Still waiting for an answer

Actually Astralis most standard Protestant commentaries describe the whore of Revelation 17 as the Roman Catholic Church, as well as some Catholic commentaries. It is very common. Why don't you go and look at the commentaries that can be found on line. What Sovereign Grace said is not that far off from what many many Protestants believe.
DHK

 

DHK,

I said, "intelligent Protestants."

[ August 22, 2002, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

Like I said you ought to read some of the online commentaries. There is no need to infer that some of the greatest scholars that we have had are fools. That is what you are making of yourself. There is no excuse to sit content in blissful ignorance.
DHK

 

Astralis --

Honestly, why bother any more? You can find boobs like sov grace a dime a dozen everywhere on the planet. Not only does he not know Church history, not believe the promises of Christ, not have any idea of proper interpretation of the Bible, nor any idea of the covenant of God, but he DOESN'T WANT TO!!

I'm seriously considering ending my little daliance on forum boards. It is a waste of time, except for the rare few people like Adam and Briguy, Aussie Theo Student and a couple of others, most of what we spend out time doing is knocking our heads against a wall.

Yer a better man that I be, Gunga Din, if'n ya want to keep playing this game.

Brother Ed

 

Brother Ed,
Let me point out an inconsistency here. You rely heavily on the writings of the early Church Fathers. We do not, although we respect them, and even occasionally use them. The Bible remains our final authority. We also use other resources like commentaries written close to the time of the reformation, and the following two centuries especially. There were many great scholars during those years. We don't go continuously mocking the church fathers, but do point out that we do not agree with everything they believe, because the Bible is our final authority. There is still respect there.
There is no just cause to call great men of God fools, or to infer the same. I am not referring to Sovereign Grace, I am referring to those who agree with him, as I have already pointed out the Protestant reformers and those who protestant who wrote commentaries, saying much the same that Sovereign Grace was trying to say. I find a great deal of hypocrisy in your previous post, and lack of charity and respect in both yours and Australis.
You want respect from us, but won't give the same in return.
DHK

 

DHK,

Is this what you mean by charity?

BTW, these are your charitable quotes.

You think that what we have to say isn't charitable because you don't like to hear someone disagree with you. I have been very friendly in light of all the attacks, such as saying I belong to a faith that isn't worthy of being called a Church.

 

What I posted are facts. Did the Catholic Church burn Tyndale at the stake or not? Is this a fact of history or not? Was this there way of dealing with those that disagreed with them or not? These are the facts of history, as ugly as they are.

I suggest you go back and read the rules of this board before you enter into to it. If you can't take the heat get out. But if your only rebuttal is to come back and call Protestant scholars unintelligent fools, then I pity you. Please use your intelligence. What I said is truth. If the truth hurts so be it. Maybe you ought to repent and get ought of an apostate religion.
DHK

 

Thanks for your charity! You're very friendly.

Agape!
Astralis

 

Thanks for your charity! You're very friendly.

Agape!
Astralis</font>[/QUOTE]I see, the Catholic church was just trying to be charitable when they forcibly invited Tyndale to their bonfire. It was especially charitable of them to use Tyndale as fuel for the bonfire too.

 

Dual,

In your haste to paint the Catholic Church as some monster you overlook the protestant atrocities that have taken place thru out the centuries....atrocities prepetuated on Catholics and non-Catholics.

As I told PS104, this type of dialogue is pointless and only further divides people.

LaRae

 

The term "protestant" refers to a extremely broad group of people. Just being a "protestant" won't save anybody. Many Protestants in history committed the same sort of attrocities that the Catholics committed, if is doubtful that those committing these attrocities on both sides had any real knowledge of the Truth. The difference is that the Catholics today will try to claim that the the Catholics commiting the attrocities were Christians and thus new the Truth.

 

Just out of curiousity, who's being divided?

 

This thread is now 8 pages long. Back on the first page, on the first post the question was asked:

CAN YOU NAME ONE ORAL, EXTRABIBLICAL TRADITION, DEMONSTRABLY TRACED TO THE APOSTOLIC AGE, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

No Catholic has come forward and given an adequate answer to this question. What Australis and Daniel have done is mindlessly put forth the Catholic statement that the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church (meaning Catholic of course), and yet offer no evidence or proof to back up this baseless claim, when in fact history is replete with examples of where the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic organization. The fact is the verse was twisted out of context in the first place and never meant to apply to the Catholic "Church." When shown their error, they have replied more with insults than with Scripture. The facts, both of the Bible and of Scripture speak for themselves. The doctrine of the Catholic Church cannot be found in the Bible. And the atrocities of the Catholic Church nullify it from being Christ's church.

As for Protestants' atrocities, that begs the question. First, many Baptists, like myself do not consider themselves Protestants. We existed before the reformation, were not in the Catholic Church, as the reformers who protested against it and tried to reform it from within.
Secondly, some of the Protestant leaders of the Reformation era such as Luther and Calvin were some of the greatest persecutors of Baptists also. There was no love loss between them and the Baptists. The issue became one of separation of church and state. When Calvin set up his own church state, he persecuted those who did not agree with him. Just as the Catholic Church did under the terrible reign of Bloody Mary.
Baptists were advocates of soul liberty, the freedom to believe what you believed was right. The Catholic Church tried to force by the sword others to believe their heretical doctrine. This is not charity is it?
DHK

 

Assumption of Mary. We discussed this. Read the thread again, you must have missed it.

 

Assumption of Mary. We discussed this. Read the thread again, you must have missed it.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you serious?
The "assumption of Mary" was not declared a dogma of the Catholic church until 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared it to be so.
If this doctrine is so necessary for faith and practice of the church, why was it not even proclaimed a dogma of the Catholic Church until 1950?
DHK

 

DHK,

Yes, your response is usually the first response from Protestants. But upon closer inspection on how the Church works, you will notice that we also defined the Trinity, and also defined canon in the Third Century once and for all. Are we to say these beliefs didn't exist before then? Of course not.

The following is from a post of mine earlier in this thread that addresses your concern in more detail:

 

CAN YOU NAME ONE ORAL, EXTRABIBLICAL TRADITION, DEMONSTRABLY TRACED TO THE APOSTOLIC AGE, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

The question is still avoided. Both the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary are not necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ. Both are man made doctrines unsupported by the Bible. Your rationalization of Scriptures is simply that: rationalization--taking Scripture out of context or applying Scripture improperly. You have failed to demonstrate from Scripture how these doctrines are necessary to the faith and practice of the church. You cannot even trace them to the Apostolic age through viable historical resources. You must rely on unreliable tradition.
DHK

 

I rely on Tradition, you may believe it's unreliable, but scripture tells us to hold onto Tradition (notice the big "t"). If the Catholic Church is the church Jesus founded as it claims it is, and if Jesus promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and promised the Peter that whatever he binds on earth in bound in heaven, then Catholics must accept Tradition as authoritative and also accept the Church's interpretation of it.

You disagree with this which is fine. But, you cannot say you're 100 percent correct in your private interpretation of scripture unless you're infallible.

 

Let's just say my interpretation of the Scripture is far closer to the truth than the Catholic Church's private interpretation. I, BTW, don't claim to have a private interpretation, unlike the Catholic Church, so that is either a misunderstanding, ignorance, or deliberate slander. You can choose which one, and then inform me.

You say you rely on tradition according to Scripture. Scripture condemns the teachings of man and tradition in the sense that you believe and teach. In the verses usually used by Catholics to support tradition, the word "tradition," simply means truth. The tradition that Paul taught was the truth of Scripture, the truth of the gospel, the truth that God directly revealed to Him by special revelation. Christianity was new. There was no "tradition" that was formed or built up when Paul wrote his epistles. It takes time for tradition to be formed. Your idea of tradition is totally foreign to the New Testament and cannot be supported by the New Testament, except in the verses where Christ condemns it.
DHK