Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of $70 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Monday, September 8, 2003
Posts: 2484
Forum Stats
791 Members
30 Forums
5890 Topics
47254 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13355
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3910
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2484
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2288
John_C 1908
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
chestnutmare 10
Pilgrim 10
Tom 9
Robin 6
John_C 5
rstrats 3
Dvan34 1
jonboy 1
Recent Posts
The love of Christ constraineth us.
by chestnutmare
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:20 AM
Eternal justification
by Pilgrim
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:05 AM
Wholly Other
by Pilgrim
Monday, October 20, 2014 10:37 AM
What must I do to be saved?
by chestnutmare
Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:07 PM
13 October 1605 A.D. Theodore Beza Dies
by chestnutmare
Monday, October 13, 2014 4:14 PM
The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney by Dr. Michael Horton
by Pilgrim
Thursday, October 9, 2014 5:00 AM
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#46595 - Monday, May 30, 2011 8:39 AM The Bible
AC. Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Saturday, October 21, 2006
Posts: 387
Loc: NJ
In listening to Harold Camping recently go on one of his rants..... he was talking about the Bible as if God handed the Bible down to Him personally.

It got me thinking about the Bible.

Obviously the early church recognized what books were the inspired word of God. Then the books were joined together to form a unified whole that we have today.

When you take somebody like Camping, who uses every word and number to represent something symbolic I think it detracts from sola scriptura.

Then you have groups like the SDA's & Baptists who argue that Sunday worship and infant Baptism are not explicit in scripture.

I think it was Luther who said if a Christian practice is not condemned by scripture it is ok while Zwingli said if a practice is not commanded it should be abolished.

So my point is....does sola scriptura when put in practice for worship, instruction, etc. leave some holes? Should church tradition ever be considered when making a case for a doctrine or practice? Sunday sabbath and infant baptism immediately come to mind.

I hope I'm making sense???
_________________________
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine


Top
#46598 - Monday, May 30, 2011 10:02 AM Re: The Bible [Re: AC.]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13355
Loc: NH, USA
Originally Posted By: AC.
Should church tradition ever be considered when making a case for a doctrine or practice? Sunday sabbath and infant baptism immediately come to mind.

Good question!

1. Neither the perpetuity and change of the Sabbath nor infant baptism are based upon tradition. grin

2. There is a legitimate recognition, purpose, and use in tradition which is solidly derived from Scripture. See John Murray's excellent article: Tradition: Romish and Protestant.
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#46599 - Monday, May 30, 2011 11:03 AM Re: The Bible [Re: Pilgrim]
AC. Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Saturday, October 21, 2006
Posts: 387
Loc: NJ
don't get me wrong, when you take God's Word as a whole, change of Sabbath & infant baptism are definitely Biblical....but it seems never explicit enough for them who challenge....

I look forward to reading that article!
_________________________
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine


Top
#46604 - Monday, May 30, 2011 9:05 PM Re: The Bible [Re: AC.]
via_dolorosa Offline
Member

Registered: Friday, January 18, 2008
Posts: 100
Loc: Boise, ID
This brings us to the question, did the early church believe in and practice sola scriptura, particularly the apostles?

The day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday and circumcision was done away with...and all this during the apostolic age. A strict adherence to the scriptures at hand would have prevented such changes, I imagine. It's almost as if the Apostles believed their authority came from Christ who commissioned them, not a book.

As far as infant baptism goes, I would argue that the "age of accountability" is the supplanting doctrine. Entire families were baptized together regardless of age. I have my own theories about why there is disagreement on this point, but suffice to say, waiting until a child is 8 and understands the rudimentaries of the gospel is a practice that can hardly be justified by scripture.

We will obviously have some disagreements on this since I come from a Catholic perspective, but since this Camping episode came out, I've been making the point that the practice of date setting didn't begin in earnest until the pretribulation teaching became popular in the 19th century; error springing from error. It's this populist movement that I think we can agree has abused the Bible. The Bible at no point gives direct support to dispensationalist eschatology or a "rapture" that precedes the Great Tribulation. In fact, it specifically contradicts these teachings by spelling out a sequence of events commonly associated with the Tribulation, that must precede Christ's return and our reunion with Him in the air. 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 could not be more clear.

Though I clearly do not agree with Sola Scriptura, I do respect it as a rite with explicit orthodoxy. I should wish that all Protestants would follow it without deviation. A dogmatic observation of Sola Scriptura would have prevented the errors of pretribulation teaching and the rise of popular cults like that of Harold Camping. The idea that Christians will be whisked away any day and more importantly before any real persecution happens is an example of the "ear tickling" that Scripture strictly warns us against. This is why I believe that a rebellion against Sola Scriptura is the problem and it can only be resolved by returning to Sola Scriptura in its simplicity.
_________________________
Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.

Top
#46605 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 8:34 AM Re: The Bible [Re: via_dolorosa]
AC. Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Saturday, October 21, 2006
Posts: 387
Loc: NJ
I appreciate your thoughts....I am an ex-Catholic. But to be fair, in my neck of the woods there are not many knowledgable Catholics. I love asking Catholics around here what is meant by 'Immaculate Conception', 9 out of 10 believe the term refers to Jesus' conception bash. So back to myself, I was never a sincere Catholic. I know much more about Catholocism since I became a Reformed Protestant.....as a Roman Catholic, are there any beliefs, practices or doctrines that you feel are too far removed or in conflict with scriptures?


Originally Posted By: via_dolorosa
This brings us to the question, did the early church believe in and practice sola scriptura, particularly the apostles?

The day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday and circumcision was done away with...and all this during the apostolic age. A strict adherence to the scriptures at hand would have prevented such changes, I imagine. It's almost as if the Apostles believed their authority came from Christ who commissioned them, not a book.

As far as infant baptism goes, I would argue that the "age of accountability" is the supplanting doctrine. Entire families were baptized together regardless of age. I have my own theories about why there is disagreement on this point, but suffice to say, waiting until a child is 8 and understands the rudimentaries of the gospel is a practice that can hardly be justified by scripture.

We will obviously have some disagreements on this since I come from a Catholic perspective, but since this Camping episode came out, I've been making the point that the practice of date setting didn't begin in earnest until the pretribulation teaching became popular in the 19th century; error springing from error. It's this populist movement that I think we can agree has abused the Bible. The Bible at no point gives direct support to dispensationalist eschatology or a "rapture" that precedes the Great Tribulation. In fact, it specifically contradicts these teachings by spelling out a sequence of events commonly associated with the Tribulation, that must precede Christ's return and our reunion with Him in the air. 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 could not be more clear.

Though I clearly do not agree with Sola Scriptura, I do respect it as a rite with explicit orthodoxy. I should wish that all Protestants would follow it without deviation. A dogmatic observation of Sola Scriptura would have prevented the errors of pretribulation teaching and the rise of popular cults like that of Harold Camping. The idea that Christians will be whisked away any day and more importantly before any real persecution happens is an example of the "ear tickling" that Scripture strictly warns us against. This is why I believe that a rebellion against Sola Scriptura is the problem and it can only be resolved by returning to Sola Scriptura in its simplicity.


Edited by AC. (Tuesday, May 31, 2011 9:27 AM)
_________________________
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine


Top
#46606 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 8:45 AM Re: The Bible [Re: via_dolorosa]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13355
Loc: NH, USA
via_dolorosa,

It appears you haven't really grasped what "Sola Scriptura" is. scratch1

Harold Camping, for example, can't really be accused of violating the principle of "Sola Scriptura" because he isn't using any 'outside source' to formulate his atrocious predictions. He claims to be using the Bible alone as his source. His problem is a hermeneutical issue. The Dispensationalists also have a hermeneutical problem, one being among many, that they use a 'psycho-statistical-mean' method of interpreting texts. They then use current news to corroborate their doctrine.

Both are woefully in error and in the case of Camping, it boggles the mind that he has gone so far afield and that he has such a large following. (Matt 7:14; 24:11-13; 1Cor 11:19; 2Pet 2:1) It is one thing to read of these things in Church History books but an entirely different matter to witness them in one's own time.
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#46607 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:20 AM Re: The Bible [Re: via_dolorosa]
Reformation Monk Offline
Addict

Registered: Thursday, May 13, 2004
Posts: 433
Loc: Virginia
Originally Posted By: via_dolorosa
Though I clearly do not agree with Sola Scriptura, I do respect it as a rite with explicit orthodoxy. I should wish that all Protestants would follow it without deviation. A dogmatic observation of Sola Scriptura would have prevented the errors of pretribulation teaching and the rise of popular cults like that of Harold Camping.


Originally Posted By: Pilgrim
He claims to be using the Bible alone as his source. His problem is a hermeneutical issue.


Pilgrim knows a little about my returning to the Reformed Faith and the faith journey I've been on in the last few years.

A large reason for my wandering was because of the difficulties the Church has with interpreting and understanding the Bible.

I came to a point where I was just simply exhausted by trying to understand everyone's Biblical views.

So, I decided to take a close look at the Apostolic Church and the early Church Fathers and I decided through modern Catholic Apologists; that "Church Tradition" was very appealing to me. I got rid of all the work on my end... "The Keys of the Kingdom were given to Peter." Therefore, Peter has authority not Scripture.

I concluded that God did not simply stop revealing His will with Christ, but continued to guide His Church via the Popes. This was all very attractive to me, remember; the person who was sick and tired of trying to figure out the Protestant Faith with all of it's 3000 flavors.

So it became a lot easier to just chuck my Bibles and a hundred or so other Reformed books into the closet and just Let Church Tradition take control.

So I started to learn Catholicism. I went to a Traditional Catholic Church where the Mass was done in all Latin and I learned the Catholic Faith on my own. I then became a Catechumen and stared to go the RICA.

It was about this time, that I decided to read through Romans again and the whole thing crashed.

The whole Catholic position on the Epistle to the Romans is that Paul is referring to the Levitical Law; but it is very obvious that Paul is in fact referring to the Mosaic Law.

After re-reading Romans again and again, it was indisputable that Justification comes by faith alone apart from the works of the Law.

The Gospel is that we are saved by the Grace of God not by our own goodness or self righteousness.

So I finally started to discern all who were relying on their own righteousness ( religion ) and those who were relying on the Atoning work of Christ imputed to them through faith alone.

So I say all of this to say that; in our day, I fully believe that the Majority of the Church is in Error. There is major apostasy going on in the world today. This is the reason why no one can agree.

I believe, based upon the New Testament Scriptures; that Church Tradition should serve to keep and protect the Truth of God's Word and to guide the Church in their Sanctification.

One of the truly most disheartening realities of our day is the fact that there is absolutely no Church Authority and Discipline anymore. The Church is no longer truly sanctified anymore.

Even the most "Reformed" Presbyterian Churches in my area don't exorcise much to any authority anymore.

I see more authority exorcised in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Churches then I do in the Reformed Churches in my area.

This is a clear sign of little to no Church Tradition anymore. Most Churches, and sadly, even the Reformed Presbyterian Churches are being effected by the Modern Seeker Sensitive/ Arminian heresy.


Anyway..... here is my personal experience point; when I put all my extra-Biblical stuff off to the side and I committed myself to just read and listen to the Bible for a few months. ( I work alone and I drive a lot, which allows me to listen to many books of the Bible in a week ) Through Scripture Alone, I came back to the Reformed Faith.

It wasn't that I was Reformed and learned the Bible; it was I learned the Bible and became Reformed.

One who knows and understands and accepts and has faith in Genesis thru Revelations will become "Reformed."

The problem is that "Being Reformed" can just be a genre. In other words; there are many who call themselves "Reformed" but don't have an deep understanding of the Bible. They read everything but... so they become very "theologically reformed" but still aren't being washed by the Word.

This is why you have so many differences in the Reformed community; again leading to people who are trying to understand their faith better scratching their heads in frustration with all the differences among Reformed leaders and preachers.

My solution?

Sadly, I can not find too many people in my area who love the Word and spend time in it and in prayer every day. I can not find too many Church communities who are likewise.

So I just seek out and establish discipling fellowship relationships with those few that do love and understand the Truth. They always seem to be the most well rounded Reformed folks that I find.

Like Pilgrim as an example.


Dave
_________________________
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16

Top
#46608 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:32 AM Re: The Bible [Re: AC.]
via_dolorosa Offline
Member

Registered: Friday, January 18, 2008
Posts: 100
Loc: Boise, ID
Originally Posted By: AC.
I appreciate your thoughts....I am an ex-Catholic. But to be fair, in my neck of the woods there are not many knowledgable Catholics.
That equation is changing rapidly. One of Blessed John Paul's life works was to make the catechism more available and encourage every lay Catholic to read the Bible and the CCC. More than ever, we are in a world wide exchange of ideas where the best ideas prevail on their own merits. In this world, every Catholic is on the front lines of this new battle.

Originally Posted By: AC.

I love asking Catholics around here what is meant by 'Immaculate Conception', 9 out of 10 believe the term refers to Jesus' conception
If I asked Protestants what "imputed righteousness" means, I might get a blank stare from 9 out of 10. The ability to articulate one's faith is a rare skill indeed in every corner of Christianity.

Originally Posted By: AC.

So back to myself, I was never a sincere Catholic. I know much more about Catholocism since I became a Reformed Protestant.....as a Roman Catholic, are there any beliefs, practices or doctrines that you feel are too far removed or in conflict with scriptures?



The whole question is set upon a false premise. For us, the Bible is a part of the revealed word of God, not the final arbiter of all Christian truth. The Church's authority is greater than that of the Bible evidenced clearly by the Church forming the canon by counsil to begin with. A servant does not become greater than its master. For this reason, St. Augustine said that he should not believe in the gospels themselves if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

With that said, scriptural evidence of nearly every Catholic belief and practice can be easily demonstrated. An unfortunate trend is the knee-jerk question, "Where is that in the Bible?" which is applied almost thoughtlessly. "Where in the Bible does it say Mary was assumed into heaven?" How many times have I heard this question and how many times did I have to remind "bible-savy" protestants that Scripture does not record the demise of Mary at all. The Bible is not downplayed in Catholic teaching, in fact, as the revealed word of God, it receives a special reverence, but it's put into its proper role and context and we don't cause the Scriptures to shoulder a burden it was never meant to bear.
_________________________
Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.

Top
#46609 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:54 AM Re: The Bible [Re: Pilgrim]
via_dolorosa Offline
Member

Registered: Friday, January 18, 2008
Posts: 100
Loc: Boise, ID
Originally Posted By: Pilgrim
via_dolorosa,

It appears you haven't really grasped what "Sola Scriptura" is. scratch1

Harold Camping, for example, can't really be accused of violating the principle of "Sola Scriptura" because he isn't using any 'outside source' to formulate his atrocious predictions. He claims to be using the Bible alone as his source. His problem is a hermeneutical issue. The Dispensationalists also have a hermeneutical problem, one being among many, that they use a 'psycho-statistical-mean' method of interpreting texts. They then use current news to corroborate their doctrine.

Both are woefully in error and in the case of Camping, it boggles the mind that he has gone so far afield and that he has such a large following. (Matt 7:14; 24:11-13; 1Cor 11:19; 2Pet 2:1) It is one thing to read of these things in Church History books but an entirely different matter to witness them in one's own time.


The kook church in Kansas that is protesting the funerals of fallen U.S. military members also derives its warped theology from the Bible only. You have to give me more credit as I'm intimately familiar with Sola Scriptura, especially as espoused by John Calvin who taught a method of exegesis that would have precluded the error of Harold Camping and the entire pretribulation rapture movement. In particular, Calvin warned against ignoring those scriptures that categorically contradicted a cherished belief. To ignore lay-of-the-land eschatology and to try to wring out of the Bible that which it doesn't support is to me a departure from the principles of Sola Scriptura. Pretrib is guilty of this. To emphasize some parts of scripture at the expense of other parts is also a departure from Sola Scriptura. The Kansas church is guilty of this. And John Calvin expressed stout opposition to both of these.

What's more disturbing than anything, Pilgrim, and something I addressed in my last post is the "escapism" at the heart of the pretribulation rapture teaching and what that says about the character of Christians today compared to those who experienced real persecution and did not seek reprieve from it.
_________________________
Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.

Top
#46610 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 12:11 PM Re: The Bible [Re: via_dolorosa]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13355
Loc: NH, USA
via_dolorosa,

I really wish I could give you more credit in regard to your alleged understanding of 'Sola Scriptura', but unfortunately I simply cannot do that due to what you have written above. You are confusing the AUTHORITY of the Bible with the INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Camping, Dispensationalists, Premillennalists of all flavors and so many others unabashedly claim that their bizarre and fallacious views come solely from 'studying the Bible'. igiveup

However, I can agree with you whole-heartedly re: the 'escapism' of these eschatological systems, which fly in the face of clear biblical teaching that the Church will undergo severe persecution and cleansing until the day the Lord Christ returns. This certainly is appealing to Western culture's preoccupation with hedonism.
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#46611 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 12:28 PM Re: The Bible [Re: via_dolorosa]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13355
Loc: NH, USA
Originally Posted By: via_dolorosa
The whole question is set upon a false premise. For us, the Bible is a part of the revealed word of God, not the final arbiter of all Christian truth. The Church's authority is greater than that of the Bible evidenced clearly by the Church forming the canon by counsil to begin with. A servant does not become greater than its master. For this reason, St. Augustine said that he should not believe in the gospels themselves if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

And of course, we historic Reformed Protestants would vehemently disagree... and have for centuries. wink

Tomes have been written on both sides defending their respective views and nothing I could possibly say here would therefore be of any import whatsoever. However, I have often put my observation of the error espoused by Rome in very simple terms: Rome claims the Bible is the very Word of God and therefore authoritative. And, that Bible gives Rome the ultimate authority over the Bible, thus making itself not only the supreme authority but de facto and of necessity, infallible, neither of which is logical or possible.

Given that my time is severely limited today, I'll simply provide some articles written by men far more qualified to explain the differences between Rome and Protestantism and who do an excellent job of refuting Rome's position.

- The Authority of Scripture
- What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?
- The Argument for an Infallible Body
- Unshakable Authority
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#46612 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:11 PM Re: The Bible [Re: AC.]
Reformation Monk Offline
Addict

Registered: Thursday, May 13, 2004
Posts: 433
Loc: Virginia
I'm going to try to remain on topic here.

Pilgrim already provided an excellent link I think - Tradition: Romish and Protestant

I have a problem when "Tradition" breaks with the plain truth of Scripture.

It seems very reasonable that God didn't become completely silent after the Ascension. Or maybe I should say after the Island of Patmos.

I haven't really done a lot of research on my own about God further revealing Himself to the Church after the death of the John.

But, from what I'm fully convinced of by Scripture; is that God doesn't change His mind and or His Character.

So in other words; the reason I'm not Catholic is because Catholic Doctrine goes against the plain truth of Scripture.... even if you accept the deuterocanonical text's.

I have to agree with Pilgrim in that the problem isn't with the Bible alone it's with interpretation.

Something I do agree with the Catholic Church is that private interpretation is very dangerous. The Bible isn't easy to understand; so the Church should have a level of authority in this area, but at the same time, individuals should be comparing the Church's teachings to that of the Scriptures on their own and have a voice towards possible error.

Another thing I like about the Catholic Church is that if something is disagreed with; people don't just "jump ship". The area of possible doctrinal error is addressed over a period of time. It might take several of years but there is the possibility of correction.

Unlike the Protestant Church which has gotten in the bad habit of schism'ing every time someone feels like it.

Again, lack of authority..... I do have to acknowledge the obvious main concern of the Catholic Church during the Reformation in that it was plainly obvious to them that "Scripture Alone" would result in thousands of different independent churches.

While I'll never be Catholic, I have to admit I'm not too fond of the Protestant Church either.

Dave
_________________________
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16

Top
#46615 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:02 PM Re: The Bible [Re: Reformation Monk]
via_dolorosa Offline
Member

Registered: Friday, January 18, 2008
Posts: 100
Loc: Boise, ID
Originally Posted By: Reformation Monk
I'm going to try to remain on topic here.


I have a problem when "Tradition" breaks with the plain truth of Scripture.

And I'm trying to keep this on track too. The OP is about the Bible and how easily some who proclaim it the loudest can so easily deviate from it. That deviation then becomes a tradition and takes on a life of its own, defending its own interests against any attack and against, oddly enough, refutation by the very Bible from where it supposedly sprang.

Originally Posted By: Reformation Monk

It seems very reasonable that God didn't become completely silent after the Ascension. Or maybe I should say after the Island of Patmos.

I haven't really done a lot of research on my own about God further revealing Himself to the Church after the death of the John.
It pains me to compare this thinking with the error of the LDS church, but there is an unmistakable parallel. Having found itself in disagreement with the Catholic Church that has reigned supreme as the sole representative of Christianity from the apostolic age to the Reformation, some Protestants have adopted the belief that God's revelation and involvement was either absent or utterly ignored for all those centuries. Mormons call this an apostacy prevalent until Joseph Smith restored the "true" church. Whether it be the advent of Joseph Smith or Martin Luther, there exists this belief that true Christianity was lost and needed to be restored. I could write a whole book on the problems with this belief.

Originally Posted By: Reformation Monk


I have to agree with Pilgrim in that the problem isn't with the Bible alone it's with interpretation.
I don't wholly disagree with Pilgrim, but many Protestants agree that misinterpretation is an abuse of the Bible and a deviation from Sola Scriptura. Perhaps to make it clearer, Tota Scriptura, Sola Scriptura should be used to emphasize the exegetical method of fine tuning every part of scripture with the entirety of scripture. Put another way, no verse of scripture is complete without the rest of the Bible to aid in correct interpretation. R.C. Sproul warned against the errors resulting from a deviation of Tota Scriptura saying, "Once we remove ourselves from a view of tota Scriptura, we are free then to pick and choose what portions of Scripture are normative for Christian faith and life, just like picking cherries from a tree." Recent events have only served to highlight this truth.


Originally Posted By: Reformation Monk


Something I do agree with the Catholic Church is that private interpretation is very dangerous. The Bible isn't easy to understand; so the Church should have a level of authority in this area, but at the same time, individuals should be comparing the Church's teachings to that of the Scriptures on their own and have a voice towards possible error.


One of my principle disagreements with Sola Scriptura is that the most compelling evidence of the correct interpretation as expressed by the practices and beliefs of the early church, is disregarded. The gospels did not contain all the teachings of Christ, but we see those missing parts played out in the later teachings of the apostles who taught those things they heard from Jesus. By the same token, all the teachings of the apostles were certainly not spelled out by the written epistles either. In fact, the epistles were largely written to follow up on teachings that were given orally. The proximity of the first few centuries of Christiany to the apostolic age should be far more credible a source of interpretation than our feeble guesses lo these 2000 years later.

For instance, Jesus said to call no man on earth your father, on that we are agreed. But then some Christians will lecture Catholics about how they are in violation of Christ's teaching. Had they had a greater familiarity of the use of the word "father" in the early church to refer to those of spiritual authority, they might understand that those removed from the life of Christ by mere decades had a very different understanding of His commandment.

Originally Posted By: Reformation Monk


Another thing I like about the Catholic Church is that if something is disagreed with; people don't just "jump ship". The area of possible doctrinal error is addressed over a period of time. It might take several of years but there is the possibility of correction.

Unlike the Protestant Church which has gotten in the bad habit of schism'ing every time someone feels like it.
I know a pastor who often preached, "stay in your assigned seat" and decried the fact that when God heats up that seat a little, we're prone to get up and find another. There's a certain humility, precious in God's sight, by which someone accepts injustice within their immediate fellowship, yet does not leave but works through it. Such a person can reap a great reward by sticking around long enough to receive it.

Originally Posted By: Reformation Monk


Again, lack of authority..... I do have to acknowledge the obvious main concern of the Catholic Church during the Reformation in that it was plainly obvious to them that "Scripture Alone" would result in thousands of different independent churches.


Another grave concern was printing copies of the Bible without the imprimatur of the bishop. Luther attempted to make his changes not only in the wording (like adding "alone") but by removing books he disagreed with from the canon itself. The reason we can have good faith that the Bible today is accurate, true, and free from corruption is because the Church faithfully preserved it through the centuries. What may seem like heavy-handedness in using even the penalty of death to deter unauthorized copies of the Bible was the method used by the Church to protect the Bible throughout the centuries. We ought not second guess it.



Edited by via_dolorosa (Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:06 PM)
_________________________
Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.

Top
#46616 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 6:56 PM Re: The Bible [Re: via_dolorosa]
AC. Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Saturday, October 21, 2006
Posts: 387
Loc: NJ
Only the Reformed Camp would know about imputed rightousness.....

as for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagee...maybe if the RCC maintained an Augustinian view of grace we'd be a little closer....but I know the divide runs deeper.....it's all a matter of who and through what means are the most reliable sources of Christian authority.

You must accept all aspects of RCC teachings or else you undermind the whole authority....we don't share that burden.

We may have a few kinks here and there but for the most part we are well grounded, at least that's our perspective.

_________________________
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine


Top
#46621 - Wednesday, June 1, 2011 7:38 AM Re: The Bible [Re: AC.]
Reformation Monk Offline
Addict

Registered: Thursday, May 13, 2004
Posts: 433
Loc: Virginia
Originally Posted By: RC
We may have a few kinks here and there but for the most part we are well grounded, at least that's our perspective.


This is where I'm not convinced. I've been to a lot of "Reformed" communities in my area, and I've read a lot of Reformed thought online and I would have to say that there are a wide variety of differences even in and among the Reformed Camp.

In my area, the only "Reformed" denomination is the PCA. So I don't have any personal experience with any other Reformed Church. So my opinion here is limited as far as my physical experience. But of course, I've read a lot from other Reformed Churches online.

There is no Church Authority in the PCA in my area. If someone attempts to discipline another member, they can just pick up and go to another PCA church in the area.

But I realize that there are still Reformed Communities that are more strict. It's just sad that there are none in my area.

Now that being said; in my earlier comments about the RCC - I was referring to the Authority of the Magisterium, not of local parishes. The Parish that I went too, that was the "Traditionalist" Parish with Priest's of the Fraternity of Saint Peter; it still maintained a more "PreVat2" stricter authority. But in all the other Modernest Parishes, there really wasn't any authority either. Parishioners were allowed to do what ever they wanted.

So in that aspect, The RCC is in just as much dire straights as the Protestant Church.

And as AC stated... authority is only good if it protects and upholds the truth. I was just using the RCC as an example, I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with it.

Here is another example... Via Dolorosa mentioned R.C. Sproul. I've enjoyed Sproul's teaching for many years. So it took me as odd that His son R.C. Sproul Jr., whom is a Minister, had a different doctrinal belief on Communion the R.C. Senior.

And I'm thinking to myself "Really?" is whether or not children receiving communion enough to cause schism?
_________________________
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Who's Online
0 registered (), 19 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
jonboy, Kyle Russell, nathan douglas, Leonard, samfromindia
791 Registered Users
Shout Box

October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 472548
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 369910
Westminster Larger Catechism 345817
The importance of going to church 265219
Roman Catholicism and salvation 263220
Double predestination 252289
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 227573
Gospel truth 203666
Creation 182696
Continuity in Old and NT 151834