Baptist questions on Catholicism

[Zenas]

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.

Oops! It was a typo and the citation in Post #33 should say 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I was referring to the King James Version which says:

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The implication is that if scripture makes the man of God perfect (meaning complete in 21st Century English, not meaning perfect as without sin), nothing else is necessary.

As for your last question, Kalt, we went through this several months ago during our dialog on apostolic succession. They just take the 66-book bible as a given. You will rarely hear any discussion in a Baptist church concerning where we got the Bible or why some books are included and others are not. These questions aren’t on the Baptist radar and, so far as I know, are not on the radar of very many Protestants. The mindset is that the Bible is the final and only real authority on matters of Christianity. I realize it is very different in the Catholic community. I had a roommate in college who was a Catholic (still one of my best friends), and I remember asking him once why he felt he had to go to church every Sunday. His short reply was, “Because the Church says so.” For the Catholic the ultimate authority is the Church; for the Protestant it is the Bible.

 

[Xavierlives]

Gee that’s a good question.

What you do call your male parent?

If you say, “father, but he actually IS my biological parent”. . you’re still ignoring Matthew, aren’t you? Because Matthew says, "Call no man father’.

If you call your male parent father, then you are flouting Matthew as well. Because Matthew doesn’t say, “Call no man father except your own parent”.

So. . .if you allow one exception (that 'but he IS my biological parent, and Matthew couldn’t have meant that I can’t call my own father father"), then you have opened the door to other exceptions.

Also, can you tell me why St. Paul referred to himself as a father, both specifically to Timothy, and also to the readers/hearers of his epistles? St. Paul was not father to, say, the members of the Church at Corinth, yet he refers to himself as such.

Finally, Jesus, in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, himself refers to “Father Abraham”. If we are to call no one our father, why did Jesus have the rich man refer to Abraham not as ‘Abraham’ but as FATHER Abraham?

Gee rhymes with charity.

 

[Xavierlives]

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.

If you consider Jesus a man, then sure.

 

[SonofMonica]

Oops! It was a typo and the citation in Post #33 should say 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I was referring to the King James Version which says:
The implication is that if scripture makes the man of God perfect (meaning complete in 21st Century English, not meaning perfect as without sin), nothing else is necessary.

As for your last question, Kalt, we went through this several months ago during our dialog on apostolic succession. They just take the 66-book bible as a given. You will rarely hear any discussion in a Baptist church concerning where we got the Bible or why some books are included and others are not. These questions aren’t on the Baptist radar and, so far as I know, are not on the radar of very many Protestants. The mindset is that the Bible is the final and only real authority on matters of Christianity. I realize it is very different in the Catholic community. I had a roommate in college who was a Catholic (still one of my best friends), and I remember asking him once why he felt he had to go to church every Sunday. His short reply was, “Because the Church says so.” For the Catholic the ultimate authority is the Church; for the Protestant it is the Bible.

Authority is a attribute which is only truly assignable to a person or group of persons. Inanimate objects such as books cannot truly possess the attribute in a primary sense. The reason you hear texts referred to as “authorities” is because their authors possess authority. A text can only possess derived authority, because it is only as good as its author’s credentials and its interpreter’s credentials. This is true of any text, and when we’re talking about something as important as Sacred Scripture, it is doubly important there.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oops! It was a typo and the citation in Post #33 should say 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I was referring to the King James Version which says:

As I explained in post #37, profitable is useful, but it is not complete or all that is necessary.

Please take the time to view post #37 and share your insights with us. I raised several questions and points I’d like to see your response too.

 

[Third_Day]

If you consider Jesus a man, then sure.

You cannot say with any honestly that Protestantism was started by Jesus.
Christ established a Church, He did not establish denominations. That is a matter of history.

 

[jmcrae]

Good points, Tantum, but you didn’t really answer my question. While you’re pondering your answer, I will ask my question another way. What did Jesus mean when he said, “Call no man your father upon the earth”?

He meant, Do not think that any man on earth created you, or is your Father in the way that God the Father is your father. Keep in mind that your human fathers and teachers are also sons and students, as well as fathers and teachers. God alone is a teacher without also being a student, and a father without also being a son. God alone has no authority higher than Himself.

 

[jmcrae]

If you consider Jesus a man, then sure.

It is a matter of historical record that Jesus established the Catholic Church. St. Peter is our first Pope, and we see Jesus appointing him to be the chief shepherd of His Church in John 21:15-19.

Protestantism began to exist at some point shortly after October 31,1517 AD.

 

[SonofMonica]

He meant, Do not think that any man on earth created you, or is your Father in the way that God the Father is your father. Keep in mind that your human fathers and teachers are also sons and students, as well as fathers and teachers. God alone is a teacher without also being a student, and a father without also being a son. God alone has no authority higher than Himself.

Exactly. God alone is the source of all creation and all wisdom.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

He will say something like "I declare and define … " etc.

Even if he doesn’t use those exact words, he will be very clear in intending that what he is saying is meant for all Christians to believe, and is a requirement of the Faith.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Sure, why not?

It seems that others have done my work for me while I was out today. A couple of things that I don’t think got mentioned, though: Paul’s letter to Timothy says “all Scripture is inspired of God…” 1)Paul doesn’t say ONLY Scripture is inspired, and 2)What was considered “Scripture” at the time Paul was writing? Did Paul know the letter he was writing to Timothy would one day be considered inspired as well?

Regarding the Bereans, they searched the Scriptures, then believed what Paul was telling them about Christ which was being transmitted to them orally at that time. They accepted Paul’s authority to teach them about Jesus and believed on Him as Messiah, and they probably never read any of the Gospels. In fact, it’s safe to say that a large percentage of the earliest believers never read or heard St John’s Gospel. Can you imagine sharing the good news about Jesus and NOT mentioning John 3:16? Yet, many came to believe in Him because of the testimony of the apostles, not because they read about Him in a book.

 

[Zenas]

I have a question for Baptists. What is your understanding of original sin? Do all Baptist chruches have the same understanding?

The basic Baptist understanding of original sin is found in the Baptist Faith and Message, a statement of faith promulgated by the Southern Baptist Convention. Therein, concerning the doctrine of Man it is said:

Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence; whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin, and as soon as they are capable of moral action become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfil the creative purpose of God.

Outside the BF&M there are various nuances of interpretation. Two of these are what is the age of accountability and how are children under the age of accountability saved? It is taken as a given that they are saved, we just don’t know how.

 

[Third_Day]

The basic Baptist understanding of original sin is found in the Baptist Faith and Message, a statement of faith promulgated by the Southern Baptist Convention. Therein, concerning the doctrine of Man it is said: Outside the BF&M there are various nuances of interpretation. Two of these are what is **the age of accountability **and how are children under the age of accountability saved? It is taken as a given that they are saved, we just don’t know how.

I find it interesting that Baptists believe in the age of accountability, yet that teaching is not found in the Bible.

 

[Zenas]

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?.

Like I said in an earlier post on this thread, we have no way of knowing why or why not something was included in scripture. I see your point and I’m familiar with these passages. I agree that mean what they say, although most of my Baptist bretheren would not. Their take on this would first be to say that “the church” refers to a particular group meeting at a designated place, *e.g., *the church at Jerusalem, the church at Antioch, etc. So whatever truth or wisdom you get out of “the church” really comes through communion with its members. Most Baptists reject the notion of "The Church (capital C). To the extent there is a unversal church, it consists of an invisible body of believers. I don’t accept this but it is the Baptist explanation for these verses.

Having said this, I think you have perhaps inadvertently given too little weight to what the Bible teaches about scripture. Reading the gospels it is clear that Jesus and His contemporiaries gave great weight to scripture. They regarded it as the inspired word of God. We didn’t have the N.T. during N.T. times but we have it now and these writings have always been regarded as the inspired word of God. Yes, I know we didn’t have the canon until about 400 but we had the N.T. books and they were widely circulated and read. If you read Revelation 22:18-19 you will see that this book at least purports to be self validating.

I disagree with your interpretation of the account of the Bereans.

I’ve never seen this take on the Bereans before and I don’t really accept it.

Many of them believed, not all of them believed because they received different interpretations.

This is your inference. It doesn’t say they received different interpretations. It’s more likely that some decided not to believe for whatever reason. If a Catholic missionary came to my church and was allowed to present his version of the gospel, a few would believe but most would not although every one of them heard exactly the same message. You are taking this to mean Paul was only marginally successful in Berea but in reality he was tremendously successful. That is why Luke was so complimentary of them.

Why were they searching the scriptures?

The scriptures (O.T. here) contain hundreds of messianic prophesies which, if believed, demonstrate the truth of Christ’s incarnation and message to mankind. The Bereans were comparing the message of Paul to what they believed to be the truths of scripture.

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.

I have no problem with your take on Ezra and Philip.

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

I agree but you won’t find many Baptists or other Protestants who do. However, this is really the Achilles heel of Protestant theology. Remove sola scriptura and the Protestant economy falls like a house of cards.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

However, this is really the Achilles heel of Protestant theology. Remove sola scriptura and the Protestant economy falls like a house of cards.

Even though we disagree on a few points, you’ve been honest and that’s commendable. Rarely do I see a Protestant respond with any semblance of agreement with a Catholic view.

Another thought has come to mind, referencing ‘Bible only’ authority Protestants, and I even considered starting a thread on the subject. That is women pastor/preachers. I know several denominations, seemingly most Protestant denominations, that have and accept women pastors/preachers, yet scriptures are explicity clear on the subject. I used to visit an Assembly of God forum, where several women pastors/preachers posted. They explained that the teaching was outdated, or only pertained to the times the scriptures were written. In my opinion, this is a ‘man’ made tradition that is contrary to scriptures and dangerously opens the doors to many things being considered ‘pertaining to those times only.’

We hear many times the Bible is all ANYBODY needs, but this change in ‘doctrines’ makes that statement no longer true, at least parts of the Bible. I’m sure we’d both agree we shouldn’t take away or add to scriptures and ignoring a part, because of a change of cultures due to the times, is the same thing as taking away from scriptures.

Catholics are accused of ‘extra or other non-Biblical’ doctrines, which is due to a difference in interpretation, in my honest opinion. This doctrine, referencing women in the Church, is not ‘non-Biblical’, it is against scriptures and not something due to interpretational differences.

Would you care to attempt to reconcile an accepted practice that appears to be so blatantly against scriptures, by ‘Bible only authority’ Protestants?

 

[Zenas]

I don’t know where the Assembly of God gets this idea but it doesn’t come from the Bible. This is somewhat strange because they hold to scriptural teachings in most other areas.

As for the main line Protestants, they have pretty much abandoned the idea of scriptural authority in this and most other things. They have no authority other than themselves. It reminds me of the age of the O.T. judges where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25. It also would appear they are headed for oblivion much like the lost tribes of Israel.

You won’t find very many Baptist churches with women as pastors. The Baptist Faith and Message, which has precatory authority, says: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Last year I believe there were two churches removed from SBC fellowship for having female pastors–one in Texas and one in Georga.