convey it. But they didn't so I don't think they meant it that way.

When the word says the law was written in their hearts, it didn't mean the wordage just as it was in stone, so now they don't have to carry it around because it is in their heart, it means that now with the Holy Spirit, they will live the commandments, not because it tells them to, but because they are now a law unto them selves, Now we don't steal because the law says it's a sin, we don't steal because it is wrong, and hurts others

Well, yeah, it's impossible for words to be written in your heart. But words are the only thing we can use to describe the spiritual things put into our hearts. I like to think of it as consciense (although that's probably inadequate). If you have a conscience, you feel horrible when you violate one of Gods commandments. If you have no conscience about doing an act, then you have outright rejected Gods commandment on it and don't feel bad at all. A man with no conscience can committ the worst crimes possible and feel nothing because he has totally rejected rejected his heart and the commandments written there by God.

[JohnnyM]

Douglas, do you consider the sacrifices outlined in Numbers and Leviticus to be part of the Law???

JM

[eastsider]

Anderson -- Bremly, whose inexperience is beginning to show, should have left him in. The NL style of managing is too manic for me. Bremly's gonna blow the call again tonight by pitching Schilling tonight instead of tomorrow.

Clemens -- Not brilliant pitching, but got the job done. No beanballs.

D'Backs are a good spirited team. Between the Yankees' batting slump and Schilling's early outing, tonight's game will be the decisive game of the Series, IMO.

BTW, great opening pitch by W.