The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[IMRight]

I agree that gnosticism is alive and kicking (in some ways better than it was in the early church), but I don't understand where Baptists come in. I'm not sure how fundamentalism can be crossed with gnosticism (or maybe I'm too many years removed from NT history studies).

[SoothingDave]

I've been to Italy too. Believe me, that's not the answer. There must be another reason.

I've seen the women in Italy, too. There must be another reason.

Did the waiter get pissed when you were too full to go on to the entree?

I just wouldn't finish all of my pasta to save room for the main course. You do get disapproving looks. I learned "peano" which is Italian for "full."

SD

[malakhi]

Hi Bard. Welcome aboard!

[JohnnyM]

could you expound on your accusations?? From what little I have looked up in the last hour, gnostics believed that Christ didn't come in the flesh, and I'm sure my posts never insinuated such a thing. So could you please back up you accusation?

JM

[RobbyS]

What I am taking about is experiential religion, where the individual, as Ronald Knox puts it in his book Enthusiasm Indicts as a repudiation of all authority, even that of Scripture.

Religion becomes identified in the popular mind with a series of moods, in which the worshipper, disposed therefore by all the arts of the revivalist, relished the flavors of spiritual peace. You needed neither a theology or a liturgy; you did not take the strain of intellectual inquiry, nor associate yourself whole-heartedly with any historic traditon of worship. You floated, safely enough, on the little raft of your own faith, eagerly throwing out lifelines to drowning neighbots as were able to catch it; meanwile the ship was foundering.

[First Conservative]

You stated on P90 T162 and repeated on P184 T162:

"Anyone that believes Baptists' have been around since Apostolic times lives in a fantasy world and can't be taken seriously.

Nice Christan response: kind, factually correct, and well documented - LOL!

Anyone like you that DOES NOT believe those original Believers who were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26), and sometimes Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) were Baptists are ignorant of history by false teaching or by choice, and most probably live in a fantasy world full of Roman Catholic fables! You just cannot deal with TRUTH - especially when it does not agree with your opinion or the RC church(sic).

[JHavard]

Here is what Jurgens says about the different versions: "The text of the letters, however, is preserved in three distinct forms, known as the short recension, the long recension and the Syriac abridgement. The long recension, extant in Greek and Latin, was the first known, and was regarded as authentic until the 17th century, when the short recension was first published. It is now recognized that the long recension is an interpolated text, made in the fourth century. It is the short recension, extant only in Greek, (which , of course, is the original language of the letters), that is now regarded as the authentic text. The Syriac abridgement apparently was made from a no longer extant Syriac translation of the short recension, i.e., the original Greek text."

Talk about Babylon, how can you quote something like this, and then pick and choose parts of it to back your theology? This is pure madness.

I still believe that in the process of your early fathers trying to secure proof that the 300-year bridge existed, they destroyed any credibility they might have had, if they had simply left them alone.

Oh, I forgot, it didn't say what they wanted it to say anyhoo.

[Pelayo]

could you expound on your accusations?? From what little I have looked up in the last hour, gnostics believed that Christ didn't come in the flesh, and I'm sure my posts never insinuated such a thing. So could you please back up you accusation?

There is more to it then that. Gnostics can believe lots of things, but they are all religious Dualists. In Christian form they deny Christs Humanity because Man (in physical form) is uterly evil. Or they deny Christ Divinity for the same reason. They are the first heresy and the most dangerous, because it was founded by the Devil. There can be no denying that, who else would create a system where Good and Evil are equal? All later heresies have some Gnostic aspects to them.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

bump

[Invincibly Ignorant]

So if you have been baptized and are a Protestant, you are a part of the body but in imperfect communion with his church.

Gee that's funny. When I walk into a catholic church I see alot of inperfections.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

or maybe I'm too many years removed from NT history studies

No you're fine. RobbyS is the one too far removed.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

A point for Bass, you got me on that one. How about I phrase the question this way, “When did your Church hold its first post Apostolic Council?”

Can I answer this one for ya Peg? Same answer. The Book of Acts.

[pegleg]

Anyone like you that DOES NOT believe those original Believers who were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26), and sometimes Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) were Baptists are ignorant of history by false teaching or by choice, and most probably live in a fantasy world full of Roman Catholic fables!

I'll stick to truth. You keep right on believing they were Baptists if it makes you feel better.

[biblewonk]

One of the biggest non-issues that I see in Catholic/Protestant debate is the labeling of Mary as the "Mother of God." As far as I can tell, Catholics and Protestants hold nearly the exact same view on this subject, they just differ in the terms they use to describe it. "Jesus is fully man and fully God; Mary gave birth to Jesus (she is his mother); Mary is the mother of God." No Catholic believes that Mary existed before Jesus. I don't understand the debate.

One of the most serious RC errors is their worship of a Mary totally foreign to the bible except under the name of "the Queen of Heaven" or "Diana".

[pegleg]

Gee that's funny. When I walk into a catholic church I see alot of inperfections.

You misinterpret my answer. I never said Catholics were perfect.

Can I answer this one for ya Peg? Same answer. The Book of Acts.

Wrong answer. I asked when the first post Apostolic Council was held in your Church.

[JHavard]

One of the most serious RC errors is their worship of a Mary totally foreign to the bible except under the name of "the Queen of Heaven" or "Diana".

Welcome back biblewonk, what brought you out? Oh hey, whats that you have there in your hand, oh, it's a

Marydetector!

Lol

[Uri’el-2012]

XeniaSt>I believe that Allen is testifying to what he calls Sola Scriptura.

I believe you will find yourself mistaken. Firstly, the Catholic Church as the author and canonizer of Scripture has no compunction about using it to spread the message.

Secondly, since nothing except canonized Scripture is recognized as truthful by the more extreme memebers of the Protestant family, we use it for your benefit. If you only wish to accept Scripture as an argument, we will supply it.
SD
83 posted on 10/15/01 1:58 PM Mountain by SoothingDave

You missed my point entirely.You missed the delicious irony.

The scripture that allend quoted according to many commentators indicates the Christ is foretelling that the Holy Spirit
will breath the Scriptures for the apostles to pen.

John 16:12-14 17:19-21

Tehillim (Psalm) 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!

XeniaSt

[IMRight]

The idea of regeneration by the Spirit is not present in just a few verses with questionable interpretations. You may not like the phrase "born again" or the attendant baggage, but one cannot escape the Biblical idea of the Spirit that gives life and regenerates the degenerate who place their trust in Christ.

Agreed, although regeneration is more commonly associated with Baptism than with placing ones trust in Christ (and let's not go back over Spirit vs. Water Baptism etc...), as crucial as that is. I would point out, however, that "on this rock" is also hardly the only verse speaking to the foundation and authority of the Church.

A similar argument can be made that there are MANY verses speaking of the value of scripture, but none of them imply that scripture is the sole authority.

My point was that it's your "team" that seems to have a "proof text" type of problem, not the RCs. Why I've been to many services where the pastor may only quote a single verse and then expound for 30-45 min on "needs must go through". As valuable as that is... It isn't really the Catholics who say "Oh here's a neat verse... let's build a doctrine off of it" which seemed to be what your post implied.

Greatings, by the way, I've been gone too long contemplating my navel since the attacks.

[JHavard]

You missed my point entirely.You missed the delicious irony.

The scripture that allend quoted according to many commentators indicates the Christ is foretelling that the Holy Spirit
will breath the Scriptures for the apostles to pen.

Now what is this new fangled theology you're spreading now? It sounds almost like your saying that the Holy Spirit had something to do with the Bible, say it ain't so! Lol

[IMRight]

Thanks. I've had plenty of disagreements with the Baptists (not too many... I married one of them), but I've never associated them with Gnostics (although I see the parallel in the case of the Mormons etc...). I would think that Sola Scriptura would knock out any serious problems with "hidden knowledge" and such.