PDA

View Full Version : Nicene Creed & Baptist beliefs


trying2understand
08-06-2002, 09:15 AM
Looking around the web, I see that there are some Baptist churches that hold to the Nicene Creed.

I find this interesting. The Nicene Creed says, "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" or "for the forgiveness of sins".

I have yet to meet a single Baptist that thought that Baptism had anything to do with the remission or forgiveness of sins.

Can anyone explain this seeming contradiction for me?

Brother Adam
08-06-2002, 09:58 AM
think: symbolism ;)

trying2understand
08-06-2002, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Brother Adam:
think: symbolism ;) Do you seriously think that the words "for the remission of sins" in the Nicene Creed are symbolic?

Teaching the faith was one of the purposes of creeds in the early Church. They were also simple and direct statements of faith to prevent or combat error. Symbolism would not serve either purpose well.

What other parts of the Creed do you take symbolicly?

Brother Adam
08-06-2002, 11:01 AM
no, no, no. Sorry, I should have written more at the time. I never said that I myself believed that part to be symbolic. You just asked for a possible explaination. And that would be one. Whether or not I believe them to be symbolic is irrelavent so I won't say if I do or not.

Bro. Adam

trying2understand
08-06-2002, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Brother Adam:
no, no, no. Sorry, I should have written more at the time. I never said that I myself believed that part to be symbolic. You just asked for a possible explaination. And that would be one. Whether or not I believe them to be symbolic is irrelavent so I won't say if I do or not.

Bro. AdamNot understanding you here, Adam.

Does your church hold to the Nicene Creed?

Do you hold to the Nicene Creed?

Brother Adam
08-06-2002, 04:19 PM
Sorry that you still aren't understanding me. You asked for an explaination to why a church could be Baptist and hold to the Nicene creed. My guess (to try to offer an explaination) is that it would be possible if they took parts of it to be symbolic in nature. In other words, baptism is symbolic of dying and rising with Christ or symbolic or our salvation (the remission of sins) through our faith in Him.

In response to your other questions: As far as I know my church does not take a stance either way on the creeds. The church does not use them in teaching, but at the same time there is nothing that condemns them. I asked one born and breed Baptist what he thought of the creeds and he answered that it was a good tool to understand the thought of some of the early church, but as it is not in the Bible it should not be leaned upon as such.

As far as what I personally think...well, I'll reserve commenting on that for now.

Bro. Adam

Brother Adam
08-06-2002, 04:20 PM
Hey, I just saw that you hit a thousand posts. Good job! smile.gif

trying2understand
08-06-2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Brother Adam:
Hey, I just saw that you hit a thousand posts. Good job! smile.gif I really have to get a life! smile.gif

Ps104_33
08-06-2002, 06:49 PM
"For" means "because of" ex: jump "for" joy

Baptized "because of" the remission of their sins.

Kiffin
08-06-2002, 07:37 PM
Psalms 104_33 stated,

For" means "because of" ex: jump "for" joy

Baptized "because of" the remission of their sins. Amen! Very well said Bro. smile.gif

Dualhunter
08-06-2002, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Ps104_33:
"For" means "because of" ex: jump "for" joy

Baptized "because of" the remission of their sins.Excellent example.

Sir Ed
08-06-2002, 10:33 PM
Nice try guys, but the Nicene Creed wasn't written in English originally.

Dualhunter
08-07-2002, 12:21 AM
And what language was it originally written in? Latin? The same probably applies in whichever language it was just as the same that applies in English for "for", applies for "eis" in Greek.

trying2understand
08-07-2002, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Dualhunter:
And what language was it originally written in? Latin? The same probably applies in whichever language it was just as the same that applies in English for "for", applies for "eis" in Greek.Again, nice try...

"eis aphesin ton hamartion"

"for the remission of sins"

The preposition "eis" points to a goal that is not yet reached.

Can you point me to a Bible which translates this as “because of the remission of sins”?

"For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for [eis] the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28

So, did Jesus die because of sins that were already forgiven?

[ August 07, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

Brother Adam
08-07-2002, 09:10 AM
ohh goodie. Original languages. I wish I was at home with all my resource material. I actually have a couple of books on the creeds, but I'm at school right now. Look forward to what everyone comes up with.

Bro. Adam

Dualhunter
08-07-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dualhunter:
And what language was it originally written in? Latin? The same probably applies in whichever language it was just as the same that applies in English for "for", applies for "eis" in Greek.Again, nice try...

"eis aphesin ton hamartion"

"for the remission of sins"

The preposition "eis" points to a goal that is not yet reached.

Can you point me to a Bible which translates this as “because of the remission of sins”?

"For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for [eis] the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28

So, did Jesus die because of sins that were already forgiven?</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think you understand, both "eis" in Greek, and "for" in English have multiple meanings which means that in each language, the meaning of each word is not always the same.

As already stated it is acceptable to say "Jump for joy", the word "for" is used not "because of" even though that is what is meant.

trying2understand
08-07-2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Dualhunter:
I don't think you understand, both "eis" in Greek, and "for" in English have multiple meanings which means that in each language, the meaning of each word is not always the same.

As already stated it is acceptable to say "Jump for joy", the word "for" is used not "because of" even though that is what is meant.[/QB]Oh, I understand, you are picking and choosing again.

The problem with your system of understanding Scripture is that anyone can make it say whatever they want. And if something can mean anything it doesn't mean anything. Know what I mean?

DHK
08-07-2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by trying2understand:
[QUOTE]Oh, I understand, you are picking and choosing again.

The problem with your system of understanding Scripture is that anyone can make it say whatever they want. And if something can mean anything it doesn't mean anything. Know what I mean?Is it not a matter of "picking and choosing" the correct definition of the word (as words do have more than one definition), in that that definition should harmonize with the rest of Scripture instead of the decrees of the magesterium.
DHK

trying2understand
08-07-2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by DHK:
Is it not a matter of "picking and choosing" the correct definition of the word (as words do have more than one definition), in that that definition should harmonize with the rest of Scripture instead of the decrees of the magesterium.Of course it's picking and choosing. "Harmonize with the rest of Scripture" means harmonize with the verses that you choose and what you choose them to mean. smile.gif

Look at the on perpetual disagreements between just Baptists on this board, like "husband of one wife".

Face it, DHK, anyone can make any verse in Scripture mean multiple things and find multiple verses that they claim support it, while someone else can take the complete opposite position by simply employing the same interpretational methods.

The countless theologies that have sprouted up, and continue to sprout up, give evidence to the weakness of "sola scriptura". Especially since you can't find a verse that proves "sola scriptura".

If you can, now would be a nice to to bring it out. smile.gif

DHK
08-07-2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by trying2understand:
[QUOTE]
The countless theologies that have sprouted up, and continue to sprout up, give evidence to the weakness of "sola scriptura". Especially since you can't find a verse that proves "sola scriptura".

If you can, now would be a nice to to bring it out. smile.gif As has been shown on another thread, Acts 17:11 is a very good example of this. The better word is "final authority," of which our Scriptures are. They are all sufficient, and the final authority in all things of faith and practice, and so they were to the Bereans.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the Scriptures. Why? The Scriptures were their authority to validate the message of Paul.
DHK

SolaScriptura
08-07-2002, 07:57 PM
(1 Pet 3:21 KJV) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us * by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

*=(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)

What's the point? Baptism saves because it is where we are united with Christ's resurrection (Romans 6) and Jesus "was raised again for our justification." (Romans 4:25)

No matter what, you CANNOT deny that baptism saves without denying both Christ and the power of His resurrection.

HankD
08-07-2002, 08:08 PM
Are we speaking of water baptism?

There is not a drop of water in Romans Chapter 6.

To say that water Baptism saves someone is saying that water with no intrinsic holiness can do what the sinless and holy blood of Christ cannot.

Salvation then becomes dispensed by the works of man and not the grace of God.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

[ August 07, 2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

trying2understand
08-07-2002, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by DHK:
As has been shown on another thread, Acts 17:11 is a very good example of this. The better word is "final authority," of which our Scriptures are. They are all sufficient, and the final authority in all things of faith and practice, and so they were to the Bereans.Right, as has been shown on another thread...

Here is the link to the site that I posted in that thread.

http://www.catholicconvert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=writings/sola.html

Your response was more or less that it is "biased" because it is a Catholic site.

Even if you don't accept the author's interpretation of Acts 17:11, it serves to demonstrate my position that the same verse can be made to say two opposite things.

If the very verse which you rely upon to prove the authority of Scriptures (sola scriptura) can be used to argue against it, defacto it does not prove your authority. And you've got a problem.

HankD
08-07-2002, 08:56 PM
Even if you don't accept the author's interpretation of Acts 17:11, it serves to demonstrate my position that the same verse can be made to say two opposite things.Your position is not a new phenomena with the Church of Rome.


If the very verse which you rely upon to prove the authority of Scriptures (sola scriptura) can be used to argue against it, defacto it does not prove your authority. And you've got a problem. So say you.

While I personally dont appreciate the term "sola scriptura" but prefer Final Authority of the Scripture, in the piece by Steve Ray for which you gave the URL, there is a statement there that there is a new movement afoot among Protestant apologists (and anti-Catholics) to imply that the Fathers in the early Church held to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. He also goes on to say that Unfortunately, these individuals only prove it is as easy to misinterpret and twist the Fathers as it is the Scriptures.

Judge for yourselves…

"Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground."

Roberts, A. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. (ECF 1.3.1.16.0.3).

Here is an example of a set of the Church of Rome "Tradition" dogma universally rejected by Baptists in the light of the test of the Final Authority of Scripture vs. Tradition.
(by their proper RCC names).

Binding (must be believed upon pain of excommunication):
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Awaiting promulgation: Mary, the Mediatrix of all Graces.

Examples of how far astray one may go when the Final Authority of the Scriptures is rejected as Tertullian has given witness.

HankD

[ August 07, 2002, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

SolaScriptura
08-07-2002, 11:59 PM
Are we speaking of water baptism?

There is not a drop of water in Romans Chapter 6.There's a whole flood in 1 Peter 3:21.

To say that water Baptism saves someone is saying that water with no intrinsic holiness can do what the sinless and holy blood of Christ cannot.Read 1 Peter 3:21 - Water baptism saves because it unites us with Christ's resurrection not because the water has any magical power - that's exactly what Peter is saying there.

Salvation then becomes dispensed by the works of man and not the grace of God.Water baptism is a grace. That is, it's a free gift. I don't have to pay to get dunked under water and be united with Christ's death, burial and resurrection! God gives me that right FREE OF CHARGE!!! Hallelujah!! Praise the LORD!

[ August 08, 2002, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

HankD
08-08-2002, 01:13 AM
Dear SS,

I'm sure many on the BB have explained this verse for you.
Anyway here is what you said…


Read 1 Peter 3:21 - Water baptism saves because it unites us with Christ's resurrection not because the water has any magical power - that's exactly what Peter is saying there.How do you know that’s what he is saying?
Who told you that?
And BTW there is no mention of water in verse 21.
There is greater baptism than water baptism.
A conscience can not be cleansed with water.

Might it be saying that baptism is a figure?
A picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That your conscience has been cleansed by faith in His resurrection and that you are publicly portraying this though the symbolism of baptism?

There is a greater baptism than water baptism.

Matthew 3
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Jesus said He would build His Church, He also baptizes all the members.
The baptism that saves is the spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ.

Water baptism is a grace. That is, it's a free gift. I don't have to pay to get dunked under water and be united with Christ's death, burial and resurrection! God gives me that right FREE OF CHARGE!!! Hallelujah!! Praise the LORD!You may indeed have to pay. At very least it is a work which you have said (or appear to be saying) is necessary to be saved.
What if the man who baptized you turns out to be lost?

HankD

SolaScriptura
08-08-2002, 02:40 AM
BTW there is no mention of water in verse 21.Verse numbering is an invention of man. You can't really separate 20 and 21 - verse 21 would make no sense by itself. Verse 21 in the New American Standar starts "Corresponding to that..." How could that sentence make sense without verse 20 to tell us what "that" is? And if we read verse 20 we see that "that" is the flood of water.

Might it be saying that baptism is a figure?No! There is absolutely no way! Notice the following translations of verse 21 which make it quite plain that the "figure" is the flood of Noah's day and not baptism:

NASB "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--..."

BBE "And baptism, of which this is an image, now gives you salvation,..."

NIV "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--..."

NRSV "And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you--..."

It is clear that the flood is an image of baptism. The flood prefigured baptism, etc. The flood is the figure and baptism is the FULFILMENT.

The connection to the flood makes it quite obvious that it's water baptism.

NOW HE SAYS BATPISM IS AN ANSWER. Who's answer? OURS. To whom does it answer? TO GOD.

We answer God in baptism. Can we control the baptism of the Holy Spirit? No! How then can it be an answer? It can't! What does that mean? That means he is talking about WATER BAPTISM because it IS an answer - we have control over it. Of course verse 20's "eight persons, were saved by water" tells us that.

You may indeed have to pay.No I don't! I don't do anything but stand there and let God unite me with Christ's resurrection.

At very least it is a work which you have said (or appear to be saying) is necessary to be saved.Are you telling me that not doing anything is a work? You don't do anything at all in baptism! I guess by your definition of work, I'm working when I go to sleep in my easy chair. Man, I'm glad I don't live back in the day when men had to keep the Sabbath and that your not a scribe because you'd stone me for lying still and not doing anyting!!!!

What if the man who baptized you turns out to be lost?The efficacy of baptism does not depend on the guy who adminsters it, but on the RESURRECTION OF CHRIST - Christ's resurrection is where the power comes from!

[ August 08, 2002, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

DHK
08-08-2002, 03:20 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SolaScriptura:
[QUOTE]Of course verse 20's "eight persons, were saved by water" tells us that. [QUOTE]

Are you sure those 8 were saved "by" water? Did the water save them?

ASV
"eight souls, were saved through water:"

World English Bible
"eight souls, were saved through water."

Darby:
"eight souls, were saved through water:"

Young's Literal Translation
"eight souls, were saved through water;"

Think again. It wasn't the water that saved.
DHK

GH
08-08-2002, 07:11 AM
Hi Everyone,

The New Testament contains the words of Jesus, the writings of the apostles, and a history of the early church. In its pages God describes Himself and the wonderful new covenant He has instituted with man. And, on a practical level, the New Testament has good suggestions for holy living.

We must, however, keep the New Testament in its proper perspective. Apart from the revelation of the Holy Spirit, the words written in it cannot be understood correctly. The Holy Spirit, not the New Testament, is the Revealer of Truth.

Jesus didn't say he would have some guys write a few letters ... and ... 300+ years later these letters would be collected into a book ... and ... well, for a thousand years or so there wouldn't be any printing presses ... but what the heck, sooner or later he'd get this book to us and speak to us through its pages. At least to those who can read, that is. And ... oh by the way ... you won't know for sure which ancient manuscripts are accurate ... and your Greek scholars will disagree on the translation of certain verb tenses.

No, Jesus didn't say that.

Jesus did say,

"The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

Paul said,

"(Our covenant is) not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life." or religious activity kills but there is life in the Spirit.

Our covenant is in the Spirit. Not the old written code; not any written code. God's Spirit has joined Himself to our spirit. Our entire relationship with God occurs within, where God and man are one. The external things --- what we see, hear, and read --- facilitate but never replace what is happening within.

With the introduction of a new covenant, God changed the way He interacts with man. In the old covenant, God and His truths were external. In the new covenant, God and His truths are internal.

"This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

"For we are the temple of the Living God; as God said, 'I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'"

So we don't look to men or books or organizations to tell us what is true. We don't blindly accept the determination of a council held 1500+ years ago. Instead, we depend solely upon the Holy Spirit within us to explain and illuminate spiritual truths --- whether found in the New Testament, in other inspired writings, or in nature itself. When He does, revelation occurs --- we hear --- and we know.

As an example, consider the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We read about it in the New Testament or heard it preached, but it wasn't until the Spirit of God revealed this fact to us that we had knowing. The revelation came to us within. We know that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and if every book on the face of this planet were destroyed tomorrow, it wouldn't change our knowing.

Down throughout history, every believer in Jesus Christ has received the gospel exactly the same way that Paul did. By revelation,

"For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

How do we know that the writings of the New Testament were inspired by God? How do we know that the words of Jesus are true? How do we know that Paul received a revelation of Jesus Christ?

We know, because the Spirit of God bears witness to our spirit. There can be no other way.

Peace and blessings, Diane

trying2understand
08-08-2002, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by GH:
we depend solely upon the Holy Spirit within us to explain and illuminate spiritual truths --- whether found in the New Testament, in other inspired writings, or in nature itself. When He does, revelation occurs --- we hear --- and we know. Why then is there such disagreement between so many, all claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit?

Are there many Truths and not just one Truth?

Are some deceived and not rerally led by the Holy Spirit? If so, how do you know who is led by the Spirit and who is not?

Try it for yourself. Start a thread on a very basic element of faith, such as "Is Baptism necessary?", and then watch the fur fly.

What you propose may sound good, but the history of Christianity since the Reformation, and the invention of "sola scriptura" by a man, shows it to be seriously flawed. There must be a million different competing beliefs springing from the same Bible and the same Holy Spirit. Is this what Jesus meant by being as one?

trying2understand
08-08-2002, 09:54 AM
Posted by Trying2understand:
Even if you don't accept the author's interpretation of Acts 17:11, it serves to demonstrate my position that the same verse can be made to say two opposite things. Posted by HankD:
Your position is not a new phenomena with the Church of Rome.Hank, am I understanding you here? Are you suggesting that it is the Catholic Church which alone interprets various parts of Scripture differently than... well, I don't now who you mean?

It would seem that you wish to imply that all of the Christian world, with the exception of the Catholic Church, is of one mind and one understanding in interpreting Scripture.

Look at the huge disagreements just on this board between people who all claim to be Baptist and hold the same "distinctives".

Throw in the lierally countless sects, denominations, and so-called independent churches, and the depth of variance in interpretation of the same Scriptures becomes mind numbing.

Sola Scriptura means "I'm my own authority."

[ August 08, 2002, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

HankD
08-08-2002, 10:40 AM
The efficacy of baptism does not depend on the guy who adminsters it, but on the RESURRECTION OF CHRIST - Christ's resurrection is where the power comes from!
Then you don't need the water.

HankD

HankD
08-08-2002, 11:11 AM
Dear TC,

Opposites: IMO, the RCC is guilty of saying the opposite of what the Scriptures plainly teach.

For instance as a lad I was taught to kneel before an image of a saint and pray to the saint.
The Scripture plainly says not even to bow before an image. I know about the apologetic of "hyperdulia" vs "latria" and the supposed difference, Perhaps this is an illustration of what Jesus meant when he said "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." I know your own conscience is clear and I am not judging you personally. Baptists, generally could not practice "adoration" with a clear conscience because of the Scripture.

There are indeed other ramifications (we are not under the Law, etc). The RCC however teaches that adoration is proper even according to the requirements of the Law

That is not to say that non-Catholics are free from this double-speak BTW.
The RCC is renown for their apologetics and the ability to say that white is not white it is black, prayer to a saint is not worship it is adoration, bread is flesh, wine is blood, etc. It took Steve Ray 10 pages (about 8000) words and a three-legged stool to give the impression that "searched the scriptures" does not mean what it plainly says (or so we are told).

Sola Scriptura means "I am my own authority".Indeed we all are in the final analysis.
Each time you go to mass you reconfirm that you have made a choice "this is the truth".

You have examined the "evidence" and made your choice, you have decided that the Church of Rome is the Final Authority. I have chosen the Scripture as the Final Authority.

HankD

trying2understand
08-08-2002, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by HankD:
[QB]Opposites: IMO, the RCC is guilty of saying the opposite of what the Scriptures plainly teach.
Ahhh... but there it is again don't you know?

You can't tell me what Scripture plainly teaches, can you?

If Scripture were so plain then we would not have countless sects, denominations, cults, & so-called independent churches all claiming to know what Scripture "plainly teaches" and all in disagreement on what those same plain teachings are.

By "plain teachings" you mean what you believe. Defacto, you are setting yourself up as not only your own authority, but as the authority for everyone else too. smile.gif

trying2understand
08-08-2002, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by DHK:
As has been shown on another thread, Acts 17:11 is a very good example of this. The better word is "final authority," of which our Scriptures are. They are all sufficient, and the final authority in all things of faith and practice, and so they were to the Bereans.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the Scriptures. Why? The Scriptures were their authority to validate the message of Paul.Really? Wasn't some of what Paul preached in direct contradiction to Genesis?

"Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:2, 6).

"This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." (Genesis 17:10-14)

If the Bereans were "sola scriptura" they would have rejected Paul. He was contradicting Scripture which said that circumcision was an everlasting covenant.

You might want to find a new verse to prove the unbiblical man-made tradition of sola scriptura. smile.gif

DHK
08-08-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by trying2understand:
[QUOTE]
If the Bereans were "sola scriptura" they would have rejected Paul. He was contradicting Scripture which said that circumcision was an everlasting covenant.

You might want to find a new verse to prove the unbiblical man-made tradition of sola scriptura. smile.gif Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Paul (or Philip, as in this case) do not appear to be covenant theologians as you and Catholic Convert would so much like them to be. You make quite a leap of faith to assume that Paul would have been preaching about the Abrahamic covenant and circumcision. What makes you think that, and what evidence can you provide? Paul, where ever he went preached the gospel. He preached unto them Christ. He showed them from the Old Testament Scriptures that the Messiah had come. Many of the Jews at that time were living in expectation of the coming of the Messiah. Paul showed them through the Scriptures that the Messiah indeed had come. He did not preach about covenants; he preached about Christ, using the Old Testament Scriptures.
DHK

[ August 08, 2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

HankD
08-08-2002, 03:42 PM
Dear T2,

You are correct concerning the proliferation of "Christian" sects.

First it is my contention that whatever legitimacy the Church of Rome might have had with God She lost when she married the world via Charlemagne (800AD) and became know as the Holy Roman Empire.
We all know the bloodbath(s) of innocents that followed.

That you have a man which states that he is the Vicar of Christ on earth claiming to have a direct line down to Peter even if true does not purge that innocent blood from the robes of the RCC hierarchy.

Besides the test of Scripture, there is the test of common sense.
Or, to make it a test of Scripture, Baptists cannot find in the Scripture where Christ instruct the disciples or apostles to burn someone at the stake for not accepting Him in the way that the Church dictates.

You may say that times were different then and the Church is not that way anymore, but was the Pope the Vicar of Christ on earth and was the Church of Rome His Church (as you say) when the flames of the Inquisition burned? Did the infallible Church and Pope not know that Christ would disapprove of this strategy?

Secondly the Roman Church is no stranger to splinter groups. (IMO) there is little difference in the culti called "orders" (Dominicans, Franciscans, etc) and Protestant "denominations".
I am a former Catholic and have relatives in different orders. There is often, bitter disputations between them even concerning dogma. It is neither Catholic or Protestant but a human trait.
The only real difference is that you have them all under the one roof.
Many of which give the required acknowledgement to the Pope. I know for a fact that a lot of it is what we separatists call "lip service".

Third, the 15th century was when the world at large finally got tired of the slaughter and began rebelling (even as you say) against the unspeakable horrors of the various persecutions and slaughters of both political and religious dissenters and their families by the Church of Rome.

They intuitively knew that it cannot be so that this institution is being true to its Founder who said "Love one another"

And many of us wonder , what would she do if she ascended to power again?

Re Acts 11:17
You might want to find a new verse to prove the unbiblical man-made tradition of sola scripturaMaybe, but for now ,this one will do fine smile.gif

HankD

trying2understand
08-08-2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by HankD:
Or, to make it a test of Scripture, Baptists cannot find in the Scripture where Christ instruct the disciples or apostles to burn someone at the stake for not accepting Him in the way that the Church dictates.Then why did Baptists burn all those witches?

trying2understand
08-08-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by HankD:
Third, the 15th century was when the world at large finally got tired of the slaughter and began rebelling (even as you say) against the unspeakable horrors of the various persecutions and slaughters of both political and religious dissenters and their families by the Church of Rome.

They intuitively knew that it cannot be so that this institution is being true to its Founder who said "Love one another"Right... and that explains why they went out on their own campaigns of slaughter. :rolleyes:

trying2understand
08-08-2002, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by HankD:
First it is my contention that whatever legitimacy the Church of Rome might have had with God She lost when she married the world via Charlemagne (800AD) and became know as the Holy Roman Empire.800AD? Cool!! :cool:

Let's look at the collective writings of the early Church with that time period (pre 800AD) and see how it compares with what you believe. smile.gif

Are you willing to change your beliefs accordingly? ;)

[ August 08, 2002, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

HankD
08-08-2002, 05:58 PM
Then why did Baptists burn all those witchesFor similar misguided reasons.

Right... and that explains why they went out on their own campaigns of slaughterYes, even the Waldenses eventually fought back.

800AD? I said that this was the point of apostacy when the murders began. Rome had already been courted by the world political system for centuries starting with Constantine.

This seduction which drew the Church of Rome (and all the other local churches) from the pure doctrine of Christ began back in the days of the apostles.

...and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1 john 4:3.

...For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:7a

HankD

SolaScriptura
08-08-2002, 07:11 PM
So basically all of this thread could be summed up with "Baptists don't believe the Nicean creed." Thanks for the waste of time.

[ August 08, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

GH
08-08-2002, 07:52 PM
Dear Trying you wrote:

Why then is there such disagreement between so many, all claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit?

Are there many Truths and not just one Truth?

Are some deceived and not rerally led by the Holy Spirit? If so, how do you know who is led by the Spirit and who is not?

Try it for yourself. Start a thread on a very basic element of faith, such as "Is Baptism necessary?", and then watch the fur fly.

What you propose may sound good, but the history of Christianity since the Reformation, and the invention of "sola scriptura" by a man, shows it to be seriously flawed. There must be a million different competing beliefs springing from the same Bible and the same Holy Spirit. Is this what Jesus meant by being as one?

my response:

I agree with you whole-heartedly.

During about the first 500 years of the faith believers were truly one in Christ. But paganism began to creep in - especially about the time of Constantine. The doctrines of eternal damnation, hell and losing one's salvation are borrowed from Greek and Babylonian religions. This can be easily researched in any library and on websites that lift up the universal reconciliation of all people through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Those who call on the Name of Jesus in Spirit and in Truth will be persons who are seeking to find out what love is and how God is working to perfect His people in it. They will be curious about spiritual matters and try to apply what they learn to the details of their life. If they are honest with themselves they will admit that "religion" doesn't work for them. They will find that there is a precious relationship to be discovered with God. One based on His love, His work and His Spirit. Not on the doctrines of men or the traditions of men.

Our God loves His enemies. Leaves the 99 and goes after the stray. He is faithful. He is all-mighty and sovereign over all of His creation - He loves the world. For God so loved the world.......

Amid all the chatter and discussion and gnat straining, there are those who in their hearts want more than a formula to follow. "That they may know Him" is their heart's cry. And God hears them and gives them Himself. This, in my opinion, is far, far better than any business/religious organization can offer.

After Jesus' resurrection he met the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He spoke with them for a while and He was gone. They remarked, "Did not our hearts burn within us as He opened up the scriptures." This to me is an indication of people who are aware that Christ speaks to them today. There is a joy that accompanies the study of the scripture and fellowship with other believers. You will know it when you see it.

In Him, Diane

HankD
08-08-2002, 08:04 PM
So basically all of this thread could be summed up with "Baptists don't believe the Nicean creed." Thanks for the waste of time.Not a waste SS, you did learn that didn't you?

Also, lets just say they don't believe the whole thing.

BTW did anyone post it or a URL to it.

there is more than one version.

HankD

[ August 08, 2002, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

rsr
08-08-2002, 08:39 PM
Burning witches? Please explain.