J
Jean_1958
Guest
Any other Baptists or other Protestants, maybe non-Christians even, have any questions?
- Status
E
EmergencyOps
Guest
How do you know when the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra? I understand that it has something to do with faith and morals and that it does not mean the Pope doesn’t sin…but does the Vatican give disclaimers when the Pope is or is not speaking (or writing documents) Ex Cathedra?
J
Jean_1958
Guest
I went back to re-read verse 39 and you are right, it was Peter who said that.
A
adstrinity
Guest
grumble grumble conceeds this point grumble
K
kalt
Guest
I’ve read the questions and answers, and it seems that all have already been explained clearly. We call the priests “Father” and it isn’t anti-Biblical. We baptize infants because it is a sacrament which confers grace and because this is how it was done in Christ’s time.
There is one thing that I have to clarify. Purgatory. Purgatory is a state of cleansing. It’s not a holding place for unbaptized people or a place where you might go to Heaven but might end up in Hell. All souls undergoing this cleansing will enter Heaven. No soul in Purgatory will go to Hell.
Catholics don’t speculate on what happens to unbaptized infants. We trust God to care for the souls of these infants. There was talk of something called limbo and the limbo of the infants (or something close to that). But that was never a teaching by the Church. It was only speculation.
I have a question for Baptists. What is your understanding of original sin? Do all Baptist chruches have the same understanding?
There is one thing that I have to clarify. Purgatory. Purgatory is a state of cleansing. It’s not a holding place for unbaptized people or a place where you might go to Heaven but might end up in Hell. All souls undergoing this cleansing will enter Heaven. No soul in Purgatory will go to Hell.
Catholics don’t speculate on what happens to unbaptized infants. We trust God to care for the souls of these infants. There was talk of something called limbo and the limbo of the infants (or something close to that). But that was never a teaching by the Church. It was only speculation.
I have a question for Baptists. What is your understanding of original sin? Do all Baptist chruches have the same understanding?
K
kalt
Guest
Yes. The Vatican makes it clear when something being said is binding on all Catholics. Unless I missed something, the last Ex Cathedra statement was made 50+ years ago. Can someone confirm that?
Edited to add that the Baptism question is very interesting. Though babies and children have been baptized from the beginning, some people chose not to be baptized until they were near death. It seems that they were afraid that they would mess it up after baptism and not be saved. I wonder if Confession wasn’t being taught well-enough (or at all in some areas) then.
If there are Catholics or others out there who know a little history on that, can you give a brief summary of how and why people were afraid to be baptized “too early”? I wonder if some people misunderstood Jesus’ salvation message way back then, too. They did seem to think that if they ever sinned again, they would go to Hell.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Not everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is an Ex Cathedra statement. If Pope Benedict XVI says that the best pizza place is in a little village in Italy, I am free to disagree with him.
Start here. It has to do with when a Pope defines a doctrine (matter of faith and/or morals). This has happened a grand total of twice in the last 200 years. In 1854 Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and then in 1950 Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. In both cases, it had to do with an existing doctrine that was being challenged and the Pope says, “Listen up, guys. This is what the Church believes about ______.” It isn’t a “new” teaching, but a clarification of what the Catholic Church teaches and if one wishes to be Catholic, they are bound to adhere to that belief. While it may not have previously been a** dogmatic** teaching of the Church, it became dogmatic.
If you’re wondering what one MUST believe to be a faithful Catholic, go here.
K
kalt
Guest
I missed this question
I don’t think anyone is mentioned there, so I have to conclude that exactly who was there, other than God and Jesus, wasn’t as important to the writer as the message. We don’t see any particular angel mentioned, and you would think that Gabriel, at least, would be talked about. I don’t remember seeing the Holy Spirit mentioned, come to think of it. Moses and Abraham weren’t mentioned by name. Isaiah’s name is absent.
So we have no one mentioned by name, and no Holy Spirit. What do you make of that? What is the purpose of those two chapters.
From what I’ve read, the writers of the time believed that heaven was a physical place with real doors. Should we be reading these chapters as if it is an actual picture of Heaven? As if no mention of Mary as Queen of Heaven means that she isn’t?
It seems to me that these chapters are about God’s plan and Jesus’ role in that plan–and about the church (in Heaven and on Earth) worshipping God together. Your opinion?
Z
Zenas
Guest
You’re right, the only characters we can identify in this scene are God and Jesus. We believe the 24 elders represent the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes of Isreal but we can’t be sure. It just seems strange that the most prominent saint in Heaven would be omitted from this picture. I don’t have a problem with the Marian dogma of the Catholic Church but this is one that is very difficult to support via scripture. The only support I could give for it is Revelation 12. Incidentally I didn’t really expect an answer for this because we have no way of knowing why something was or was not included in scripture. We have the same situation in Romans 16 where Paul mentions some 26 members of the church at Rome by name but does not mention Peter. History shows us that Peter was in Rome but Paul does not.
K
kalt
Guest
The word Trinity isn’t in the Bible, but the teaching is. The word Purgatory isn’t in the Bible, but the teaching is. Imagine the stuff that’s been passed down through Tradition!
One of the stumbling blocks in discussions between many Protestants and Catholics is the notion (in Protestant circles) that the Bible is the only valid souce of information. They reject Tradition, though doing that is actually contrary to the Bible.
Can you help us understand why Protestants in general (maybe you can only speak about Baptist theology) say that they can accept teachings from the Bible only, when the Bible talks about all that you read and hear. We’ve asked a few times on this forum, but that question seems to be unanswered (or maybe I’ve missed the answers).
Editing to add a big thank you to the Baptists and former Baptists who have taken the time to ask and answer questions here.
E
EmergencyOps
Guest
Thanks for the clarification (and the links). I was under the impression that it occurred more often than that, and I am glad that I was corrected. Back in 2007, I wondered if the “Guidelines for Pastoral Care of the Road” document was Ex Cathedra. But nope, it was just a plea for sanity on the roadways.Not everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is an Ex Cathedra statement. If Pope Benedict XVI says that the best pizza place is in a little village in Italy, I am free to disagree with him.
Start here. It has to do with when a Pope defines a doctrine (matter of faith and/or morals). This has happened a grand total of twice in the last 200 years.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
I think you’ll find the Catholic Bridge (2nd link with the list of Catholic dogma) very helpful in understanding Catholicism. The author of that website is a convert so he speaks Protestantese.
Never heard of it, but I can’t see that anyone would have a problem with someone saying, “Drive safely!”Back in 2007, I wondered if the “Guidelines for Pastoral Care of the Road” document was Ex Cathedra. But nope, it was just a plea for sanity on the roadways.
Z
Zenas
Guest
A couple of scripture passages the sola scriptura advocates always point to are 2 Timothy 2:16-17 and Acts 17:10-12. The Timothy passage of course says all scripture is inspired by God, and in some translations it goes on to say “so the man of God may be perfect.” Perfect of course means complete. Therefore, is you can be made complete through scripture, nothing else is necessary.
The account of the Bereans in Acts 17 is more anecdotal. “They received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” The Bereans didn’t look to Jewish tradition or the Greek philosophers. They just looked at scripture, nothing else. This is the Baptist model today.
However, I think the real reason Baptists won’t go beyond scripture for anything pertaining to their faith is tradition. Yes, you read that right. Sola scriptura has been around nearly 500 years and that’s a long time. If sola scriptura is all you know and all your ancestors knew, you would be inclined to go with it as well. The memory of man runneth not to the contrary. That would be tradition, Baptist style.
Perhaps an analogy would be helpful here. Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary through Tradition. You can infer this by a careful reading of scripture, but you can also make a case from scripture that Mary had other children. Not many Catholics could be convinced that Mary had other children simply because they know nothing of this concept. Neither do their parents, grandparents, etc. The same is true of Baptists and sola scriptura.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Would you like me to share the Catholic response to both passages? If you’ve heard it before I’ll save my fingers.
I’m familiar with both arguments as I used them myself back in my Baptist days. 
Yep. Traditions run deep, no matter what your church sign says.
Good analogy.
Z
Zenas
Guest
Sure, why not?
K
kalt
Guest
The 2 Timothy 2:16-17 I’m looking at doesn’t seem to be the passage you’re talking about. What translation are you using?
Edit - Must’ve been a typo. It’s chapter 3, for anyone who’s following.
I found it. “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
Can you quote the lines from the version you’re using?
From what you’ve written so far, I don’t see how saying that using scripture to become perfect means that by using only scripture one becomes perfect.
My brownie mix is complete when I add the final ingredient, but it’s not complete if I add only the final ingredient.
I found this on another board, while looking for something else.
“To determine which books and letters are inspired and authoritative (the Canon) required assistance from the Early Church Fathers. The Canon cannot be derived from the Bible itself. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura must assume that we first have an authoritative set of books to work with.”
How do Protestants deal with statements like this? How do they explain how they know the books in the Bible, and only those books, are valid, without appealing to extra-Biblical authority? No book in the Bible names the number and titles of the books it should include. The list is found only in the table on contents, which was created by those who chose which books to include in the first place.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It’s 2 Timothy 3:16 and it states ‘profitable’. Profitable is short of ‘all that is necessary’ or ‘complete’.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
Scriptures do tell us where to find His truth.
2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,
Now, we both believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Tell me, why did God inspire it be written that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth instead of the Bible? Why did God inspire it be written that the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church and not scriptures?
I disagree with your interpretation of the account of the Bereans.
**KJV
Acts 17:10 - 12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.**
Many of them believed, not all of them believed because they received different interpretations. Why were they searching the scriptures?
Act 17:2 And Paul, according to his custom, went in unto them. And for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures:
Act 17:3 Declaring and insinuating that the Christ was to suffer and to rise again from the dead; and that this is Jesus Christ, whom I preach to you.
Act 17:4 And some of them believed and were associated to Paul and Silas: and of those that served God and of the Gentiles a great multitude: and of noble women not a few.
Paul reasoned with them, or taught them, with authority I will add. And from his teachings, some of them believed. So some believed the ‘authority’ that had explained scriptures to them. More believed when they searched the scriptures later comparing scriptures to what had been spoken to them.
Having an authority explain scriptures to the people was nothing new. Nehemiah 8 tells us there was an authority to explain scriptures to the people, even in Old Testament times.
**Nehemiah 8
1And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.
2And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.
4And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.
5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
7Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.**
Now, if all one needed was the Bible, that is not supported by scriptures as evident with the Ethiopian eunuch who read the scriptures. He had to have Philip explain them to him.
Act 8:30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
Act 8:31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Act 8:32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.
Act 8:33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?
Act 8:34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man?
Act 8:35 Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
Sola scriptura has been around 500 years and that is a long time, but only a quarter of the time we’ve had a Church, built by Christ. The Church is supported by scriptures, sola scriptura is not and is clearly a ‘man made’ tradition far removed from the time the Church received it’s authority.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Prodigal Son1 - Brilliant post. Thanks!
T
Third_Day
Guest
The Timothy passage says scripture is usefull for teaching, training in righteousness so that the man of God may be complete for every good work… Complete for every good work doesn’t mean you are complete for eternal life.
They didn’t look to scripture. They listened to Paul, who had authority from the Church to teach. They had been going by their private interpretation untill Paul taught them correctly. Paul is a good example of why we need to let the Church interpret.
Ask yourself this question. Why did Paul go to Jerusalem and ask the apostles if what he was preaching was correct? Galatians 2:1-2 " I laid before them the gospel which I preached among the Gentiles,lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain". Even Paul had to make sure he was preaching the truth which can come only from the Church.
.
If scripture is all you need to know the truth then can you show me the chapter and verse where it says “there shall be only 27 inspired books in the New Testament”. If you can’t find that chapter and verse then sola scriptura is false. You are correct when you say that sola scriptura has been around for 500 years. But Christ came 2,000 years ago. No one believe in Sola Scriptura until 500 years ago. It can only be classified as a tradition of men.
Catholic tradition comes from the apostles. Baptist Tradition can only come from men since it was only started recently.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
About protestant traditions, yes, they come about lately, and my priest always said Protestantism is a man made religion.
This week people all over the world are praying for Christian unity…we should do the same…the Lord has always exhorted us to be of one heart, soul, and mind.
This week people all over the world are praying for Christian unity…we should do the same…the Lord has always exhorted us to be of one heart, soul, and mind.
- Status