Baptist theology compared with Roman Catholic theology

The exception clause in Matthew 19:9 is NOT Scripture unless it is genuine. We have four accounts in the New Testament of what Jesus taught on divorce, and all four accounts agree with the single exception of the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 which appears to have been unknown to the early church. The logical conclusion is that it was a later addition to the text taken from Matthew 5:32.

Matt. 5:32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

But of course in this verse, the reason for the exception clause is that if one divorces his wife for the reason of unchastity he is not causing her to commit unchastity because she has already done so. And in the last half of the verse we read, “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

In Mark 10:11 Jesus taught, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

The language in Luke 16:18 is even stronger, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

As I have already pointed out, on Biblical grounds alone, the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 appears to be spurious. If it is indeed spurious, we would expect it to be unknown to the early Church Fathers and that is what we find. The Bible is, of course, the final authority, but the correct interpretation of the Scriptures is no secret and has been known by at least some Christians throughout the history of the Church. Interpretations of the Scriptures that are not found in any writings for the first 1500 years of the Church cannot reasonable said to be correct, and any interpretations that are totally in conflict with the unanimous view of the Church for 1500 years most certainly cannot reasonable said to be correct. And, of course, interpretations of the Scriptures that are dependent upon modern theology that was unknown until recent times cannot reasonable said to be correct.

There are literally thousands of scribal glosses that do not appear in the text of any English translation of the New Testament today. Many of these scribal glosses were identified by comparing the writings of the church fathers with ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

I was educated as a scientist, but when I was called by God into the pastoral ministry, I had to go back to school and get a new education. This new education, however, did not cause me to add any new doctrines or drop any doctrines that I had already believed in from the Scriptures alone, but this new education did very much reinforce my belief in the doctrines that I had learned exclusively from very carefully and very prayerfully reading the Bible.

</font>[/QUOTE]I’ll bet that publican sinner Tax man Matthew didn’t have his degree in science. What a slob he must have been. I’m sure he wouldn’t have included this information if he’d known a scientist would someday be reading his gospel.

Another scientist, Einstein found he had made the biggest blunder in his life in believing what was not true. He found this out when he peered through Edwin Hubble’s telescope at Mt. Wilson Observatory in California.

I don’t understand your objection to what is said in Matthew 19:9. If all the gospels had the exact same wording, there would be no need of 4. We find illumination in all four, and they certainly do not all contain the same thing. When we decide one verse shouldn’t be included, and then you can bet you will find another you do not agree with, or believe what someone else says. Do we believe His Word, or do we believe the word of man?

Christian faith, ituttut

 

Craig,
You speak as though the church fathers, men from many centuries and places all spoke with one mind. That is not so.
How do you handle their disagreements?

I do say that Athanasius spoke clearly and usefully against Arius on the deity of Christ.
Yet it was 11 or 1200 years, then, before Martin Luther spoke clearly on justification by faith, in a way that was not so clear in the preserved writings of earlier theologians.

But the germ of much of Calvin was in Augustine's writings.
What is there about the EARLY fathers that is valuable to you, but then you are willing to dismiss Calvin as a novelty? Not only that but godless. Then how is Augustine so great?

Karen

 

It find much less confidence that the writings of the church fathers have made it through without corruption than the text of Matthew. There would have been no mystical inhibition against changing the words of a mere man.

The universal rule of history is that the winners write the history books. The RCC dominated Europe for about 1000 years. The possibility that the RCC would not have attempted to purge any writings that compared to Calvin's supposed heresy is very low considering the "purifying" they sought through things like the inquisitions. In fact, it is very hard to imagine that they would have allowed the preservation of the theology of "heretics" when they did everything they could to suppress them even to the point of executing them en masse.

The best available record for what the NT church believed is the scriptures themselves.

 

Karen, please don’t misrepresent what I write. Regarding the Church fathers I wrote,

The value of the Church Fathers and Christian scholars throughout the history of the Church is that we have a standard against which we can compare the interpretations of Scripture being preached and taught today. True, we find a whole lot of trash tossed in by very many fools and heretics, but throughout the history of the Church we also find the truth.

Notice especially theses words, “we find a whole lot of trash tossed in by very many fools and heretics, but throughout the history of the Church we also find the truth.

</font>[/QUOTE]To even refer to "Church Fathers" (who were the predecesors to the Roman Catholic religion) as a "standard" is sickening to say the least. Further, I notice that you keep capitalizing the "Church" as if it is some universal organization, yet ecclesia demands local assemblies not universal monsters.

 

While I don't endorse the sites you listed, was your main point to get a jab in on those who hold to the King James Bible?

 

I think you need to tone down your rhetoric.

 

We all know for an absolute fact that NONE of the gospels “made it through without corruption” because we don’t have even one manuscript of any of the gospels that doesn’t include glosses and omissions.</font>[/QUOTE] One who reads your posts also knows that you express the most doubt about scriptures that are contrary to your personal points of view.

You appear all too willing to reject scripture in favor of uninspired writings, traditions, or "science".

Robertson answers those such as yourself: http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=19&verse=9

Facts straight? What? Believe you over the translators of every major Bible translation? Over scholars that actually demonstrate respect for scripture? I don't think so.

In most cases, textual criticism would favor this inclusion by the very fact that it is different making it the "more difficult" text.

Please get your accusations straight so that you don't falsely imply that someone is posting false information.

 

Speaking of declaring facts straight...

In response we find:

http://www.restorationquarterly.org/Volume_024/rq02404osburn.htm#N_28_

Not surprisingly, Craig is willing to accept scant evidence against the biblical text over a mountain of evidence for it.

Also, his claim that the early church fathers knew nothing of this exception rings hollow in the face of the oldest texts containing a shorter form of it... including those that were extant during the lives of those fathers.

Yes... and you have yet to prove that those whose works the RCC allowed or caused to survive were correct.

Since the RCC dominated government, religion, and education for over 1000 years and demonstrated little hesitation at destroying dissent and dissenters... no reasonable person can assert that the views Craig calls novel... are in fact novel.

That is completely absurd. The Bible says what it says. Interpretting the Bible by comparing it to itself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is far more reliable than depending on a very incomplete record of historical beliefs.

It is completely without merit to call something a scribal gloss when it is supported by all but one ms.

 

Rubbish! Ludicrous rubbish! The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers did not write the New Testament—they interpreted it—and NONE of them interpreted it the way that Baptists do today because Baptist theology did not evolve for another 1,200 years, and it has and is continuing to evolve resulting in new interpretations of the Scriptures that have no historical support. The same is true, to a lesser or greater extent, of all of the Protestant denominations and their interpretation of the Scriptures.

</font>[/QUOTE]How can you write that and still claim to be a Baptist?

You are a Baptist aren't you? And if you are given your above statement, why stay Baptist?

 

It is simply amazing, page after page typed about a false religion. One sentence would summarize the catholic church, it is not of God. Craig, give your fingers a rest.