ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 14:10:45 GMT -5
Ok, i was thinking about this one.... Baptists are not supposed to drink....BUT they do. Or some do. In my mind, its kinda the same. Catholics are not supposed to use BC but some do, like me.  Who says Baptists are not supposed to drink (I assume you mean alcohol)? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 4, 2008 14:11:39 GMT -5
Well, they cant drink or dance at their wedding receptions...right...
|
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 14:13:37 GMT -5
Well, they cant drink or dance at their wedding receptions...right... Who says they can't? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 4, 2008 14:15:19 GMT -5
Um....the church says so! Why do you think alot of baptists get married in their church and then have the reception somewhere else....
Asuming you are baptists, does your church do the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 4, 2008 14:21:05 GMT -5
I've never heard of this Marcie. Drinking alcohol is not a sin.
|
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 14:28:43 GMT -5
Um....the church says so! Why do you think alot of baptists get married in their church and then have the reception somewhere else.... Asuming you are baptists, does your church do the same? There is no "official Baptist position" on alcohol. This is because Baptists affirm the sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice, and allow for freedom of conscience where Scripture doesn't speak clearly. Most Baptists believe that the Bible does not forbid alcohol consumption, but some believe that it is best to abstain. Some, of course, believe that the Bible does forbid alcohol. Be that as it may, Baptists (those who are truly believers, anyway) do not answer to a "pope" or "head," but to the Holy Spirit. Certainly, different local churches may have different policies regarding what is or is not allowed at wedding receptions held there. But those policies are based on Scripture, and possibly on expediency, not on some official teaching or edict handed down a hierarchy of church authorities. I probably shouldn't have said this much; I am not in the Baptist denomination. Maybe someone who is can clarify. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 4, 2008 14:32:46 GMT -5
If it is done because the Bible says so, then why would there be a disagreement between two different baptists churches? Does not make sence to me...
BTW, i am Catholic and no i do not answer to anyone but myself, you will notice this in my opinions. And to be quite honest, not many Catholics i know answer to the "Pope". To tell you just how much the pope is in my life, i just recently found out what his role was...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 4, 2008 14:37:57 GMT -5
ann, then what denomination do you belong too?
or if you dont like that question...
what is the name of your church?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 15:01:41 GMT -5
No...it is "not" to be included in Scripture because The Church says so.
Is it inspired by God? Of course. The Apostles taught it and they were led by The Holy Spirit.
The Didache existed before The Holy Bible and was used as a basis for which books to include in The Holy Bible because it was the first Christian Document.
I'm sure you don't want to believe that because of all the Catholic references that Protestants claim were "invented" by everybody else, but The Apostles.
Yet you accept The Holy Bible that was created by that very same Church.
;D
Is that "in" scripture (if so, chapter & verse please)?
Or is it a belief you invented or were indoctrinated to believe?
Scripture clearly teaches us that we are to follow traditions first then scripture. Remember, for the first 400 years of Christianity, there was no Bible.
Well, when did The Holy Bible first appear in history and by whom was it canonized? To answer that question, you might as well copy and paste what I wrote...but hey, I'll give you the chance to do your own research.
Really? Then why would scripture teach this:
"All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
And what about this...
Scripture
I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.
Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.
Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.
Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.
Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.
Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.
1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.
Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.
1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).
1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.
2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?
2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).
2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).
1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.
James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")
2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.
2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.
1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.
1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.
1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.
Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 15:07:10 GMT -5
(deep breath...)
And further more...
That's not what I wrote about...show me the doctrinal teachings in the Bible on those subjects, not the conjectures that we "now" see as a result of the doctrine having been revealed by The Church.
Show me the doctrinal teachings as we believe today. Very simple. If you're such a voracious Biblical reader, it should be easy for you to post the passages where these doctrines are revealed in detail.
Her personal life has nothing to do with her moderation. She too is entitled to her own opinion. And she will be repsected for that. Even if we don't agree on it. We're not about division here or exclusion.
And for you to use a Church Father that you don't even believe in is definately hypocritical. It's convenient for you to use his words to attempt to discredit The Church, yet you won't dare post these quotes from Saint Augustine...will you?
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies.
For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic.
For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.”
Augustine,
The True Religion, 7:12
(A.D. 390).
Would you like to meet me on The Church Fathers Forum now?
We can certainly discuss in details what Christianity has believed since the first century.
;D
See what you just did there? You cast a stone. You are jussst like that Pharisee who saw themselves as better than the other sinners when they made their confession!
Luke 18:9-14
9 And he spake also this parable unto certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.
13 But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.
14 I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Good, then you can start with this one:
Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
You are making a "personal" judgement, not a theological one. All in the hopes that we will be dissuaded from the topic.
Now if you could actually apply that rhetoric to not judging CC personally and in obeying Matthew 7:1, you'd be worthy to profess His requisites.
|
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 16:03:00 GMT -5
No...it is "not" to be included in Scripture because The Church says so. Is it inspired by God? Of course. The Apostles taught it and they were led by The Holy Spirit. The Didache existed before The Holy Bible and was used as a basis for which books to include in The Holy Bible because it was the first Christian Document. I'm sure you don't want to believe that because of all the Catholic references that Protestants claim were "invented" by everybody else, but The Apostles. Yet you accept The Holy Bible that was created by that very same Church. To be sure, Catholics and Protestants share much of the same history. As far as I know, many of the church fathers were sincere believers in Christ, and I will see them in heaven. But, just because they were sincere followers of Christ doesn't mean they were infallible. It is my understanding, as you understate, that the Didache was merely a basis--not THE basis--for the canon. (And I do not accept the canon the Church came up with, as it includes the Apocrypha.) However, if those traditions contradict inspired Scripture, then they are not to be followed, correct? IMO, Paul is not appealing to apostolic tradition, but to Timothy's (and Paul's) Jewish heritage. He learned The Holy Scriptures (Old Testament) from his infancy, from his godly Jewish mother and grandmother. (Again the emphasis is on the Scripture, even as Timothy's heritage and tradition is referred to.) You yourself said the same. The verses state, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good work." It does not state that Scripture is "profitable for every good work." It does, however, state that it is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction...that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good work." IOW, because of Scripture's usefulness in addressing doctrine, etc., a person can be THROUGHLY (or totally) furnished unto all good work. Nothing else is needed to "throughly" furnish him. Has anyone told you that the quoted material in the "reply" pane is really hard to read with all of the " & quot ; "s in there? Whew! Anyway, I don't hold to the exclusivity of Scripture b/c of the wording you addressed here. I already explained that above. I will try to get to the rest of your post later. Now, I'm off to dd's volleyball practice. Thank you for the interaction. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 16:13:55 GMT -5
Actually, we only share the past 500 years or so...that's only 1/4 (or 25%) of the total existance of Christianity. Protestants "just" appeared in the 16th Century. Then you counter Jesus Christ who used the canon that The Church revealed to the world which existed over a thousand years before any other "version" was created. On top of that, Universal Christians use the canon used by The Apostles. Protestant Christians use the canon that was created in 90 AD by the very same people who not only rejected Jesus, but condemned Jesus to death and beat Him and spat upon Him. Yeah...you go on right ahead and trust the Pharisees with what "they" believe is The Old Testament. They exluded those books you called Apocryphal because they proved Jesus' Messiahship. And The Protestants sided with The Pharisees (not with Jesus and The Apostles). Jesus used the Septugaint which existed for hundreds of years "before" He was even born. Protestants use the canon that was created "after" Jesus' death and that was created to prove that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. It's a fact...you accept the Pharisees version of The Bible. The same people who REJECTED The New Testament scriptures. But hey, if you want to believe The Killers of Christ, you go right on ahead. If you want to reject the Old Testament that Jesus preached from and had studied from, go right on ahead. I for one will side with The Apostles and with Jesus Christ. Hey, basically to you, The Holy Bible didn't exist until the 16th Century, right?  Which traditions? Be specific... Let me ask you this question...before there was a "Bible", how did Christians know "how" to worship and "what" to believe "without" traditional teachings? But you leave out the context of the entire passage which talks about the need for the teaching authority of Paul! That's selective believing. Cafetiria quoting. 2 Tim 3: 10 2 You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me. 12 In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, 15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Thank you. |
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 20:26:45 GMT -5
Perhaps you misunderstood...Let me explain what I meant. True Christianity has been around (technically) since the time of Christ. I consider myself, first and foremost, a true Christian, faithful to the teachings of Christ as revealed in Scripture. I wholeheartedly accept the teachings of the apostles (in Scripture) as inspired by God. So do you. I believe Augustine and other men that you would call "early church fathers" were sincere Christians. In these ways, we have a "shared history." I am well aware that "Protestants" (designated as such) didn't appear until the sixteenth century, until long after the church (called the "Catholic" church) became abusive and corrupt. The only places I feel the need to call myself a "Protestant" are on boards like this one, or on doctor forms asking me to identify my "religion"...where the term Protestant essentially means "non-Catholic." My theology is not in total agreement with the theology of the reformers. I was never Catholic; I've never in my life "protested" against the Catholic church. Hence, the term Protestant does not really describe me, except to identify me as "non-Catholic" to those who don't care about the finer nuances of theology.
It might just be me, but I'm not catching the idea of what you're trying to say here.
Luke 24:27 says of the risen Christ on the road to Emmaus, "And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
Luke 24:44-45 also emphasizes the content of the "scriptures" Jesus used: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ll things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
John 5:18-47: Here is Jesus addressing the Jews (who, incidentally, sought to kill Him b/c He claimed divinity--verse 18). He defends His divinity clearly throughout the passage, speaking of the many witnesses He has that He is God, and the promised Messiah. He talks about John the Baptist, His own miraculous works, etc....And then in verse 39, He makes this statement: "Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." One can assume that the word "scriptures" means whatever sacred writings the Jews accepted at the time--the Law, history, poems, and prophets. How could it mean anything else? Verse 46 clearly says, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" At no time in the New Testament does Christ appeal to anything other than the Law, history, poetry, or prophets---IOW, the OT we have today.
Au contraire, mon frer...I accept the OT from which Jesus quoted and to which He referred as he countered the arguments of his adversaries.
Can you provide Scriptural proof that Jesus studied and/or preached from any apocryphal scripture (that isn't a restatement of something else in the 66 books of the OT)?
Only partly correct. The original autographs have existed, of course, since they were written. (Obviously, they were not all in one place and didn't have the title "Holy Bible.") At that time and ever after, they were/are the inspired Word of God. As He promised in Scripture, God has preserved His words and has guided men to compile them into a single work, the Holy Bible.
I had no specific traditions in mind. The point that I was making is that there's nothing wrong with tradition unless it contradicts Scripture.
They had OT writings (Torah (?), Septuigint), for one thing, and they had letters from the apostles that were circulated. Did they have traditions? Sure, they did. We read about some of those traditions (such as breaking bread together on the first day of the week) in Scripture. What was wrong with those traditions? Nothing...unless they were contrary to Christ's teachings...or added regulations to those teachings and the teachings of the apostles. If the teachings of the apostles--word of mouth--was sufficient, then why did the church come up with a canon of Scripture? Also, I repeat, there is a reason that some books/letters were canonized, and some weren't.
"Knowing from whom you learned it"...In this passage, Paul is obviously contrasting himself--a faithful follower of God who has endured persecution and proved his faith--with false teachers, charlatans, who deceive others. In effect, he is saying, "You remain faithful to what you have learned, knowing who taught it to you...not a charlatan, but a true follower of Christ." No "traditions" or "special authority" are mentioned here...just a reference to the fact that Paul mentored Timothy in the faith, just as any elder Christian might disciple a younger one.
As we see again, it is the Scriptures which give wisdom for salvation, not man-made traditions.
|
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 21:13:16 GMT -5
Cepha, I do want you to know that I did try to address your other post...I had a nice reply all typed out about my agreement with Augustine, and the fact that I am not casting stones at cradlecathlic, since what she has said (something to this effect: "It is my body; I will believe what I want to and do what I choose") can hardly be construed as a contrite "confession" of sin equal to the tax collector's desperate plea for mercy. However....  my dumb computer malfunctioned, and the entire post is in cyber-purgatory, for all I know. (If that attempt at humor was offensive, I apologize.) I have appreciated the interaction, but I have come to the conclusion that you and I are not doing each other any good at all. We are wasting time and energy discussing a topic that we both know full well neither of us will budge on. I believe in sola scriptura and sole fide in solus Christus (sorry if the Latin endings are incorrect; I'm only a beginning student in that subject). You will most likely not see me again on this forum after this evening. Thank you again for allowing me to be a member here for a short while. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 21:23:57 GMT -5
Define a "true" Christian for me so that I can understand it better please.
How do you know that The Bible was inspired by God?
They were called the Church Fathers for hundreds of years. I just agree with what Christianity has always referred to them as.
How is that shared when you don't believe what The Church Fathers taught? Remember, they were taught by The Apostles themselves.
Actually, it wasn't the Protestants that came into existance, but the Reformers. The Protestants were protesting not just The Church, but also the Reformers. The Reformers wanted to "re-form" The Church, not leave it. The Protestants are 2nd Generation Reformers who not only disagreed with universal Christianity, but with their own Church Fathers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc...).
And The Church was never corrupt. That would be calling Jesus Christ a lier. Men in The Church were corrupt, but that's nothing new. Remember Judas? He was corrupt and he walked Jesus Himself. So Satan's attacks are not uncommon among Jesus' Church. Of course Satan is going to focus his greatest attacks on Jesus' Church. If a Church is in heresy, he leaves that one to destroy itself. It is universal Christianity that he must bring down.
Of course, you could simply post evidence for this belief that The Church was corrupt. I always welcome citeable sources over heresay any day.
I believe you're entitled to live by your own beliefs as to what you are, but according to the rest of the world, if you are a Christian and you are "outside" of the universal Christian Church, then you are by default a Protestant because by the very nature of your Christian existance outside of The Church, you protest "The Church" when you don't align yourself with it.
Simply put, you are a "Protestant". As is any Christian outside of The Universal Christian Church. This isn't a Catholic definition, but a secular definition as well.
In essessence, about 83% of Christians would call you a Protestant (since 83% of Christians are catholic Christians).
You disagree with Jesus. Jesus used the canon of Scripture that only The Universal Christian Church adheres to today.
I love that passsage! It ends with them not recognizing Jesus until the sacrament of The Holy Eucharist took place (I use that passage to prove that without The Eucharist, one cannot see Christ even though they feel that their heart is on fire at hearing His words). Only with The Eucharist can a Christian come into full communion with Him. Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you. That is, you shall not have Christ in you because Jesus is The Life He is talking about.
Then you must have a universal Christian Bible which has all 73 books, right? You use the Septutaint Canon that Jesus used, right?
Well, before I do, let's remember that the Protestant Canon (the canon they borrowed from The Pharisees) didn't exist until 60 years "after" Jesus died. So He couldn't have used that one.
Only the Septugaint was being used in Temple by the Jews.
Here are the verses Jesus used that tie in only to The Septugaint (and not to the Jamnia Canon that the Protestants used from The Pharisees of the Council of 90AD):
I'll just use The Gospels (The rest of the NT would overwhelm this thread):
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).
Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength."
Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.
John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.
John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"
John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.
The Christian Bible was canonized 1,000 years before the Protestant "version" based on it was created in Europe.
Yep...at the Council of Nicea, where The Holy Bible was revealed the world (not in Germany a thousand years later).
First let's examine this...none of the Gospels were written by The Apostles, but by their students "after" their deaths. That's why they are referred to as "according to Mark, Luke, etc..." (not "by Mark, Luke, etc...).
So, The Catholic Letters (AKA The Epistles) were written up to 150 A.D. by 2nd and 3rd hand accounts.
Why? Because the early Chrisitians believed that Jesus was coming right back in their own lifetime. As the Apostles were killed off (martryed), their followers realized that they ahd to write down their teachings or that they would be forgotten or possibly lost if any small group of their disciples were also killed off.
Because they were under persecution of Rome, they couldn't outrightly preach The Gospel and thus began the underground Church. When John wrote Revelation, he was imprisoned at Patmos and wrote it in code referring to Rome as Babylon and to Ceasar as The Beast with Jeruselum being the Whore of Babylon (the one in bed with Rome because together, Rome and Jerusalum killed Jesus and martyred His Apostles [the Saints that The Beast on who's blood was drunk]). Some mistakenly see Revelation as a prophecy because of Daniel, but Daniel was prophesying what was happening to The Church after Jesus' death.
The written works were literally the CNN of their day and that's how they evangelized and that's how lessons were transferred in secret right under the Roman's noses.
Why was a Canon developed? Becasue there were over a hundred works calling themselves "gospels" and Christians were being deceived by them (much like the King James "version" of the original bible deceives today).
So, an official Canon was revealed to The Church by God. That way, there'd be no confusion and none of these heretical gospels (gospel of Mary, gospel of Judas, gospel of Thomas, etc...) would be confused with what God revealed to The Church through the guidance of The Holy Spirit that was promised to it by Jesus for all eternity.
Yeah, because God told The Church to "not" canonize them.
[/li][li]"Knowing from whom you learned it"...In this passage, Paul is obviously contrasting himself--a faithful follower of God who has endured persecution and proved his faith--with false teachers, charlatans, who deceive others. In effect, he is saying, "You remain faithful to what you have learned, knowing who taught it to you...not a charlatan, but a true follower of Christ." No "traditions" or "special authority" are mentioned here...just a reference to the fact that Paul mentored Timothy in the faith, just as any elder Christian might disciple a younger one. [/quote]
Paul is telling them to stick to what he "taught" them. The fact that it was Paul that taught them (not Jesus) is tradition. What Jesus and Peter conferred upon Paul to teach, he taught.
This is the literal definition of "tradition", the passing on of a practice and of a culture of actions. Paul starts out with
"But thou didst follow my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience, persecutions, sufferings. What things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me."
He even goes on to express that it has become commonplace for them to suffer because it was the nature of their faith. It was their tradition to suffer (as they would until Constantine The Great would deliver Christianity from Rome's persecutions).
All traditions are man-made. Man practices them. Man revealed them. Even Jesus practiced "man-made" traditions attending feasts and practicing the "traditions" and rituals of His religion (Judaism).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 22:00:46 GMT -5
I had the same exact thing happen to me! I had a nice reply typed out then my PC went down.  Sorry you see it that way...I'm enjoying the exchange. When challenged, one becomes stronger. The 5 Solas...how could you believe in those things that were invented by a Man that believed this: Martin Luther:
Mary the Mother of God
Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1
Perpetual Virginity
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2
The Immaculate Conception
Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3
Assumption
Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."4
Honor to Mary
Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.The funniest thing about Sola Scriptura is that it doesn't appear in The Bible! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D So by default, it "doesn't" exist! ;D ;D ;D I have a feeling you'll be back. But if you don't..."Vaya con Dios." |
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 11, 2008 12:55:26 GMT -5
Ok, i was thinking about this one.... Baptists are not supposed to drink....BUT they do. Or some do. In my mind, its kinda the same. Catholics are not supposed to use BC but some do, like me. Please do not compared that man-made church with so much internal problems and conflicts (even Emily says that "not all Baptist churches teach the same thing) to the authentic and true Church of Christ: the WHOLE truth, the fullness of the Truth. It is not about picking and choosing. Are you above the Church? Are you above the Pope? Are you above the scholars and theologians? Are you above the Church Fathers? Then why do you reject Church teaching? Holy Church cannot impose teachings on doctrine and morals that are useless and stupid. Sure, you may disagree with the norm of celibacy for priests, but you are bound to obey it until it changes back to being a choice instead of the norm, or when Holy Church makes exceptions (for she has, pluse required celibacy for Priests is only in the Roman Rite, not the Eastern Rites of our Holy Church). Birth control, as Cephas said, does not fulfilled the "telos" or purpose/end of the procreative act. It is to say: my body is defective since it leads me to have children, therefore I must use a man-made thing in order to make my body function properly... Notice that I am not speaking of medicine, because birth control is not medicine. Plus, do you know the side effects of birth control? Pax Christi. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 11, 2008 15:39:19 GMT -5
It is not about picking and choosing.
Are you above the Church? Are you above the Pope? Are you above the scholars and theologians? Are you above the Church Fathers?
Then why do you reject Church teaching? No i am not above the church, i think the post is just a lil more special then me, but not much. I make some decisions in my life not involving the church, its a personal decision and no one elses. Sorry, i still feel like i will see you in heavan. Holy Church cannot impose teachings on doctrine and morals that are useless and stupid.
Sure, you may disagree with the norm of celibacy for priests, but you are bound to obey it until it changes back to being a choice instead of the norm, or when Holy Church makes exceptions (for she has, pluse required celibacy for Priests is only in the Roman Rite, not the Eastern Rites of our Holy Church). I dont have a problem with priest celibacy, i thnk its great! Birth control, as Cephas said, does not fulfilled the "telos" or purpose/end of the procreative act.
It is to say: my body is defective since it leads me to have children, therefore I must use a man-made thing in order to make my body function properly...
Notice that I am not speaking of medicine, because birth control is not medicine.
Plus, do you know the side effects of birth control? I am procreating so i dont want to here that excuse, i have a 2 year old and plan on having more, when I CHOOSE to. What are the horrible side effects, and your a guy right, seriously what do you know about a womens body lol. |
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 11, 2008 23:30:48 GMT -5
Marcie, you're begining to sound like Emily.
Do you think that I, as a guy, would rather have my woman be in birth control so I can get all the self-gratification I long for, as a guy???
But there is higher authority, and I follow this, against my own sinful desires.
Let us make a new thread on contraception (again), dealing with it from a Christian and Rational point of view, not solely political.
Pax Christi.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 12, 2008 9:52:59 GMT -5
No, im not "starting" to sound like anyone, im Marcie and thats how i have and always have felt.  |
|
my dumb computer malfunctioned, and the entire post is in cyber-purgatory, for all I know. (If that attempt at humor was offensive, I apologize.) 
