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]

I am going to talk to Mary and have her ask Jesus to rap you upside the head while you sleep. Let me know if you felt anything. If you didn't it was because SHE asked her Son to do it gently,whereas I think you need a good,sharp thwack! (^_^)

And all three of you could use a good swift kick in the rump from the Son of God Himself. Most people get paid to shill for an organization. You guys do it for free...

[nobdysfool]

What, specifically, does the RCC teach that is heresy ? What is your authority for this ? How do you know what is the Word of God ?

I guess you haven't traced the thread back very far, but for brevity, I'll detail a few. The Immaculate Conception, praying to saints and to Mary, Infallibility of the Pope (not to mention the whole idea of a Pope), Purgatory. Those are the main ones.

My authority? The Word of God, as written in the Holy Bible. The Word is the final, ultimate, and only true authority.

I know because I can read, and I don't need someone to interpret what I'm reading. I also have reference materials available to look up the original Greek and Hebrew words, plus, I pray and ask God to show me the Truth, and I'm bold enough to believe that He answers my prayers. I am not blinded by Tradition, unlike some others here, and I don't blindly follow Tradition when I see something in the Word that contradicts it.

The RCC is NOT infallible, it is guilty of gross distortion of truth and has reversed itself on various matters several times. History is replete with the abuses of the RCC, i.e. the Inquisition, the Crusades, their inattention to the Jews during WWII, and their tolerance of apostate Popes. Not a pretty picture at all.

[malakhi]

I know, I know....way too much time on my hands...this is a joke!!

The sad thing is, this could just have easily have been pulled off of some web site somewhere on the internet.

[DouglasKC]

The RCC teaches things which are heresy, according to the Word of God. If you would take off your blinders, you could see that. But first you would have to humble yourself before God, ask Him to forgive you of your sins, and ask Him to teach you and reveal to you His truth, and then stay away from the RCC, and just read your Bible with an open mind and heart

I'm not trying to defend the RCC, but I've seen plenty examples of heretical teaching by protestant churches too. For example, the whole concept of hell seems to be mis-represented by nearly everyone.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I'm not trying to defend the RCC, but I've seen plenty examples of heretical teaching by protestant churches too. For example, the whole concept of hell seems to be mis-represented by nearly everyone.

Ok. I'll bite. What is hell?

[eastsider]

What is hell?

These threads! : )

[malakhi]

I have a question for all: Has anything on these threads changed your mind in a major way? If yes, what was it?

I gave this some consideration, and have a few thoughts:

1. I have learned that, within the framework of Christianity, the case for Catholicism is not as clear-cut as I once thought (sorry guys). I have a better understanding of the Protestant critique of Catholicism, including problems with the authenticity and interpretation of the writings of the early church fathers.

2. I have learned that, in general, the apologetics for any particular denomination or religion are most persuasive to those already within the fold, or those already predisposed to it.

3. I have learned that Protestants seem to have the hardest time recognizing the difference between the "text-in-itself" and their own interpretation (sorry guys).

4. I have a better understanding of the nuances of the Protestant sola scriptura.

5. In terms of ecclesiology, I like the model of the AOG. But I still give the Catholics the edge in liturgy.

6. I have an improved understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy.

7. I have an improved perception of Jesus, and a diminished opinion of Paul.

8. I have an improved appreciation of Christianity as a way for gentiles to come to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I think the movement should be a grafting of the gentiles onto Judaism, not a 'gentilization' of Jews.

9. I still do not believe that Jesus is either the messiah or divine. I have a better understanding of how he fit into the Judaism of his time. I appreciate Christianity best as a discipleship, a 'walking in the way' of Jesus. I don't see that a belief in the incarnation or the trinity is necessary for this.

10. I have been challenged in my beliefs, and have grown as a result. I have delved further into the teachings of Judaism in order to answer all your questions!

11. I have seen that, despite our significant theological differences, we can be friends.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Does anyone besides me have a problem seeing these "doctrines" as CHRISTOCENTRIC ???

Ya I do.

[DouglasKC]

Ok. I'll bite. What is hell?

You tell me first...heh heh...

[malakhi]

Scripture is tradition in its most concrete form.

It seems to me that you have a different understanding of how this proceeds:

Catholics: JESUS -> (T)RADITION -> CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES

Protestants: JESUS -> CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES -> (t)RADITIONS

Catholics see scripture as a subset of the larger oral tradition. Protestants see scripture as complete in itself, and tradition as an unwarranted addition to scripture.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Hey, there was a welsher spotted here.

Lol. Thank you Bass. However, I'm not gonna pursue this anymore. I'll let the hound of heaven convict him.

[malakhi]

1. Jesus' followers didn't agree he was merely a man.

Neither do Schneerson's.

2. To the best of my knowledge, Rabbi Schneerson passed on much longer than 3 days ago and there's yet to be a claim of resurrection.

Give it time. We are witnessing the birth of a new apostacy.

[RobbyS]

the average common man of the time I suppose ypu are aluding to the Reformation. The "Average common man" had little to do with the success of the Reformation, which was largely the work of scholars and defecting priests like Luther and their political patrons. Despite the proliferation of books due to the printing press, even the average city person could not read. And forget the peasantry--which was 90% of the common people! During the French Religious Wars, Paris was a hotbed of support for the Catholic League because the "mob" was on the side of the Church. The Huguenot movement was heavily aristocratic in character. After the defection of their leader Henry of Navarre, Huguenot strength resided large in the leadership in certain cities and other areas in the South--which wsas traditionally hostile to the Church.

[malakhi]

What is hell? These threads! : )

This seems more like Purgatory to me.

Freeper hell would be being eternally stuck on a thread with Eschoir, Jethro Tull, Michael Rivero and A+Bert.

[nobdysfool]

The sad thing is, this could just have easily have been pulled off of some web site somewhere on the internet.

Yeah, that's the scary part...and there would be people dumb enough to do it, even with the disclaimer...And that's why I added my own "it's a joke" disclaimer to the end of my post, just to cover myself. The sadder part is that there are people doing it as we speak...

[RobbyS]

The glory of Christ is not exalted by venerating Mary and the saints. Funny you should say that. I have often heard Protestant critics claim the opposite: that it makes Jesus an exaulted and remote figure. My view is that he is not only our Savior but our Judge. The Sweet and gentle Jesus is also the one in Michelangelo's painting of the Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel. The look on his face is terrifying, and it is sovering to look at the faces of the damned whom he is "thrusting" into hell with a movement of his arm. In many visions Mary is not talking like Norman Vincent Peale. At LaSalette, she is preaching that the local people had better shape up and fly right or hard times are coming, but if they repent, the hand of her son might be stayed. The message of Fatima is positively apocolyptic, in case you don't read the tabloids.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I have a question for all: Has anything on these threads changed your mind in a major way? If yes, what was it?

Sorry it took, me so long to respond. Here it is in a nutshell. Nothing has changed my mind. Matter of fact I'm more convinced than ever and it saddens me that the RCC seems to be a hinderance to people being born again and regenerated thru the blood of Jesus for salvation. (salvation even seems to be a nasty word to them) There were different factions in Jesus' day where we find the apostles wanting Jesus to rebuke someone that was healing in Jesus' name and Jesus saying to leave him alone. During the time of the apostles there were those who claimed they were of Paul and some who claimed they were of apollos and nevertheless Paul said either way he was happy the Gospel was being preached. But the RCC in their arrogance think they can come along 500 years later and tidy everything up and change everything so they can fit their theology in a can. So much time and effort are spent doing and maintaining this can that the real work of furthering the kingdom is ignored. I'm speaking of course of Jesus' kingdom and not the billion or so souls on the lookout for another Mary appearance. In conclusion, the church of Christ are those who believe (with all that word encompasses) that God came in the flesh, died and rose again that many would have everlasting life. Thank you for listening.

[malakhi]

Freeper hell would be being eternally stuck on a thread with Eschoir, Jethro Tull, Michael Rivero and A+Bert.

Was reading the Afghanistan threads, and realized that I forgot to add Milosevic2 to this list.

[RobbyS]

What IS your point? Isn't it obvious? You may have no pronlem with the Virgin Birth but many people who read the Bible do. Muslims believe in it, but reject the doctrine of the Incarnation. Mary becomes a bit play in the Gospel Story, although it would seem that what happned to her was at the center of it all. Mary the model Christian? No. Not even Mary the doubter--the "even her"-- twist. No, just a common hausfau who furnished her womb and then drops completely out of the picture." Mariophobia ." the oppositon pole to Mariolatry?

[OLD REGGIE]

Why not link us to the whole "debate" while you are at it?

I responded specifically to your statement regarding the RCC teachings concerning Mary.

If I read you correctly, it is your contention that the RCC always believed in the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption.

Assuming you accept the validity of the Council of Nicaea, and the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, were not yet RCC accepted doctrines, your argument is invalid.

Frankly, I expected you to argue it wasn't a valid council because the "Pope" wasn't there. (Though there was no such thing as a "Pope" at that time, nor was there a "Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.)

My questions to you are, when did the RCC (through Church Council or "Infallible" Pronouncement) codify the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption and why was it permissable for many Early Church Fathers to disagree with these positions if the answer was known "from the beginning"?