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

[nobdysfool]

Martin Luther and other opponents of the Church found it necessary to propose (sufficiency of scripture) after he had rejected what Catholics and the Eastern Churches believe: in the infallibility and impeccability of the Church.

Are you seriously going to tell me that the RCC was infallible and impeccable in the Inquistion? In turning a blind eye to the Jews during the Holocaust? During the Crusades? During the reign of apostate popes? Really?

Keep in mind that Pope JPII issued an apology and asked for forgiveness for some of those things. If you ask for forgiveness, you admit that you did wrong (sinned). On that basis, the Church cannot be said to be infallible and impeccable. The RCC is a man-made institution, and therefore fallible. That being the case, your faith in her is misplaced, and of no value as far as your eternal soul and eternal fate are concerned. You are in serious denial if you can't see the inconsistency of your position.

[hopefulpilgrim]

Jesus is the very personification of the Word.

AMEN!

Doctrine "x" is not in the Bible.
The Pope (who is infallible) says he believes Doctrine "x" is Christian.
Therefore, Doctrine "x" is Christian.

Yeah, Robby put that quite well, didn't he? Maybe he'll become a "biblical Christian" after all!
-- Hopefulpilgrim

[OLD REGGIE]

He doesn't say that the word is only what is in writing. If he meant that, then he would have written a book

He caused that book to be written. You are in the position where you must defend the "Tradition" and "Magisterium" argument. There is no other way to account for the extra-scriptural doctrines.

Romans 16:

17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.
19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil;
20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
21 Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosip'ater, my kinsmen.
22 I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord.
23 Ga'ius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Eras'tus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.
24
25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages
26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
27 to the only wise God be glory for evermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
------------------------------------------------------------

Is now disclosed and is made known to all nations. It says nothing about future disclosures of doctrine.

[RobbyS]

The Church's claim is that all Tradition is based on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Scripture is tradition in its most concrete form.

[hopefulpilgrim]

OH? Exactly what did God leave out that catholics say are necessary? You gonna' answer this or not, Robby?

[nobdysfool]

It says nothing about future disclosures of doctrine

And even if there were future disclosures of doctrine, if it is not consistent with what is already revealed, then it is not from God, period.

[nobdysfool]

The Church's claim is that all Tradition is based on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Scripture is tradition in its most concrete form.

Nice move, trying to equate Scripture and Tradition....won't work, though. They are not the same, and the Church's claim is a way to weasel out of the inconsistencies that are so obvious to so many. Scripture came before Tradition, and where there is inconsistency, Tradition is what must change. Scripture cannot be changed, else you have no solid basis for faith.

[nobdysfool]

Maybe he'll become a "biblical Christian" after all!

One can always hope....at least now he can't say he didn't know....

[hopefulpilgrim]

Sounds a bit like transubstantiation in reverse: Jesus changed himself into paper/parchment.

" God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, Whom He appointed heir of all things, through Whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb. 1:1-3

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

-- Hopefulpilgrim

[hopefulpilgrim]

Yeah, Robby put that quite well, didn't he? Maybe he'll become a "biblical Christian" after all!

Sorry; quote attributed to wrong person. Also, wrong quote. Ha ha! Not quite batting 1.000 tonight, huh? (As if I ever do...)
-- Hopefulpilgrim

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

He doesn't say that the word is only what is in writing. If he meant that, then he would have written a book.

Heresy—I’ve never heard so much heresy in so small a compass as you are getting in this particular area. You can at one time preach the Bible and then at another time can deny everything that is said in the Bible. But how can you believe one and reject the other?

BigMack

[nobdysfool]

I knew what ya meant...:o)

[hopefulpilgrim]

Wonderful scripture, Reg, good discovery. I need to keep that one in mind. Did you notice this part:

"I appeal to you brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught;"

GEE, do you suppose we could put our finger on the doctrines they had been taught? YES--- they are found in Romans 1-16 !!!!
-- Hopefulpilgrim

[nobdysfool]

You can at one time preach the Bible and then at another time can deny everything that is said in the Bible. But how can you believe one and reject the other?

Robby's beliefs have more twists and turns than a West Virginia back road...but we try anyway....:o)

[hopefulpilgrim]

Nice move, trying to equate Scripture and Tradition....won't work, though. They are not the same, and the Church's claim is a way to weasel out of the inconsistencies that are so obvious to so many. Scripture came before Tradition, and where there is inconsistency, Tradition is what must change. Scripture cannot be changed, else you have no solid basis for faith.

BUMP!

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

If he meant that,

In the begining:

God: don't eat of that tree or you will die.Adam & Eve: Ok,Ok we got it.

Satan: God didn't really mean that, he meant this.......

Adam & Eve: Oh now we see, Eve give me a bite of that.......

And on this doctrine the catholic church is built.

BigMack

[RobbyS]

He caused that book to be written. Caused to be written by his Church. The writers are clear that they belong to a Church. It was a (later)Church that declared which Christian writing were to be regarded as on a par with the Jewish Scriptures. Since The Churchmen who established the canon accepted doctrines that Luther did not find in it, then on can assume that they did not read Scripture in the same way. Certainly they did not think thee doctrines--such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, or her standing as theotokos, or the invocation so Mary and the saints were inconsistent with the Scripture.

[hopefulpilgrim]

WOW--- If the shoe fits...

Satan: "HATH GOD SAID?????"

[nobdysfool]

Certainly they did not think thee doctrines--such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, or her standing as theotokos, or the invocation so Mary and the saints were inconsistent with the Scripture.

Those supposed "doctrines" were not codified until quite some time after the Apostles. If Paul or Peter had heard any of that, they would have popped a blood vessel teaching against it! In the time between the Apostles and the time these so-called "doctrines" were codified, there was more than enough time for errors and heresy to creep in. Your statement doesn't prove anything.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Satan: "HATH GOD SAID?????"

Naw, he meant what RobbyS said.

BigMack