Baptists, Catholics and error

And its also apparent from the shrinking size of Catholic families these days that there is also some differences of opinion in the matter of birth control. Without being too disingenuous about the matter, do you not think that alot of Catholics are committing mortal sin by not having large families?

 

It depends on how they limit the number of children.

If by artifical contraception or abortion, then yes, they are are comitting mortal sin (assuming that they are aware of the grave nature of the matter - most likely so in my mind).

If they are limiting the number of children by simply mutually refraining during periods of highest fertility, no they are not comitting mortal sin.

[ May 19, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

It still comes down to a matter of interpretation.

Is your pastor's interpretation error free?

Is your interpretation error free?

Ron

 

Sorry, Curtis. Not relevant.

Marriage for priests is a matter of discipline - not doctrine.

Discipline can and does change. Discipline is how we practice our faith.

Doctrine does not change.

I'm surprised that you still do not seem to comprehend the difference between the two.

Ron

 

Is your pastor's interpretation error free?

Is your interpretation error free?

Of course, the answer is "no".

Many Christians enjoy decreasing so that the Bible can increase when all the while, they forget that the Bible doesn't interpret itself; they interpret the Bible.

There is just no getting around interpretation, which necessitates an authoritative teaching authority, with whom the last word rests in the matter of interpretation.

Without such an authority, you will have numerous competing authorities (i.e., Protestantism). With such an authority, you will have one teaching office with whom the final word rests because it has been granted divine authority (i.e., Catholicism).

The focus is oftentimes shifted to some sort of a false dichotomy between the Magisterium and the Bible when it is precisely the Magisterium who is interpreting the Bible.. just like the Protestant sects.

The question is: who is interpreting the Bible by way of the Apostolic Tradition? Who is interpreting the Bible with divine authority? Who is interpreting the Bible correctly?

Jesus knew we would encounter these difficulties, and so he formed 12 men who comprised the Catholic Magisterium of the Apostolic Church, and the bishops are their sucessors who enjoy their authority.

 

Brother Curtis -

Take your time responding. I understand busy. That is why I haven't posted here for at least the last week.

I really wish you Baptist guys would try to understand the difference between DOCTRINE and ADMINISTRATION of doctrine. I have explained it OVER AND OVER AND OVER and you still don't "git it".

But, because I really DO like ya, Bro. Curtis, I will try again.

In DOCTRINE of the Blessed Sacrament, Brother Carson and I agree. We both believe that Jesus is really and truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity, the whole Christ, in the Eucharist. This teaching is in the Orthodox East (Us Byzantines) and the Latin West (Dem Romans). To be a member of the Catholic Church, whether Eastern or Western, one must believe this doctrine.

HOWEVER

In ADMINISTRATION of the Blessed Sacrament, there is a WIDE difference between us. We commune our infant children as soon as they can swallow a drop of the precious blood. Latins wait until the kids are old enough to be "confirmed". Big difference, but it is a difference in HOW THE SACRAMENT IS ADMINISTERED, NOT THE ONTOLOGY OF THE SACRAMENT.

In like manner, how the Western rite is served by priests (i.e., unmarried) and how the Eastern rite is served by priests (i.e., married) is not a matter of ONTOLOGY, but of administration. We both AGREE that the priest must have a valid apostolic ordination. That is DOCTRINAL and CENTRAL. Married or unmarried is an administrative issue, NOT A DOCTRINAL ONE.

This is unlike Protestantism, where you have not only disagreements of administration (Lutherans baptized kids, Baptists do not) but of the whole doctrine as well (Lutherans=baptism saves Baptists=baptism remembers being saved).

Bro. Curtis, if you go to a Baptist assembly some day and they have a carpet another color than yours and stained glass windows where you do not, certainly you are not going to accuse them of error. They are just administering their Baptist assembly different than yours.

Same thing with Carson and me.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

But there are not 12 now. Also, there are others that claim they are directly descended from the 12 apostles. Doesn't the Eastern Orthodox? And there are Protestant denominations that do as well. And the RCC is not so unified as you portray it. There are liberals and conservatives theologically. I have seen Catholic scholars fall on different sides of the fence when discussing doctrine. I went door to door in our community this last semester. We have a great number of Catholics here, and many of their reactions astonish me once I have heard this claim of unity. Many did not know the true way of salvation. They thought they would go to heaven by loving each other and doing good works. Some were down right rude and would not talk with us. Most did not take their faith serious. All of that shows me that the same problem that Protestants have Catholics have. They don't know what they believe, like many Protestants. They don't know truth, like Protestants.

Also, I believe the Bible is self interpreting much of the time. You can not hold an interpretation that contradicts other parts of Scripture, but many do, and that is where many of the divisions occur. If people (me included) studied more of what the Word of God says and make sure their interpretation is consistent with the rest of Scripture, many of the divisions would disappear. However, we like to bring our baggage to the table and hold onto it rather than yielding to what God says.

Neal

 

Carson,

Yes, that is true, meaning that all believers are called to be Bereans, and go to the scriptiures themselves for truth. But the method we use is the biblical one...letting the bible interpret itself.

There must be an authority. The authority is the Holy Spirit.

"When He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth"

A total falsehood. See above. The authority is the Holy Spirit. Yes, we have diversity in the non foundational areas, just as God predicted. On the essentials, we are unified...in spite of no "truth police"

Kinda neat, isnt it? Why do you suppose that is?

Of course. The Holy Spirit is divine.

The majesterium is not interpreting the scriptures. If that were so, we would have 2000 years of bible in the CC, rather than 2000 years of increasingly un-biblical traditions being added to Gods truth, and contradicting Gods truth.

The Holy Spirit.

What difficulties? This has been very simple, so far.

I realize that myth is very popular with some people, but it isnt true.

Why are there only the 12 foundations in Revelation 21:14? Because there have only been 12 apostles. When the last one died, there were no more. From then on it has been the scriptures alone that is our authority, with the Holy Spirit has the interpreter of the scriptures.

Why do you think it is that when you look at the Evangelical and conservative protestant world you see basically book of acts christianity continuing, with no "truth police" keeping us in line...yet with the CC and EOC, you have chaos, false teaching, heresy and idolotry running rampant, yet they have the supposed apostolic 'truth police" supposedly keeping them in line?

Doesnt that seem a bit backwards to you? If you guys have the "truth police", then you guys should be biblical, since the scriptures are Gods unchanging standard of truth, shouldnt you?

God bless,

Mike

[ May 19, 2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: D28guy ]

 

But there are not 12 now.

No, there are not. The Church grew.

Also, there are others that claim they are directly descended from the 12 apostles. Doesn't the Eastern Orthodox?

Yes, and these bishops have valid ordinations because of this - therefore, they have a valid Eucharist.

And there are Protestant denominations that do as well.

That is still disputed.

And the RCC is not so unified as you portray it. There are liberals and conservatives theologically. I have seen Catholic scholars fall on different sides of the fence when discussing doctrine.

You would have to show me the situation and theologian in question. Catholics can be united in doctrine and yet differ on the peripherals - i.e. what has not been defined or spoken authoritatively upon by the Magisterium.

Those theologians who believe and teach apart from what the Magisterium teaches - well, they aren't Catholic theologians then, are they?

Many did not know the true way of salvation. They thought they would go to heaven by loving each other and doing good works.

Yes, many Catholics are poorly catechized, esp. in the United States.

Also, I believe the Bible is self interpreting much of the time.

Like in John 3:5, where baptism is spoken of as rebirth by water and Spirit?

You can not hold an interpretation that contradicts other parts of Scripture, but many do, and that is where many of the divisions occur.

But, don't you get it? You're the division that is in the "do". You're the division that interprets Scripture wherein it contradicts other parts of Scripture. Can't you see?

This is everyone's claim, Neal.

If people (me included) studied more of what the Word of God says and make sure their interpretation is consistent with the rest of Scripture, many of the divisions would disappear.

I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point. Then, those who had separated themselves from the Church who has interpreted Scripture faithfully for 2,000 years according to the Apostolic Tradition would rejoin the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
___


There must be an authority. The authroity is the Holy Spirit.

You're right. And who does the Holy Spirit use as his instrument? Ultimately, the teaching office of the Christian Church, which began with Jesus and was continued in the Apostolic ministry (cf. Acts 15).

The majesterium is not interpreting the scriptures. If that were so, we would have 2000 years of bible, rather than 2000 years of increasingly un-biblical traditions being added to Gods truth, and contradicting Gods truth.

Well, this is where we come to a disagreement. I see 2,000 years of Bible and you see increasingly un-biblical traditions.

I could give you a couple of books to read, which were written by contemporary former anti-Catholics who once held to your position, and then, through further study, changed their position on the matter.

When the last one died, there were no more. From then on it has been the scriptures alone that is our authority, with the Holy Spirit has the interpreter of the scriptures.

Oh, really? Which Scriptures? The 21 canon NT of the non-Chalcedonian churches, which still exist today in Syria and Egypt? The 27 canon NT of the Catholic Church? The 72 book OT/NT canon of the Catholic Church? The 66 book canon of the Protestant Reformers? Marcion's shortened canon?

Are the following part of your authority?

Shepherd of Hermas
the Epistle of Barnabas
the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache)
Apostolic Constitutions
Gospel According to the Hebrews
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans
the Epistle of Clement
III Corinthians
Apocalypse of St Peter
Acts of St Paul

??? These were all considered "Scripture" by churches in the post-Apostolic age. And, someone had to say: "No, this is the canon of Scripture." Who said that? The Bible, which didn't have parameters?

Doesnt that seem a bit backwards to you? If you guys have the "truth police", then you guys should be biblical, since the scriptures are Gods unchanging standard of truth, shouldnt you?

And we are Biblical..? The reason, Mike, that I'm a Catholic is because I want to be a faithful Bible Christian. If I were to leave the Catholic Church, I would no longer be a Bible Christian.

 

Carson,

Hello,

I said...

You said...

No. There is no "teaching office" of the christian church.

The Holy Spirit is the teacher.

There are bible teachers in the body of Christ, but they are never to be followed blindly, but should always encourage their people to be "bereans", and search the scriptures themselves, even to the point of checking out everything that they themselves are teaching.

I realise that that myth is appealing to you, it kinda takes the responsibility off of you, but its just a myth.

I said...

You said...

Carson, have you been brainwashed or something?

Your the 1st catholic apologist I have ever met who has said anything like that. All the rest readilly admit that a huge part of Catholicism has not the tiniest bit of scriptural support. They say that it doesnt matter, it became part of the supposed "sacred tradition" so it is therefore true.

I realise there are "protestant to catholic" converts.

I said...

You said...

The 66 books of Gods scriptures.

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

No.

No, none of those.

God didnt cause them to stick, did he?

The people whom God used, as His intruments, to trim it at 66, and keep it at 66.

Surely you dont believe that when God used that jackass in the old testamtnent, the jackass could take credit, do you?

(and that jackass has always served as a great encouragment to me, by the way! )

He also used a giant fish for His purposes. Do all great fishes now claim to be the "direct earthly instruments of God"?

God used Rahab the whore to accomplish His purposes. Do whores now claim to be Gods "visisble representatives on earth"?

The fact that God uses men and women to accomplish His puposes gives those men and women absolutly (((zero))) reason to take any credit, nor can their being used by God mean anything regarding their worthiness.

God bless,

Mike

 

Carson,

I realise that you are told that, so you must believe it.

Its a great system to keep people in line. Tell them that only we can interpret the scriptures, you cant. Tell them that we are continuing to interpret the scriptures for you, and you must not question our teaching, and you must be rightly related to our oganization to be fully in Gods will.

Again, its a very effective system that the LDS...I mean Watchtower Bible and...I mean the Catholic Curch has.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

No. There is no "teaching office" of the christian church.

Oh, but there is, Mike!

We see it in operation in 2 Tim 2:2, in Acts 15:28, in Luke 10:16, and in 1 Thess 2:13.

Carson, have you been brainwashed or something?

No, am not. I've just continually amazed in my MA Theology program as I learn of the Church's theological history. For the Church's greatest expositor of the Bible, St. Thomas Aquinas, Sacred Theology is equated with the Sacred Page. In fact, the entire Summa Theologiae (http://www.newadvent.org/summa) is structured around Salvation History as presented in the Bible and is an exposition of the Bible.

Your the 1st catholic apologist I have ever met who has said anything like that. All the rest readilly admit that a huge part of Catholicism has not the tiniest bit of scriptural support.

That's really laughable Mike. I don't know who you've been speaking to, but I disagree wholeheartedly with them if they've really said such an outlandish thing.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in his Principles of Catholic Theology, writes that "dogma is the Church's infallible interpretation of Scripture".

I realise there are "protestant to catholic" converts.

No.. not protestant to catholic but Anti-Catholic to Catholic. There is a huge difference between the former and the latter.

The 66 books of Gods scriptures.

Where does the Bible say that it is to include these books and to exclude the others? Where is the inspired Table of Contents?

God didnt cause them to stick, did he?

No, he didn't. And how do we know that? Because God used his instrument, the councils of the Catholic Church, to tell us that "these are not Scripture" and "these are Scripture".

The people whom God used, as His intruments, to trim it at 66, and keep it at 66.

Pray tell, who? You see, now you're turning to extra-Biblical authorities in determining what is Scripture. No longer are you holding to Sola Scriptura because Sola Scriptura can't answer the most important question of all: What is to be Scripture?

I realise that you are told that, so you must believe it.

No, I'm not "told" that I must be Catholic to be a Bible Christian. I can see it with my own two eyes, brother.

 

Water = physical birth
Spirit = spiritual birth. Born again, saved

 

Water = physical birth
Spirit = spiritual birth. Born again, saved

I see that you're interpreting the text. Now, how do you know whether you're reading what you think the text "means" into the text (eisegesis) and not drawing out the meaning from the text (exegesis)?

How do you know considering that this interpretation you're proposing was unheard of in the first 16 centuries of Christianity. That's a long 1,600 years.

Is there an authority anywhere that can tell you whether your interpretation is good or bad? Or, is that authority yourself? Are you your own final authority when it comes to matters of Christian doctrine?

I propose that "water" refers to the "water" of Baptism.

 

Just have to post.

"Your the 1st catholic apologist I have ever met who has said anything like that. All the rest readilly admit that a huge part of Catholicism has not the tiniest bit of scriptural support."

Your kidding right? Make me second. Do I hear a third, trying2? Grant? Kathryn? Go over to steve ray's board and say this or perhaps phatmass.com. You'll be laughed off the face of the map. I see every single doctrine/dogma of the Catholic Church at least implicit in scripture which would be at the very least a tiny bit. Still laughing.

 

Those boards mentioned above are at

http://www.catholic-convert.com

and

http://www.phatmass.com

 

Water = physical birth
Spirit = spiritual birth. Born again, saved </font>[/QUOTE]HomeBound,

It was a good thing that Jesus reminded us, live human beings, that we must be born. I mean, so as to rule out all those people who were never born, to whom He was speaking to, right? Of course, Jesus wanted to speak to all those people who were never born, right? Because that's what you're saying.

Of course, according to your statement, a child must be PHYSICALLY BORN to be saved. I guess all the aborted children can't be saved, then, eh?

God bless,

Grant

 

Oooh, oooh! Me, me, me!

 

1) Because salvation is complete in Christ alone.

2) I don't know if it was unheard of in the 16th century, but God's plan of salvation has always been the same.

3)I believe that a study of scipture would show that the verse is talking about your physical birth. The Bible is the final authority.

4)Why would God give His Son to die on the cross, to shed His blood for my sin and yours and then say, BTW, believe also in water? Salvation is complete in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.