1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured A Jehovah's Witness is at my Door!

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Wittenberger, Aug 28, 2012.

  1. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I understand your objection. And in a certain sense you are right. Catholics do have to take responsibility for distrust. However, I disagree with your reason as to why. I disagree about the premise of your assertion. We hold to scriptural teaching however not everything is plainly written in Scripture. For instance the Trinity. Nowhere in the bible will you find the word Trinity it became defined much later one. Does that mean scripture doesn't teach the Trinity? No it doesn't mean that but there is no instance in which it was necissary to dogmatically define Trinity when the scriptures were written but certainly we see scriptural allusions to the doctrine. The same can be said of the Catholic Doctrines not specified in scriptures as those particular doctrines. I believe the Doctrine of Purgatory is alluded to in scriptures that I will referrence here
    And other verses as well. Those were just a few that I believe allude to the teaching.

    As far as Mary note that everything believed about Mary stems from what we believe about Jesus. You have no problem with the assumption of Enoch or Elijah. Many evangelist have no problem with a Rapture which includes the assumption of multitudes of Christians in the future. So certainly there is scriptural precedent for the assumption of Mary. We believe that the Ark of the covenant prefigured Jesus Mother as ark holding the very incarnation. We believe when the Angel proclaimed to Mary "Chaire, Kecharitomene" Where
    We see attestation to this belief (trail of belief going back to the earliest time of the Church). Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD), Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD), Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD)

    And the oldest document of in existance of Marian dogma is found in the Sub Tuum praesidium which parchment dates it back to 250 AD.


    Where the fault with the Catholics does lie is what Luther protested against initially. The lax moral attitude of its practitioners and clergy by profaining their own faith by their lust, greed, covetiousness, etc... And the use of the faith to make personal gains. but not with its faith.
     
  2. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    How can I be wrong in stating what you believe Catholics believe about tradition. Certainly you believe what I've stated you believe about Catholic Tradition. You believe we create Tradition by referrence to the ecf. I'm just saying your view is wrong. We do not do that.
    I can no more "prove" to you that Tradition is true any more than you can "prove" to an atheist that scriptural assertions of whom Jesus is; is true. That isn't my intent in this discussion. What my intent is to to show you how I can trace Catholic Traditional Doctrine through history back to the time of the apostles.

    It is clear you misunderstood my example. I'm not asserting that Billy Graham or Billy Sunday or correct but I was showing you the methodology of determining whether some one said something by the writing of witnesses of the event. If I didn't have a verified voice recording of Billy Sunday or his own written document I can still verify whether my Pastor acurately quoted Billy Sunday thus verifying what Billy Sunday actually said by witnesses of the event and what they had to say about it.

    Ah you missed the point all together again. The Rosetta Stone is an original document but that wasn't the point the point is the Egyptian written on it could not be understood as it is a dead language but because the Tradition of learning Greek was maintained faithfully through the years we can now accurately interpret the Egyptian. Greek in the example is tradition. Jewish society under King Herod is long dead. Values and norms have long since changed. The context in which the words were applied in its day is no longer our context but thankfully Tradition has kept in tact the meanings that were passed on.

    Tradition has always been how things have been passed on from one generation to the next.

    Then your argument that Homer isn't inspired is a non sequitur.

    Have a safe trip.
     
  3. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Rosetta Stone is an ORIGINAL source not some HEARSAY oral tradition passed down mouth to mouth. It is written in unchangable rock. It comes directly from the period the languages found written on it. Tradition has no resemblance to this. The original autographs are analogous to the Rosetta stone but not tradition.

    Tradition offers nothing "authentic" or reliable then or now.





    Never said you did! However, it is your analogy of Homer that is flawed BECAUSE Homer is not inspired any more than Plato.

    Will finish this when I get back from town.:wavey:[/QUOTE]


    I think the problem here is that we are using two different definitions for the word "authority". The Bible is the final authority. The ECF are written statements of early Christians, found in historical records, which therefore, are potentially fallible.

    Our use of the word "authority" does not mean that the ECF are infallible. They were men. They absolutely were fallible.

    You seem to use the word "authority" as referring only to written documents which are infallible. I think that Thinkingstuff and I would both agree that we are not using that term to express that meaning. All documents are fallible except Holy Scripture.

    So would it help if we stopped using the word authority and just used "early Christian historical records"? (ECHR)
     
  4. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    However, if you read how I use the Rosetta Stone its not the stone itself to which I refer resembles tradition but the maintenance of Greek which is written on the stone along with Egyptian. Lets say Egyptian is the culture in which Jesus lived along with the Apostles. That culture is long dead speaking of Judea at the time of Jesus as well as the Ancient Egyptian Culture. Both left their mark. Jesus by starting the Christian faith and Egypt by writing on the Rosetta Stone. Now if we want to know what the Egyptians were specifically talking about on the stone we have an interpreter Greek which the Study of that Language has been faithfully maintained and handed down one Generation to the next until this very day. In the same manner the original intent of Apostolic Tradition has been handed down faithfully to this very day so that when Jesus says "this is my Body" we understand by Tradition he didn't mean just symbolically in no real sense. That is how my example of the Rosetta stone was used. And its in this way the Greek which is writen on the stone as well as Egyptian and the faithful transmition of greek learning was passed down that we can understand not only the greek on that rock but the egyptian as well for without the greek we couldn't begin to understand what the egyptian meant.
     
  5. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent points. Just to be clear the comment you are responding to was made by Biblicist, not me. Somehow when I responded to Biblicist's comment it appeared on screen as if I had said part of his remarks.
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Almost all matters are local. I know of local churches in the area that have had to discipline people out of their churches after finding out that they believed in heresy like baptismal regeneration.
    First, the world was not that big.
    Second, Christianity was still in its infancy.
    Third, the NT canon was not yet complete.
    Fourth, it was a time of transition. This is what the book of Acts shows. There are many things that happened in the Book of Acts that will never happen again--Pentecost and the signs that accompanied Pentecost, the miraculous sign gifts (the speaking of so-called tongues today is bogus), Peter's miraculous gift of healing to heal all who came to him from all the cities around about Jerusalem (Acts 5:16), the Council at Jerusalem, etc. These are historical events. They will not be duplicated, replicated, imitated, etc. Any attempt to do so will result in a sham, as has been show in history.
    The purpose of the Council was to affirm a doctrine not yet established in Scripture. That doctrine is well established in books like Romans and Galatians. We don't need such councils any longer. We have the Word of God. By the end of the first century the canon was complete. Contrary to RCC thinking the early believers knew which books were inspired and which were not. The apostles had taught them. There is ample proof in other versions of the Bible such as the Itala and Peshitta.
    2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
    10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
    11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

    They had house-churches. If they did not believe in the doctrine of Christ, were heretics, brought false doctrine of any sort, they were not even to be invited into the house. In fact they were not even to say "Good-Bye" meaning "God-be-with-you." Don't say it to a J.W. or Mormon is the meaning there. The onus was on individual churches not councils.
    I gave my testimony because it involved the very things that you so adamantly speak against: the leading of the Lord in one's life, the calling of the Holy Spirit, etc. You speak against these things as if you have never experienced them and therefore deny they exist.
    I would have never married my wife without a great deal of prayer preceding that decision.
    God told me that the wife I have was the right one for me. He gave me peace about it. He didn't write an extra verse in the Bible giving me her name and address.
    Yes, wisdom is needed in all of our decisions.
    There is no such thing as "earning grace."
    A farmer and shoemaker has just as much responsibility in studying the Word of God as a pastor does. It was a cobbler that became the first modern missionary, went to India and translated the Bible or parts thereof into 44 different languages.
     
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You keep mentioning the trinity, bu t the RCC ONLY recognised what the church knew and expressly believed in and taught since Apostolic times!

    that doctrine was in the Bible, far different than Rome coming up with a deniel of pauline Justification and a new Gospel!
     
  8. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wittenberger posted...

    Thats odd you would say that.

    "Sola scriptura" has been working wonderfully for centuries...

    Not perfectally, mind you, but it works very very well. Clearly better than any other system.
     
    #68 Alive in Christ, Aug 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2012
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Here is the problem. The stone is what preserves the groups of language and what is written in stone does not change. The stone comes directly from that culture.

    The EFC's are neither analoguous to the stone or to the language on the stone or the preservation of the stone, or the preservation of the languages on the stone. There is NO analogy between an unchangable object and the EFC's period! There is NO analogy between what is preserved in stone and the EFC's period! Furthermore, the stone only provides light to secular use of languages at that precise period and nothing more. From that precise period forward it is guesswork.

    Uninspired opinions verified by other uninspired witnesses and opinions equals nothing but uninspired opinions no matter how well they are preserved or testified to by uninspired witnesses and there is no analogy that can make uninspired opinion regardless of the volume and regardless of the years of witnesses to make uninspired opinions any more authoritative than uninspired opinons today.

    Traditions can NEVER be an "authority" for truth of Scripture. They can be an UNINSPIRED reference but nothing more or less.
     
  10. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The Trinity wasn't defined as doctrine until Nicea. Which is the point. Scriptures didn't set out to dogmatize the Trinity but it certainly alludes to the Trinity. And that is the point. No where in scripture will it set out to say Ok now lets discusse the trinitarian nature of God. Because that wasn't an issue in the early Church. Not until much later with heretics such as Arius who wanted to protect the oneness of God leading him into the Heresy of having Jesus become a created being.

    First of all its really clear from this statement you have no idea what you are talking about. Justification has alway been held to be the Catholic view until the reformation. And your particular brand of Justification started with Calvin. You can see throughout Christian history and in scripture how justification is used. Even you trying to allude to Paul you have inadvertantly pit Paul against James. Like Marcion you pick and Choose selectively Paul because you believe he best fits you perspective when James clearly says
    And if you took Paul in his Context in both Romans and Galatians you will clearly see you've mistook his intent. Justification was never Forensic.
     
  11. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    That is not a problem as the Deposit of Faith (Tradition) doesn't change.
     
  12. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW: Lutherans do not believe man can earn grace, it is a free gift from God. I was stating the RCC position on grace during Luthers's time. I hope and pray that the RCC will eventually come around to the fact that our good works are simply proof of our genuine faith but have nothing to do with saving us. The RCC has moved closer to this belief, they signed a document with Lutherans that agreed with Luther's position, but sadly they still teach that we must do good works to help complete our salvation.

    Someone needs to contact the webmaster: something's haywire with the formatting of responses. My comments begin with BTW.
     
    #72 Wittenberger, Aug 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2012
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    That depends upon YOUR interpretation of Scriptures not on uninspired historical data.
     
  14. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It doesn't depend on any such thing. I can show a line of belief going from this day throughout history back to the scriptures.
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    No you cannot! All you can show is a line of historical UNINSPIRED and divisive opinions going back to the first century. You can show how one post-fifth century denomination picked an chose from among a history of uninspired divisive opininons to form another system of uninspired opinions.
     
    #75 The Biblicist, Aug 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2012
  16. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    There you go again. Such Nonsense! Do I have to show you divinely inspired documentation to prove to you 1+1=2? Or how about divinely inspired picture to prove that elephants exist? Or how about divinely inspired skeleton that DoDo Birds once existed? Of course not. I don't need to give you divinely inspired anything to show you that there has been a line of people going back from this day to the past who held to certain beliefs by their own documentation. It doesn't have to be inspired just factual.
     
  17. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0

    Wittenberger's response:

    Unfortunately my brother, it is here where Lutherans and Roman Catholics part company.

    Lutherans believe that looking to the writings of the ECF helps guide us to the proper interpretation of Scripture. But we only accept those Church Fathers who are consistent with Scripture and whose views can be shown to be the overwhelming majority opinion in the early Church of the first three to four centuries AD.

    Just because one or two "Church Fathers" express an opinion that seems to support the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary does NOT mean that it is scriptural, God inspired doctrine. We must look at what the other Church Fathers were saying during the same period of time, AND look to see if their beliefs are consistent with earlier Church Fathers who represented the overwhelming majority of the Christians in the first few centuries after Christ.

    Any teaching that is "new", not found in earlier writings, not accepted by the majority of the Church during that time period or before, and most importantly, NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, is suspect and most likely false doctrine.

    This is why Lutherans do not believe in Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption and other RCC doctrines which cannot be found in Scripture or in the writings of the earliest Fathers.

    Baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper can be consistently found in all writings of the ECF at all stages of history. The teachings above cannot. This is why Luther condemned them.

    My brother, the Scriptures you quote to support your belief in Purgatory are so vague, that if this criteria is used for establishing doctrine, the Christian faith is in a lot of trouble.

    Stick to the clearly expressed doctrines of the one, holy, catholic (universal, not Roman), apostolic church as found in the Bible and the writings of the earliest Church Fathers. Once the Bishop of Rome started dictating doctrine, all bets are off when it comes to decisions made by Popes and subsequent Church Councils.
     
  18. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Another false analogy! Animals REPRODUCE AFTER THEIR OWN KIND. Rocks preserve original things. However, we are talking about the history of UNINSPIRED opinions or oral traditions.

    You have NOTHING but hearsay and divisive hearsay at that. That is why Jesus never quoted "the traditions" as authority for anything but ALWAYS quoted scripture while continually pointing out the FLAWS of traditions. However you never read him pointing out any flaw in scripture! Orange verus apples.
     
    #78 The Biblicist, Aug 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2012
  19. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    FYI Catholics don't believe (even in Luther's time) that you can earn salvation by your own merits. What we believe is that once we are in the "Ark of Salvation" by God's Grace we can please God and remain in his grace. Because even our ability to do good works is due to God's grace. I just so happened in Luther's time a lot of misinformation was being passed around by people who were unscrupulous trying to get money from indulgences and all the other nonsense. Reform was necissary for a great many Catholics and there were reformers who never left the Catholic Church.
     
  20. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You aren't even talking about that! You don't need an inspired document to show that so and so who lived in such and such and age believed such and such a thing when they wrote down what they believed. I don't need an inspired text to show you what Augustine, or Ambrose, or what anyone else who wrote what they believed, believed! They speak for themselves.

    And if I can show you a line of belief about the meaning of a text going back to the writings of the Scripture themselves then you can say that is a consistent teaching.

    But if you come up and say something no one else said about a 2,,000 year old text then you are making a new teaching and not relying on the consistent 2,000 year old teaching.
     
Loading...