You as a Christian Evangelizing Catholics.

Matt,

Not in the least. Only that because someone lived in the 1st couple of centuries does not mean they are incapable of error.

Only the scriptures are inerrant...not any man.

Even if that man lives in the 1st century.

Remember, Paul rebuked Peter to his face because he was to be blamed.

And this was Peter, and it was prior to Ignatius.

Got to get some sleep now.

Good night,

Mike

 

No, I'm not claiming any kind of infallibility for Ignatius (he was after all only Bishop of Antioch, not Bishop of Rome! (joke)); but his credentials and 'spiritual pedigree' to which I earlier referred does mean that I trust his take on eg: John 6:32-59 far more than I trust yours or mine or indeed anyone else's living today

Have a good sleep and see you again on Monday!

 

To everyone on this thread,

I made the statement yesterday that elder and bishop come from the same word. This is not so. I was not thinking correctly.

One may get a presbytry out of New Testament Assembly scripture; but this priest, bishop, archbishop, pope arrangement is not found in scripture. Also, the Roman bishop literally owns all of the property and other assets of the diocese.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Words are different,but both are talking about the same position (office) of the church,as we see in Acts 20:17 and 28. One is about the status and the other is about the function.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Bro James.

I'm not at all sure that they are talking about the same function or office. If we presume (not unreasonably)them to be terms which Paul (Epistles) and Luke (Acts) borrowed from Jewish terminology then you typically had a collective or council of elders/ presbyters in a synagogue but with a presiding elder who was an overseer/ bishop. Thus, all bishops may have been presbyters, but most presbyters were not bishops.

 

Matt, if you are Baptist (as your profile says you are) then why are you trying so hard to defend the RCC and it's false doctrines?

Just curious...

I was raised in the RCC and attended an RCC grade school. I know, for a fact, that we were not allowed to read the Bible.

The Bible says we are to "confess our sins, one to another", but no place in the Bible does it say that a priest has the right to give penance and forgive us of our sins.

Jesus Christ is the only one who can forgive our sins and He did that on the cross.

No place in the Bible does it say that we are to pray to any person who has died (i.e. Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the "saints") and expect to get answers.

We are told to pray, "Our Father, which art in Heaven".

I could go on and on, especially about personal experiences of myself and my family and friends, while in the RCC, but I won't.

Instead, I will repeat my opening question.

"Matt, if you are Baptist (as your profile says you are) then why are you trying so hard to defend the RCC and it's false doctrines?"

 

I had to comment upon this. HAD to:

It doesnt matter if its in book form, scroll form, or whatever form. Its still the word of God.</font>[/QUOTE]You realize, I hope, that there was no NT canon, scroll, codex, or other form, before the fourth century AD, don't you?

I'm not sure what you are talking about there. If anyone removes some of Gods scriptures, God will hold them accountable and God will get those removed scriptures back where they belong in due time. (Just like God will hold people accountable who add to His scriptures in the way of added false books or tradition.)</font>[/QUOTE]The DC books are a part of the LXX, which is a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures. The reason this is important is that, in nearly every place where OT Scripture is quoted in the NT, it's from the LXX.

The Deuterocanonicals are where Catholic traditions like Purgatory and veneration of saints came from. This does not, o course, mean that Protestants should profess belief in these doctrines, but that we should understand that, in the eyes of our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters, these doctrines are Biblical.

Perfection can not be fully achieved because we are all sinners. The fault is ours, not the fault of Gods scriptures.</font>[/QUOTE]On this we agree. Scripture can be -- in fact, is -- the sole source of sound doctrine and spiritual truth.

 

Sue, my profile says I'm Baptist because I attend and am a member of a church which is part of the Baptist Union of Great Britain.

However you are correct that I no longer adhere to the Baptist distinctives and for that reason I no longer post in the Baptist only sections of this board. The principle reason for that change is that I came to the realisation that sola Scriptura doesn't work (it was this board that made me realise that, ironically!) and that therefore there must be some kind of Church teaching Tradition to interpret Scripture properly, and I found that within not just the Catholic Church but also the Orthodox and the churches of the Magisterial Reformation such as Anglicans and Lutherans. I still go to the Baptist church but that's largely because my wife wants us to continue there; if it was my choice I'd go to the local evangelical Church of England place.

So, I hope that helps and that you can understand that just proof-texting from the Bible ain't enough to convince me!

 

#1. The more orthodox the better.

#2. Many if not most non-RC churches are filled to the brim with ex-Catholics.

#3. The Catholic documents THEMSELVES make the best "advertisements" for exposing the errors in Catholicism!

It could not be any easier!!

Praise God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt you should probably nuance your Sola Scriptura to meaning Sola Scriptura as the Baptist teach it, as we in the Lutheran Church are Sola Scriptura (in that scripture is the sole source and norm of faith and teaching), however we differ from Baptist who insist on individual interpretation only. We teach that interpretation should happen within the community of believers not on an individual level. This is why we use the confessions as a guiding principle in interpretation.

 

Praise God - though I really can't see Mioque taking that well at all.

So good for you and good for your family - but Mioque's reaction makes it appear to be a personnal defeat for Mioque!

Now you have to wonder why that is!!

You also have to wonder why it is that Mioque - while pandering in favor of the RCC and claiming to be non-RC will never actually enter into a Bible discussion exploring the risks - the dangers of the errors of Catholicism.

My quess is that those two reactions from Mioque are related.

In Christ,

Bob

 

OK - I don't believe in sola Scriptura + soul liberty, because all it produces is epistemological chaos.

[reply to Chemnitz]

 

Odd that we DO find it working in Acts 17:11 for NON Christians as they TEST the Words of the APOSTLE PAUL - but it does not work for a "christian" now with the FULL 66 books of scripture!!

I would say that you have a few things to learn from those non-Christians in Acts 17!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, we've done that before; I really don't want to flog that particular Dead Horse again

 

Matt: Thank you for your honest answer.

 

You're welcome, Sue

Chemnitz, I would describe the Lutheran approach as in theory Scriptura suprema rather than sola Scriptura in my understanding in that Lutherans AFAIK admit the existence of Tradition as valid for interpreting Scripture but assert that where there is a conflict between Church Tradition and Scripture, Scripture prevails. I don't think that's too dissimilar to the Anglican 'tripod' of 'Scripture, Tradition and Reason' in practice.

 

Your quote actually shows why the DC's are not part of the Bible...they contradict Scripture. You have to wonder how a church can hold to teachings from "history books" that contradicts as Scripture.

 

Mat, what does AFAIK standfor? I am unfamiliar with that acronym. The big difference between Lutheran and Anglican is Reason not construed as authoritative, because there are many things taught in Scripture that simply cannot be understood by human minds. We also have more of hierarchy
highest to lowest:
1. Scripture
2. Tradition
a. Creeds
b. Confessions - BoC
c. historical interpretation

 

Matt,

Me...

You...

But thats the Catholic Churchs fault. They are the ones who refuse to "get with the program" and accept Gods truth regarding sola scriptura.

Me...

You...

God.


Me...

You...

There surely would have been many more if the Catholic Church had not decided to exterminate those who disagreed with then.

1st a quote from you, then my comment...

And to believe those on face value you must mangle the scriptures royally rather than allow them to fit together like a hand in a glove.</font>[/QUOTE]You now...

I have taken it up with Jesus. He agrees with us.

He said, after using actual bread as a "type" or symbol, said...

"It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life"

Just as God told us to allow...

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, who are you to judge anothers servant?"

Just as God told us to allow...

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, who are you to judge anothers servant?"

Blessings,

Mike

 

Chemnitz,

"As far as I know..."

Mike