J
justasking4
Guest
All that we know of what the apostles taught is found only in the NT.If not founded by the apostle’s, how would it be know what the apostles taught?
- Status
L
Lampo
Guest
All of the ones you claim the Southern Baptist’s have right.
J
justasking4
Guest
There are probalby others but i think this is sufficent for us to work with. If you really want to know you can look up the doctrinal statements of various protestant churches. You will find some agree on core doctrines such as the deity of Christ, He died for our sins, the Trinity etc.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Well since the Apostles taught that the bread and wine become the very Body and Blood of Christ, and since the Apostles taught that baptism washes away our sins and the Southern Baptist Church denies both of those doctrines, I submit that the Southern Baptists do not teach what the Apostles taught.
B
BHTech
Guest
To Justasking4
Everybody else questions seem to be addressed but mine Justasking4. In case you missed it, here it is again.
Southern Baptists have things right doctrinally you claim. Who else among the Protestants groups have things right doctrinally Justasking4?
Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html
Everybody else questions seem to be addressed but mine Justasking4. In case you missed it, here it is again.
Southern Baptists have things right doctrinally you claim. Who else among the Protestants groups have things right doctrinally Justasking4?
Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html
J
justasking4
Guest
Where do the apostles teach that the bread and wine becomes God?
Are you referring to Acts 22:16 in regards to “baptism washes away our sins”?
J
justasking4
Guest
Yes as far as i can tell.
M
mercygate
Guest
If a Protestant teaching does not square with Scripture and the Catechism, I certainly CAN judge that it is wrong. But my “authority” comes from the teaching authority of the Church.
So to that extent I DO have ‘authority’ to discern the rightness or wrongness of doctrine, wherever it is proposed. How could I not? To me this looks like a no-brainer. Am I missing something?
Tell me, if you saw Peter Popoff on TV selling “miracle manna” on TV and promising you that Jesus would send you a fortune in $$$ if you eat it, would you have “authority” so say he is wrong? Of course you would. But your authority would not be your personal opinion, your authority would be the consistent teaching of the Christian faith, likely including the SBC, concerning the character of the Gospel and the Person of Jesus Christ.
Where we differ from you in this is that our authority goes back in an unbroken line to the Upper Room. Yours starts on the pages of a book whose content, we believe as Catholics, can be understood only from the Heart of its Author whose privileged Voice on earth is the Church Jesus promised to build on Peter and the Apostles.
B
BHTech
Guest
You have identified the Probability that other Protestant denominations are right doctrinally. Thank you.
I have two questions for you.
- If Southern Baptists are right doctrinally and lets say denominations X, Y, and Z for name sake are also correct doctrinally, then why aren’t they united into one denomination?
- Who decides they are right doctrinally?
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html
L
Lampo
Guest
I think you got a little confused to where our discussion was heading. I asked you who got it right doctrinally before this faith tradition was founded in the 19th century?
J
justasking4
Guest
Where do they give you this authority?
Do you apply this to your own church or are you forced to accept what they teach even though you may have some problems with it? For example just recently as you may know there is a movement on in the catholic church to declare Mary as “the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.”
Would you have a problem believing and accepting all this since it would come from the highest authority in the catholic church?
Good point.
You also has other people in history as i noted previously that validate my position.
J
justasking4
Guest
That would take a lot of research that would go far beyond this forum. I would think there would be a large number that got it right.
J
justasking4
Guest
Why would they need to be united under one name or denomination? Whether a person calls themselves a baptist or Evergreen church is irrelevant so long as they are teaching the correct doctrines.
The function of the pastor and elders in a church have this responsiblity guided by the Scriptures.
M
mercygate
Guest
The Catholic view of man is that he is gifted by his Creator with reason. Given the tools and the skills, right reason will take me to the truth. So the “Church” does not give me the authority to think. God gives it to me.
As a Convert, I came into the Church accepting a couple of things I did not fully comprehend or to which I did not give full, personal intellectual assent because I was completely convinced – because of all of the OTHER Catholic teachings I had formerly rejected and subsequently found to be sound, ancient, and consistent – that in time and with the docility of faith, these other things would become clear to me. They mostly have become clear. So I would say that by the time the Church proposes something for belief as de fide, it will have been worked through so well that it will be pretty much undeniable. One thing the Church is when it comes to the formulation of teaching: THOROUGH.
Just tracking here. You mean the position that any bloke with a Bible can claim the same divine authority as the Apostolic Churches? Even if he comes up with a completely different Gospel? Like the JWs?
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.
1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”
Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.
Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.
1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.
1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.
1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.
1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.
1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.
Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”
Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to “feed” the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.
source
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Not only that passage, but also:
Ezekiel 36:25-27 And I will put clean water on you so that you may be clean: from all your unclean ways and from all your images I will make you clean. 26 And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you: I will take away the heart of stone from your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit in you, causing you to be guided by my rules, and you will keep my orders and do them.
This OT passage is a foreshadowing of the NT. (OT is the NT concealed, NT is the OT revealed) Remember, 2 Tim 3:16 says: “Every Scripture which comes from God is of profit for teaching, for training, for guiding, for education in righteousness:” The passage in Ezekiel says that this is an outward sign to bring about an inward change. This is a foreshadowing of NT baptism.
Code:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. .
Acts 22:16And now, why are you waiting? get up, and be baptized for the washing away of your sins, giving worship to his name.It IS important to have a relationship with Christ; however, it is possible to have a relationship with Jesus and still end up rejecting/betraying Him - look at what happened to Judas. It is not a personal relationship alone that makes us Christians.
Code:
1 Corinthians 12:13 For through the baptism of the one Spirit we were all formed into one body, Jews or Greeks, servants or free men, and were all made full of the same Spirit.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.
Code:
Colossians 2:11-12 in Him ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.I Peter 3:20-21 Who, in the days of Noah, went against God’s orders; but God in his mercy kept back the punishment, while Noah got ready the ark, in which a small number, that is to say eight persons, got salvation through water: 21 And baptism, of which this is an image, now gives you salvation, not by washing clean the flesh, but by making you free from the sense of sin before God, through the coming again of Jesus Christ from the dead;
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! Right after the conversation with Nicodemus:
John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
Baptism is the context in which Jesus says “born of water and the Spirit.” If you read any account of Jesus’ baptism, it is in water, and what happens when Jesus comes up out of the water? The Spirit descends upon Him. Water + the Spirit = Baptism.
Code:
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
B
BHTech
Guest
One shepherd one flock friend. Jesus words. Are you calling Jesus a liar or saying his opinion is irrelevant? That’s the impression you are giving me.
Therefore its each man for himself supposedly guided by the Scriptures. How then can the Southern Baptists and the pastors of X, Y, and Z get it right IN YOUR OPINION and the remaining denominations get it wrong. Isn’t everybody using the same Bible?
J
justasking4
Guest
Who is the “one” shepherd that Jesus identifies in john 10:16? I don’t see Him pointing out Peter in this chapter as that shepherd.
Secondly, there was not a supreme i.e. one leader for the entire church for centuries after the apostles.
Thirdly, where in Peter’s letters do we see him identifying himself as this “one” shepherd that Jesus mentions?
We have differences of understanding that i pointed out earlier. Its part of the human fallen condition. Its true also in the catholic church also. There is a wide range of interpretation of the scriptures in the catholic church. Are you aware that the catholic church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures ?
G
grandfather
Guest
“As far as I can tell”.
The Baptists got this and that right.
The Catohlics got this and that right.
As far as I can tell. I am the arbiter of truth. I use the Bible as do the Baptists and Catholics and Jehovahs Witnesses, to determine this and that truth. All authority is in the Bible, meaning there can be none left to be in the Church God founded on men.
I pick and choose what I want to believe. This is the Protestant methodology. They can all disagree on any number of things between themselves, and do, but the methodology is the individual for himself determining truth on a doctrine by doctrine basis, as far as I can tell.
I pick and choose for myself. This is the classical definition of a heretic, one who picks and chooses for himself what he wants to believe.
Catholics and their popes have many sins. The pope and churchmen made many policy errors in history and caused scandals. That does not effect their dogma, the truths of the faith, that can never change. Discipline can change. We can worship using this prayer and then use a different one. We can fast during Lent this way and then another way. Dogma, truths related to faith and morals can not change, ever.
Protestants by their founding principles can and do change what they believe whenever they think someinth needs fixing. It does not bother them. They admit error, the Church can err in matters of dogma, so fix it, big deal.
Take this to its logical conclusion. Despite Jesus promises to lead His Church into “ALL” truth for all time, those who came before us were wrong about XY and Z. We realize that now, we know better, thanks to our ability to read the Bible better than our predecessors, and have corrected them as we see fit. Those who come after us may disagree with our teaching at any time and refix or fix what we teach. That is how things work. No problem.
What this says is that truth is in flux. We can never know with certainty, what truth is about something as important as how many sacraments there are. Yesterday and for fifteen hundred years the Church said there are seven, but that is wrong and we dumped five. Is Holy Matrimony a sacrament or not? We think we are right today, but might find out something else tomorrow. Some of our doctrines might be false, but we don’t know which ones, meaning we do not know which are true.
God wants us to know His truth with certainty, not partially, but in fulllness,and in every age and promised us we would know it in the Church. He who is truth unites us in His truth and makes us one as Paul instructed us to be of one mind. Those who depart from revealed truths are not part of the Church Christ built on the Rock. They will not withstand the storms. They will eventually fall. They are not in Peter’s boat from which Christ began His teaching and continues to teach.
B
BHTech
Guest
One Shepherd - Jesus in the overall sense. The point is that you miss the ONE Flock bit. Nice try but you are denying Jesus words.
Friend please don’t try to change the subject or deflect the specific question.
Nice try again, but you have failed to get to the bottom of the question and the answer. I am not involving Peter in this discussion.
Again nice try and attempting to change the subject. Again I ask in light of the fact that Jesus calls for us to be one flock, why would the Southern Baptists and the pastors of denominations X, Y, and Z ignore that call?
Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html
- Status