Ask A Baptist Pastor

  • Thread starter Thread starter reformissionary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mrclm said:
It wasn’t until 1545 at the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church declared for the first time its official position that tradition was to now be equal in authority with God’s Word - the Bible. Once that was done the church had the freedom to add more and more traditions including much of what is now believed about Mary.
Click to expand...
This is not accrurate, mrclm. This equality was taught to use by the Apostles, and is written in scripture (hold fast to the teaching, whether by word of mouth, or by epistle). The Church has always understood the two to be strands of the One Divine Deposit of faith given to the Church.

Since it was a “once for all” deposit, no Sacred Tradition can be “added”. If it did not come from the Aposltes, then it is not part of the once for all deposit of faith. Catholics believe that public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing has been added since that time.
mrclm said:
Code: 
That reminds me of Mark Chapter 7 where Jesus gave some very instructive teaching about adding tradition to God's Word.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he was referring to human traditions, not Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is God’s word at work in the Church. It cannot contradict Scripture, because they both come from the same Source.
mrclm said:
Code: 
It is important to understand that Protestants are not against tradition as long as that tradition is in accord with God's Word.
Click to expand...
This is especially interesting in the light of the human traditions cited in this thread, such as Sola Scriptura and the 5 Solas, all of which contradict God’s Word.
mrclm said:
If tradition contradicts the Bible, you had better start questioning your tradition.
Click to expand...
I agree with this! Perhaps some people who have embraced these heresies will give things another look?
mrclm said:
Code: 
 The Bible is God's Word, if it can't stand on its own then it really doesn't have God's power and authority.  Everything else must come under that, not along side of that, and certainly not above that.
Click to expand...
If this were true, there would be no Bible today.
 
reformissionary said:
Ah, see! That’s a better response! A little levity, people. Everyone is too tense. Let’s all take a deep breath.
Click to expand...
When have you ever sat by and tolerated someone insulting your family members and laughed along with them?
40.png
reformissionary:
Why don’t you pray to him and wear his medal and put a candle in front of his haloed icon and maybe you’ll experience a Marian apparition! Oh wait, he’s the pet saint, right?

C’mon! That’s funny!
Click to expand...
I am saddened by your disrespect for the Holy Ones who have gone on before us in the faith. These are now kept forever by Him in His grace, and it is on account of them that we can be inspired to fight the good fight (Heb. 12:1).

Referring to those who have given their lives to Jesus, and sometimes their deaths in martydom as well as “pet saint” seems grossly derogatory.
 
mrclm said:
The Catholic and Orthodox churches share a common ancestry - common church fathers, so it comes as no surprise that they arrive at some of the same conclusions. The Orthodox view of Theotokos while in some ways similar to the Roman view, are not in practice the same. But yes, I find it interesting to say the least that something that was supposedly universally accepted had to be codified at the Council of Trent, which led to further expansion of the authority of tradition.
Click to expand...
This is consistent with the history of the Church. We see in Acts that the Church did not rule or make a pronouncement on Gentiles worshipping with Jews and circumcision until heresies arose. In the same way, the Council of Nicea, as well as all those afterward made pronouncements to combat heresy.

What was stated at Trent was in response to rampant heresy. It contained nothing new, but promulgated what the church had always believed and taught.

The Canon, for instance, was closed in 382, and all bibles produced after that contained the approved books, until the Reformation, when heresy started to rear it’s ugly head. The Church has a duty to teach the Truth, especially when heresy abounds.
mrclm said:
I’d still like to know, was Martin Luther at fault for the reformation?
Click to expand...
Only for his own behavior. Luther was a small rock that hit a slope of scree that was ready to slide. If it had not been him, sonmething else would have triggered it.
 
mrclm said:
I know I am always cautious in telling God what to do and how to run His Heaven. I know what I see in Revelation and if [that’s a big IF that warrants more caution in the way you invoke it] that is all that we do in Heaven I’m sure it will be far greater than anything I can imagine and I won’t demean God if that is indeed all we do there [that’s awfully humble of you!:rolleyes:]. But what I do know is that is what God has in His wisdom made clear we will be doing. [in the richly symbolic language of Revelation, you mean? what has God made clear there for you? we will be…] Beyond that = speculation by man**[perhaps even man redeemed by our Lord and moved by the Holy Spirit to bring to expression the fullness of the truth? - that is a Biblical option you know, kind of a promise Jesus made (to the apostles in the gospel according to John) about being with us always, about sending the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth]**.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, however, you’re not cautious enough in telling God what to do and how to run his Church. And not cautious enough in falsely attributing blasphemous presumption to others based on your own misunderstandings of how God has instituted and guided and been present to his Church, the Church of both those who have died and those who are still alive, for the last 2000 years, in continuity with the 2000 years or so before that.
 
mrclm said:
And on the same note I could say that the Catholic view is pride at its finest then, since they have the corner on the market of being the true church. But then there are those other pesky groups who also also claim Apostolic Succession.

And there are without question churches and denominations I would not send people to. Even the Mormons call their place of self idolatry a church.
Click to expand...
Pride? Er…what if it’s true??? That’s like saying Jesus accepting to be called Lord and Master is pride at its finest! Good grief! Seeing that Jesus identified himself with the Church, in a sense it’s literally accusing Jesus of pride at its finest! (“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me…”)

And other Churches are not pesky. It is sad that we are not in corporate union, but the apostolic Churches not in communion with Rome still hold the apostolic faith. Protestants do not. But neither should be dismissed as pesky. Not good listeners, bad at logic, historically and philosophically naive and misinformed, objectively more or less in error, maybe; but certainly still loved by God and part of God’s plan.

Also, your comment about the Mormons is obviously uncharitable and uncalled for. Yes, Mormonism is a false religion, we believe that; but when we lack charity we are falsifying our own religion. There is plenty of self-idolatry wherever you go in this world. Mormons don’t have a monopoly on that.
 
guanophore said:
I have always wondered how it is possible to profane that which is not present. If it is not, as He said, His Body and His Blood, then how can partaking of it in an unworthy manner profane it? It is like saying someone is disrespecting the flag when there is no flag there.

???
Click to expand...
Can someone be disrespectful toward you without you being there? Yep. If this hasn’t happened to you, I want to move into your bubble.
 
jmcrae said:
If not, then why belong to it? :confused:

Surely, we should all at least think that we belong to the Church that was established at Pentecost, shouldn’t we - and that what we are being taught from our pulpits is the same as what the Apostles were preaching, in those days? 🙂
Click to expand...
Catholic friends, think outside your normal categories. You don’t have to agree, but at least try to understand what I’m saying. We use different words with different meanings and it takes some effort on both ends. I’ll agree to try if you will.

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.

That’s probably a little bit simplistic, but I’m really trying hard to break a barrier between us here. May need to tweak things a bit as we discuss.
 
Saintlucy said:
Re: Post 270

I am so sorry, I made a mistake with my verse numbers. :bowdown: But there again, I’m only an ignorant Catholic.

I am going to say my piece now and I don’t care if I get banned for it. You are one of the rudest people I have ever come across. You have purposely started a thread in which you are the centre of attention. Everything that we (Catholics) say is derided and mocked in a smug and holier than thou manner. I was just waiting to see if you’ve digested anything that we have discussed with you in charity. I can’t see that you have bent even a fraction. If you think you’ll break us down, forget it. We are the stuff martyrs are made of. :knight2:
Click to expand...
So I have to bend a fraction in your direction? Why don’t you need to bend a fraction in mine? Why?

I’ll be very honest. I have never, not once, intended to say anything rude or smug. I’ve intended to talk about the issues in an open and honest way. It’s VERY easy to communicate tone poorly AND to hear tone where it doesn’t exist on these forums. I think it would be helpful to give the benefit of the doubt. But feel free to show where I have been these ways and if I was I’m happy to apologize. Thanks.
 
Saintlucy said:
I innocently made a mistake with my post and I got, “What are you talking about?” even if someone said this quietly and sweetly it would still sound sarcastic. It felt just like a slap in the face. I went cold. Ooooooooooh!
Click to expand...
You read into my comments. None of these things are what I meant.
 
guanophore said:
When have you ever sat by and tolerated someone insulting your family members and laughed along with them?
Click to expand...
Never, unless they meant it funny and it legitimately was, and then I get all cracked up over it.
I am saddened by your disrespect for the Holy Ones who have gone on before us in the faith. These are now kept forever by Him in His grace, and it is on account of them that we can be inspired to fight the good fight (Heb. 12:1).
Click to expand...
Where have I disrespected Holy Ones?
Referring to those who have given their lives to Jesus, and sometimes their deaths in martydom as well as “pet saint” seems grossly derogatory.
Click to expand...
Look, I was at a local RCC and, no joke, someone there called him the “pet saint.” Isn’t he the animal guy?
 
Byzman said:
Christ and the Church!
Click to expand...
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?
 
reformissionary said:
Catholic friends, think outside your normal categories. You don’t have to agree, but at least try to understand what I’m saying. We use different words with different meanings and it takes some effort on both ends. I’ll agree to try if you will.

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.

That’s probably a little bit simplistic, but I’m really trying hard to break a barrier between us here. May need to tweak things a bit as we discuss.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Byzman said:
Where is your authority that says the Bible is inspired?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top