Ask A Baptist Pastor

[reformissionary]

So when YOU read the Bible YOU have decided to treat “church” and “gospel” as synonyms? That’s creative of you and it is a different way of reading the Bible - but it’s actually different from any remotely credible way of doing so.

Where have I said “church” and “gospel” are synonyms? I don’t see it.

 

[Byzman]

How do you know that isn’t a false authority? How do you know some along the way used “The Church” as a way of gaining power from the movement rather than because it was truly the movement Christ intended? How do you know?

Now this is not a question that can be answered by saying because it says that the “Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church,” but by saying Faith. I have faith in the Catholic Church. I have faith that the Church was started by Jesus Christ. I have faith that Church will not err…and i have faith that the “gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.”

 

[Betterave]

btw, steve, it’s Vicar of Christ, or chief steward (in biblical language), not CEO; and it’s the body of Christ on earth, not just an organization. Just to let you know (again), you really sound disingenuous in your representations of yourself as open-minded and making an effort to understand when you go on to say silly things like this.

 

[reformissionary]

Now this is not a question that can be answered by saying because it says that the “Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church,” but by saying Faith. I have faith in the Catholic Church. I have faith that the Church was started by Jesus Christ. I have faith that Church will not err…and i have faith that the “gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.”

You shouldn’t. You should have faith in Christ, not the Church. Christ is the head of the church, not the Pope. This is one of my biggest concerns with Catholicism is that Jesus gets sidelined for Mary, the Institution of the Church, Pope, stories of bleeding wafers and visions of Mary and tears from statues. Fix your eyes on Christ!

 

[Byzman]

The Apostolic nature of the NT, fulfilled prophecy, the consistency of the witnesses, the truths and evidence of the resurrection, the testimony of Scripture to itself as Scripture, etc. The Holy Spirit created the Bible through human authors long before there was anything that looked like the Catholic Church of today.

Nice comeback, but aren’t there other books of the early church that almost made it in?..how about the fact that there are other gospels claiming to be written by other apostles. Where does St. Paul say that his letters are Scripture?

True the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the Bible, through human authors long before there was anything that looked like the Catholic Church in the Old Testament…but the first book of the New Testament came about 10 to 15 years after Christ’s Death on the Cross and the Birth of the Catholic Church. This same Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to make sure, 360 years after the death of Christ, that the correct canon of inspired books would be set.

 

[JRKH]

Please provide a listing of th eBooks that ARE God breathed.

Now Steve, you know full well that you can’t use the disputedd list of books as evidence.
St Paul’s Quote that “ALL Scripture…” appears in the protestant canon of 66 books AND in the even older canon of 73 books.
So Can just as easily subsitute my answer for yours.
“You know where tehy are. In the Bibles Catholics use.” The answer is just as valid.
The fact is, as you well know, that the reason you accept the 66 book canon is becuase this is what you have been taught in your “faith tradition”! In other words you accept the 66 book canon on the authority of those who taught it to you, including any independant reading you’ve done.

I’m glad that you would ask them to believe the historic Church, for then they would choose the 73 book canon, just as I did, even before returning to full communion iwth the Catholic Church.
The Historical Church clearly demonstrates that all of the 73 books in the Catholic Canon are “God Breathed”. In fact there may even be more, for the Orthodox Church which uses a larger canon that the RCC is just as ancient and uses most of the Septuigent.

I’ve read several books on canon issues that deal with the RC position. I don’t see 73 “clearly.”

How many of those books were written by Catholic authors?

Now, to demonstrate that I am not relying simply on what the Bible tells me is “All Scripture,” here is the list of councils and decisions made By the Catholic Church all before the reformation defining and approving the 73 book canon.

**Council of Rome (382) **
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
**Council of Hippo (393) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
**Council of Carthage (397) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
**Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405) **
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
**Council of Carthage (419) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
**Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441) **
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Peace
James

 

[utunumsint]

Having been in such discussions before, I have to wonder at wether such interchanges are not sinful.

Missionary will take interpretation A, while everyone else on these forums will take interpretation B. Playing the valiant missionary warrior, sincerely in search of truth, missionary will tacitly, or openly challenge catholic teachings. Everyone will get angry and agitated with missionary, leading to adhominems on both sides. Missionary will leave disgusted with us blind catholics, and we will say good ridance.

What good outcome can possible result from this?

Reformedmissionary, has anyone said anything to you to make you think the catholic church may be on the right track? Search your heart in prayer and ask yourself if you are in anyway building up the body of Christ in these discussions?

I’m not saying that truth is unimportant, but this thread is not achieving any good end.

God bless,
Ut

To everyone else on this thread, please join me in prayer to the one source of our unity, asking him to interceed for us, so that we might acomplish some good here, some acts of brotherhood, even though we are not doctrinally in union.

God almighty, you are the source of all love, union, and charity. Bring us peace in our day through mutual respect and consideration. Give us an openness to learn and to understand each other even if we cannot always agree in the end. Help us search for those truths that we share in common, and to treat each other as members of the one family of your church: sons and daughters of our heavenly father.

 

[Byzman]

You shouldn’t. You should have faith in Christ, not the Church. Christ is the head of the church, not the Pope. This is one of my biggest concerns with Catholicism is that Jesus gets sidelined for Mary, the Institution of the Church, Pope, stories of bleeding wafers and visions of Mary and tears from statues. Fix your eyes on Christ!

I have faith in Christ! I have faith in the Church! I have faith in the one who contained in her womb the Uncontainable! I have faith in the Pope! Viva il Papa!

 

[JRKH]

No, I’d ask them to believe the historic Christian faith. There was plenty of dispute on the books, including with the early church fathers. I do say they aren’t God-breathed. But guess what, we have 66 in agreement that compose nearly all of our theology. So we have plenty of room for discussion outside of canon issues.

I’m not trying to brush it aside, but I’m trying hard to not get spread too thin since that can get you in trouble here.

Steve, aftter my somewhat hurried response earlier, I thought of something else that I feel must be addressed.

You mention that, "There was plenty of dispute on the books, including with the early church fathers. A point I will readily grant.

However - and this is important - Every one of the Fathers, who had issues with the canon, and wrote about it submitted their own personal sills to that of The Church in Council. In Other words they followed Christ’s instruction in Mt 18:15-18. The discussed it, argued over it, took it to the Church and then abided by decision of The Church in Council, just as the Judaizers did in Acts 15.
Even ST Jerome, who had issues with the canon, obediently translated ALL of the approved books into the 73 book Vulgate canon which was and is the standard Catholic Bible even today, without canonical change.

So you see, while we can point to multiple councils, all approving the same canon, protestants can only point to one man who changed it.

It comes back to the matter of authority.

Peace
James

 

[Betterave]

The language you use quoted here and as others have said shows to me (tell me if I’m wrong) that you think of the church organizationally. The CHURCH, the Pope, you can point to the CEO and say his name. I don’t believe that’s what God intended for the church around the world…at all. I believe he intended our unity to be on the gospel, not on the organization.

So…again…for you the boundaries of who’s in and who’s out is the organization and what they say. I believe God says it’s the Gospel and who believes. Lineage is not by “circumcision” (to use the OT example) but by faith. Leadership is not by physical baton, it’s by Gospel/faith baton.

And yet we are very obviously left with physical batons, such as baptism, and an actual organization, importantly featuring the apostles, for example, in the biblical account. See Acts of the Apostles for lots of indisputable evidence of this. We are told to listen to the Church, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, that the Church will be persecuted, that members were added to the Church, that there were disputes within the Church. It seems to me that you are trying to minimize the obvious organizational connotations of a Church that is one by substituting the purely imaginary unity of one gospel divorced-from-any-organization (i.e., not found in the Bible). But we are never told that our unity can be based on the Gospel books (which is the sense of ‘gospel’ you require if your ‘gospel unity’ is to be more than imaginary). Our unity is based on the gospel in a broad sense, and I think that is what is confusing you. You seem to be using gospel in two equivocal senses: the substantial content of the faith safe-guarded to the Apostles (which includes a more or less explicit organizational ecclesiology) vs. the books that we call the gospels, alone - but not alone, since illuminated, although in a disorganized and contradictory way(!), by the Holy Spirit. Now obviously the unity of the Word is paramount, but then the means of preserving that unity is also paramount and this means obviously cannot consist of just the written word - the written word is ink on paper and doesn’t do anything on its own, that’s why it cannot possibly be an authority in the proper sense of the word. And that is the basic point of common sense that you are refusing to acknowledge, time and again.

 

[Betterave]

Where have I said “church” and “gospel” are synonyms? I don’t see it.

For example:
When you read Jesus saying to take an unresolved dispute (i.e., source of division, of disruption of unity) to the church (i.e., protector of unity), you want to say they should bring their dispute to the gospel (your “non-organizational” protector of unity).

 

[reformissionary]

Nice comeback, but aren’t there other books of the early church that almost made it in?..how about the fact that there are other gospels claiming to be written by other apostles. Where does St. Paul say that his letters are Scripture?

By virtue of being Apostles their writings were considered Scripture. 2 Peter 3:14ff, Peter mentions Paul’s writings and “the other Scriptures.”

True the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the Bible, through human authors long before there was anything that looked like the Catholic Church in the Old Testament…but the first book of the New Testament came about 10 to 15 years after Christ’s Death on the Cross and the Birth of the Catholic Church. This same Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to make sure, 360 years after the death of Christ, that the correct canon of inspired books would be set.

Christ’s church started at Pentecost. Agreed. But you and I can and do both make claim to that church for 1500 years until the Reformation. I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t guide Christ’s church to see what is Scripture and what is not. Of course He did. But by 360 the Apostles were long dead and the church and leaders could easily make mistakes. For crying out loud Paul had to rebuke Peter and tell Timothy to man up IN Scripture. The church can easily sway from the Spirit’s promptings and guidance. The Scriptures were inspired. The church is not.

 

[reformissionary]

For example:
When you read Jesus saying to take an unresolved dispute (i.e., source of division, of disruption of unity) to the church (i.e., protector of unity), you want to say they should bring their dispute to the gospel (your “non-organizational” protector of unity).

I haven’t said that. They should bring it to the church. Their local body of believers who has a relationship with this person who needs to be brought to repentance, or if not, discipline.

 

[Byzman]

By virtue of being Apostles their writings were considered Scripture. 2 Peter 3:14ff, Peter mentions Paul’s writings and “the other Scriptures.”

Christ’s church started at Pentecost. Agreed. But you and I can and do both make claim to that church for 1500 years until the Reformation. I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t guide Christ’s church to see what is Scripture and what is not. Of course He did. But by 360 the Apostles were long dead and the church and leaders could easily make mistakes. For crying out loud Paul had to rebuke Peter and tell Timothy to man up IN Scripture. The church can easily sway from the Spirit’s promptings and guidance. The Scriptures were inspired. The church is not.

Who told you that the Bible was Inspired?

 

[Betterave]

You shouldn’t. You should have faith in Christ, not the Church. Christ is the head of the church, not the Pope. This is one of my biggest concerns with Catholicism is that Jesus gets sidelined for Mary, the Institution of the Church, Pope, stories of bleeding wafers and visions of Mary and tears from statues. Fix your eyes on Christ!

Steve, this is very basic stuff that you should absolutely know: Christ is the head of the Catholic Church; the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth (that’s what makes him a big deal) and Mary is the mother of Christ (that’s what makes her a big deal, along with being kecharitomenei and all that!). We’re not supposed to question sincerity on these forums, but I have to ask: Did you really not know this??

 

[JRKH]

As for the Oneness Pentecostals, whom my best friend is a part of, they beleive that God is only one person, and they too can claim to prove from the Bible. Goes to show that you need an outside source of infalliable authority to correctly interpret Scripture.

Steve, I know you are busy, but you are missing the point here and it really is the central point that must be addressed. It factors into EVERY part of the discussion.

It is NOT a matter of whether one can prove both Oneness pentacostal and Trinitarian Doctrines fromt he Bible. Obviously both sides, both claiming divine guidance, believe they are right and are able to site passages from the Bible to prove their point. Where their is conflict, each side accuses teh other of "misunderstranding and misinterpreting.

We can have, and indeed are having, the same argument over ANY doctrine that is not shared by ALL the Christian faiths. What about the doctrines that you do not share with all your Protestant bretheren including infant baptism, immersion, Real presence, Faith alone, OSAS, and others. Forget arguing with Catholics. How do you determine which of the many doctrinal views is correct amomng yourselves whe you have only the Bible and the Holy Spirit???

The question is how do we determine which really IS right when both sides are well meaning and convicted in their beliefs being divinely revealed and bible based.

Remember that passage in Mt 18 about, “Tell it to The Church”, and then abiding by the decision of The Church?

Peace
James

 

[Byzman]

I haven’t said that. They should bring it to the church. Their local body of believers who has a relationship with this person who needs to be brought to repentance, or if not, discipline.

Showing a sign of authority…think about it for a sec…if the Church is where 2 or 3 are gathered than why does the 2 or 3 who have a dispute have to take it somewhere else(the Church)?

 

[Byzman]

Steve, I know you are busy, but you are missing the point here and it really is the central point that must be addressed. It factors into EVERY part of the discussion.

It is NOT a matter of whether one can prove both Oneness pentacostal and Trinitarian Doctrines fromt he Bible. Obviously both sides, both claiming divine guidance, believe they are right and are able to site passages from the Bible to prove their point. Where their is conflict, each side accuses teh other of "misunderstranding and misinterpreting.

We can have, and indeed are having, the same argument over ANY doctrine that is not shared by ALL the Christian faiths. What about the doctrines that you do not share with all your Protestant bretheren including infant baptism, immersion, Real presence, Faith alone, OSAS, and others. Forget arguing with Catholics. How do you determine which of the many doctrinal views is correct amomng yourselves whe you have only the Bible and the Holy Spirit???

The question is how do we determine which really IS right when both sides are well meaning and convicted in their beliefs being divinely revealed and bible based.

Remember that passage in Mt 18 about, “Tell it to The Church”, and then abiding by the decision of The Church?

Peace
James

His answer is going to be the same…“those who are in line with the Gospel is correct.”

 

[Betterave]

I haven’t said that. They should bring it to the church. Their local body of believers who has a relationship with this person who needs to be brought to repentance, or if not, discipline.

So do you still want to contrast your position of ‘gospel unity’ with our ‘organizational’ view of unity? That doesn’t seem like an option, unless you have some non-organizational means of guaranteeing gospel unity, e.g., of recognizing the authority/legitimacy of the rulings of some particular “local body of believers” - right???

 

[Byzman]

The Catholic Church tells me the Bible is inspired and without error…, not the Bible.