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 Wrongly Dividing the Word:

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by vooks, May 16, 2015.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Originally Posted by BobRyan [​IMG]
    yet Christ was not at all pleased with even the most minor edit/modify of one of the Ten Commandments -

    [FONT=&quot]Mark 7

    7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
    8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
    9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
    10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
    11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
    12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
    13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said

    [FONT=&quot]Notice that in thi[FONT=&quot]s case in Mark 7 the Jews [FONT=&quot]are "making stuff [FONT=&quot]up" in their [FONT=&quot]baptizing the cups and pots - regar[FONT=&quot]ding what you [FONT=&quot]"eat and [FONT=&quot]drink" - regar[FONT=&quot]ding food and drink - being con[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]taminated[/FONT] by sin - Christ in Mark 7 declares that to be [FONT=&quot]nonsense even before the cross.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

    Here you engage in story telling and "making stuff up"

    why do that?

    IF Jesus had insisted that they enforce civil law penalties under the theocracy he would have had the adulteress stoned as they insisted. This is the very trap they wanted him to fall in -- and you have argued that He did fall into it in Mark 7 -- and obviously you are wrong.

    In Mark 7 Christ is pointing out how serious the violation is - not that they should invoke civil laws of their theocracy - while not under a theocracy.

    You are ignoring the details, the context and just looking for 'spin' as you JOIN the Jews in attacking Christ's Ten Commandments. Try truth.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. vooks

    vooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why are you parading ignorance for all and sundry?
    There is a clear COMMANDMENT in ' do not curse your parents' AND in 'honor your father and mother'. The former attracts death while the other carries a promise.

    One of these is included in the ten, the other is not. BOTH are commandments blowing out of your ignorance the argument that commandments mean the ten and nothing but the ten.

    Shadow chasers are a hopelessly ignorant bunch:laugh:
     
    #22 vooks, May 22, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2015
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The point remains -- your attempt at vacuous rant is mere fluff.

    If your only response is to demonstrate the truth my signature line... well then... next thread
     
  4. vooks

    vooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Look at this ignoramus prophesied of by Peter as both UNSTABLE and UNLEARNED.

    There is no temple IN the city and no temple elsewhere.

    And he never answered. Since New Jerusalem is a City without sun nor moon,and without a temple seeing God is its temple, what ELSE exists outside it to warrant a Temple? Will the temple be located in a place where the presence of God will not reach?:tonofbricks:
     
    #24 vooks, May 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2015
  5. vooks

    vooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Jesus sitting/standing at the right hand of God and all aks is, is there a HOLIER place than that? The answer is NO!

    The UNLEARNED and the UNSTABLE as usual ignore the question and hurl tons of garbage your way

     
  6. vooks

    vooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Poor fickle apologists, UNSTABLE, UNLEARNED

    Very simple.
    Acts 15 Council was very clear on what was valid for a Gentile and what was not. So armed with the Acts 15 first Christian epistle and NT, I know very well what is expected of a Gentile and what is not.

    On the other hand I would challenge the apologist to show me just one thing they do that was never mentioned in the NT.

    The UNLEARNED can't prove that commandments is a term EXCLUSIVE to the Ten yet they rabidly believe it, while the rest are ordinances, statutes ......

    The UNSTABLE believe moral laws are the Ten Commandments while the rest are ceremonial laws all this without proof
     
  7. vooks

    vooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    The UNSTABLE and UNLEARNED try as they may to support their faux-sabbath keeping arrive at this;


    1. The early church especially Paul keeping sabbath.
    Well, the church also kept other Jewish feasts and in any case, Paul became a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles-1 Cor 9:20-21.
    It is instructive to note that the early church ate fish yet our fickle apologist is probably a vegan after being threatened with hellfire for eating meat by Ellen White:laugh:

    2. Sabbatismos of Hebrews 4
    The context is VERY clear to all but the braindead; God's Rest not interrupting your work life every Saturday

    3. Jesus kept it and we should follow him
    He ate fish as well and kept ALL Jewish feasts. Keep all those and start eating fish you UNLEARNED hypocrite!:laugh:

    Facts:
    1. There is NO a sabbath commandment in the entire NT unlike the other 9
    2. There is no sin of sabbath breaking in the entire NT unlike the innumerable sins of breaking the other 9
    3. Sabbath and all Jewish feasts are shadows-Col 2:16, and regarding/not regarding any is TO THE LORD; a sabbath/Passover keeper and non-keeper are equals-Romans 14:6 :tonofbricks:
     
    #27 vooks, May 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2015
  8. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,107
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Faith:
    Baptist

    We understand things from our own tradition. This was the hardest thing for me to get over. When I tried to allow Scripture to dictate its meaning, I would often find myself carrying into my understanding what I had been previously taught. It is difficult, and I often fail, but at least I am aware when I revert back to my “tradition” dictating Scripture rather than Scripture dictating my understanding.

    I say all of that to say this: there is no one so blind as an apologist. I don’t mean the biblical meaning of having an answer for our faith, but the more contemporary meaning of an intensively focused contention for our theology and ideologies. Many cannot see the forest for the trees. I don’t think they are “dishonest,” but they are ignorant. It is an ignorance that one either struggles against in order to understand the truth, or it is an ignorance towards which one remains unaware.
     
  9. lakeside

    lakeside New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Ignorance is distinguished from mere nescience, which is a lack of knowledge that a person has no need of. For example, a person who did not know the square root of 1429 would be ignorant of it if he were taking a math test, but he would be nescient of it if performing a task that didn't require the number.

    Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two I will consider here are invincible and vincible. Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.

    The gravity of a question is determined by how great a need the person has to know the answer. The answers to fundamental questions (how to save one's soul, how to preserve one's life) have grave weight. The answers to minor questions (the solution to a crossword puzzle) have light weight.

    The particular resources a person has include (a) the ease with which he can obtain the information necessary to determine the answer and (b) the ease with which he can make an accurate evaluation of the evidence once it is in his possession. The graver the question and the greater the resources available, the more diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable. The lighter the question and the fewer the resources available, the less diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable.

    Just as it is possible to show less than reasonable diligence, it is also possible to show more than reasonable diligence. Diligence can be supererogatory (and praiseworthy) if one shows more diligence than would be expected from an ordinary, conscientious person. Diligence can be excessive or scrupulous (and blameworthy) if someone spends so much time seeking the answer to a particular question that he fails to attend to other matters he should attend to, or if he refuses to come to a conclusion and continues seeking even when he has enough evidence.

    Depending on its type and degree, ignorance may remove, diminish, leave unaffected, or even increase one's culpability for a materially sinful act (cf. CCC 1735, 1746, 1859). Conversely, it may have the same effects on one's imputability for a materially righteous act. Here we will deal only with the effects of ignorance on one's culpability for sin,

    Part 2 to follow-
     
  10. lakeside

    lakeside New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 2 on ignorance

    Invincible ignorance removes one's culpability for a materially sinful act, whether one of omission or commission (CCC 1793). Vincible ignorance may variously affect one's culpability for a sinful act, depending on the kind of vincibility. If some, but insufficient, diligence was shown toward finding the answer, the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or studied.

    If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.

    Affected or studied ignorance can increase culpability for a sin, especially if it displays hardness of heart, whereby one would commit the sin irrespective of any law that might exist concerning it. Such an attitude shows contempt for moral law and so increases culpability (cf. CCC 1859).

    Potentially, ignorance can diminish or remove imputability for any kind of sin. However, no one is presumed to be ignorant of the principles of moral law since these are written on the heart of every man (CCC 1860). It is possible for a person to be invincibly ignorant that an act is required by natural law. This may be true if the act involves a point that is not obvious, if the person is not mentally quick enough to discern the application of natural law to the case, or if he has been raised to strongly believe in a system that denies the point of natural law. However, such ignorance must be proven, not presumed.

    In practical use, the terms vincible and invincible may pose problems for those unfamiliar with Catholic moral terminology. For many, vincible is a wholly unfamiliar term and invincible can suggest that which can never be overcome, no matter how much diligence is shown. Because of these difficulties, it may be advisable in practice to speak of innocent (invincible) and culpable (vincible) ignorance when addressing such people.

    However, other individuals (notably radical traditionalists and Feeneyites) may view one as suspect if one substitutes the innocent/culpable ignorance terminology. When addressing such individuals, the standard terminology should be used.

    A special case is the application of vincible and invincible ignorance to salvation. Failure to embrace the Christian faith (infidelity), total repudiation of the Christian faith (apostasy), and the post-baptismal obstinate denial or willful doubt of particular teachings of the Catholic faith (heresy) are objectively grave sins against the virtue of faith. Like any other grave sins, if they are committed with adequate knowledge and deliberate consent, they become mortal sins and will deprive one of salvation.

    Also like any other grave sins, their imputability can be removed, diminished, unaffected, or increased by the varying types of ignorance. Invincible ignorance removes culpability for the sins against faith, merely vincible ignorance diminishes culpability (sometimes to the point of being venial), crass or supine ignorance will affect culpability for them little or not at all, and hard hearted, affected ignorance will increase culpability for them.

    For those who have had their culpability for sins against faith removed or diminished to the point of veniality, they are not mortal sins and thus will not of themselves deprive one of heaven. A person who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ through no fault of his own (or, by extension, through his merely venial fault) can be saved—if he otherwise does what is required for salvation, according to the level of opportunity, enlightenment, and grace God gives him (CCC 847, 1260).

    In such cases, people are not saved apart from the true Church. Though they are not "fully incorporated" into the mystical Body of Christ, they are "joined" or "related" to the Church Vatican II's language) by the elements of saving grace God has given them. One might thus speak of them as having been "partially incorporated," though not obtaining membership in the proper sense (Pius XII, Mysitici Corporis 22).

    Unfortunately, there are a number of erroneous views regarding salvation and invincible ignorance that need to be pointed out. First, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant of the true faith is not a ticket to heaven. A person who is not culpable for sins against faith may still be culpable for other mortal sins—the same ones people of faith can commit—and may be damned on that account.

    Second, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant does not mean that they should not be evangelized. Even if they are not culpable for sins against faith, the fact they are ignorant of the true religion and do not have access to the sacraments means that they are more likely to commit mortal sin and thus more likely to be damned. Christ did not leave us the option of only evangelizing some peoples (Mark 16:15) or of only teaching them some doctrines (Matt. 28:20). Consequently, it is a false understanding of evangelism or a false spirit of ecumenism that would suggest that classes of people can be left in total or partial ignorance of the true faith on the pretext that they are invincibly ignorant and should not be disturbed.

    Third, those who have accepted the Catholic faith are in a special position concerning innocent ignorance. Vatican I taught that God gives special grace to those who have embraced the true faith so that they may persevere in it, "not deserting if he [God] be not deserted." As a result of this special grace, "those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have a just reason to change this same faith or to reject it" (Dei Filius 3; ND 124, D 1794, DS 3014). This applies, of course, to those who have genuinely accepted the Catholic faith under the influence of the Magisterium, not those who—though baptized or received into the Church—never actually accepted the Catholic faith due to absent or grossly defective catechesis.

    Fourth, some radical traditionalists, those known as Feeneyites, assert that while invincible ignorance might excuse sins against faith, one would not thereby be excused from the necessity of baptism for salvation. This is false, since invincible ignorance excuses from acts of omission (such as failure to be baptized) as well as acts of commission. If one is invincibly ignorant of the requirement of baptism but would seek baptism if one knew it was required, then the lack of baptism will not be held against one. This is expressly taught by the Church (CCC 1260). One would thus be recognized as having baptism of desire, at least implicitly.

    Fifth, Feeneyites sometimes assert that there are no individuals who are invincibly ignorant of the necessities of baptism and embracing the Catholic faith. This position reflects a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes reasonable deliberation for many in the non-Catholic world. If someone has never heard of the Christian faith, or if he has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is evil, then it could well be that he would not discover the truth of the Christian faith or the Catholic Church merely by exercising reasonable diligence in weighing the various religious options presented to him.

    In many parts of the world it is easy for people to display reasonable but not supererogatory diligence and be invincibly ignorant concerning the Christian faith in general or the Catholic Church in particular. The assertion that there are no invincibly ignorant people also is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the Church, which acknowledges that there are "righteous people in all religions" (CCC 2569).
     
  11. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,107
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Faith:
    Baptist
    lakeside....will you please do us a favor and just post a link to the Catholic Apologetic site you are using. It saves space and helps the "conversation" continue in a less disruptive manner.....at least for those easily distracted...like me. :wavey:
     
  12. lakeside

    lakeside New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    JonC, gladly, I copied that post from Jim Adkins, another former Baptist writing that post for the "Catholic Answers " site. Hope you click to that site to read and digest it all. praying that you really read from Catholic apologist about Catholicism instead of non-Catholic apologist that are not Catholic, same goes for any other non-Catholics reading this.
     
  13. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,107
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I always do. You suggested another that had what you considered the correct translation of Scripture, but it was an email. The name led me to a Catholic Apologetic site (which I did read much of) but I never found a reference to the translation you were indicating. Do you have a preferred Catholic translation? I do see the NSRV Catholic edition available online, but I am not certain that you believe it acceptable. If we end up looking at Scripture it is, IMHO, best that we begin with the same translation if at all possible and I am more than willing to begin with yours.
     
  14. vooks

    vooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nothing is as confounding as cultists vigorously disputing their goddess:laugh:
    Look at how BobRyan handles this question;

    You answered
    But Ellen White thinks differently
    Great Controversy Page 481

    What do I do? Whom do I correct? One is already in hell and the other is in danger of the same. I will help the living one
     
    #34 vooks, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  15. vooks

    vooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    The UNLEARNED and the UNSTABLE.
    Question was, what verse shows sin transfer to the priest and then to the sanctuary by sprinkling of blood?

    Here we are met with utterly childish rants and irrelevant scriptures that don't even attempt to answer this at all. This is not SDA gutters, here brains are fully engaged. Try and see if you can make sense from this glib

    There is not a single scripture that teaches sin transfer to the sanctuary, transfer of repented and forgiven sins to the sanctuary by sprinkling of blood.

    Blood cleanses, it NEVER defiles.....unless you have thawed your brains and are a dyed-in-the-wool Ellen White worshiper
     
  16. vooks

    vooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    BobRyan, seems you never thawed your brains after all. You had to have it first to thaw it.

    Which part of Leviticus 10 says SIN IS TRANSFERRED IN THE DAILY
    We have either blood sprinkled in the sanctuary or sacrifice eaten in the sanctuary as part of a sin offering rite. Question is, which of these transfer sin to the sanctuary and where is it written that either or both of them transfer sin in the sanctuary?

    What we know is , without either of them, atonement is incomplete but where is it written that they transfer sins?


    The UNLEARNED and the UNSTABLE, Jesus loves you and he says
    James 1:5 New King James Version (NKJV)
    5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.


    You need your brains restored first and then a double portion of wisdom sir/madam
     
Loading...