Why Equate Protestantism with "Born Again" Fundamentalism?

[Contarini]

And, for the record, there are no analogies in scripture.

And as usual, you expect us to believe this without a shred of evidence or argument.

Why on earth do you expect people to listen to you? You can’t be bothered actually to cite Scripture or make an argument, yet you act as if you have some superior theological paradigm that gives you unique understanding. You need to give us some reason to respect what you say–you can’t just demand deference as you seem to be doing.

Edwin

 

[someotherguy]

Why don’t you define the term so that everybody is on the same page.

You’re Roman Catholic. If what you’re claiming about Roman Cathoicism is true, then you should already know this.

 

[someotherguy]

And as usual, you expect us to believe this without a shred of evidence or argument.

Why on earth do you expect people to listen to you? You can’t be bothered actually to cite Scripture or make an argument, yet you act as if you have some superior theological paradigm that gives you unique understanding.

First of all, I would have assumed that you’d have enough common sense to know that I can’t cite something that doesn’t exist.

Second, this understanding is not unique to me. It’s one of the basic principles of hermeneutics.

Scripture doesn’t exist?

Scripture exists. Analogies in scripture do not exist.

Again, you avoid actually explaining or defending your position.

There was nothing to explain or defend. I just stated that I didn’t just make this up.

Instead, you take this lofty tone as if anyone who challenges you is thereby proving their ignorance.

If that’s a “lofty tone”, then you must be pretty low.

 

[Contarini]

You’re Roman Catholic. If what you’re claiming about Roman Cathoicism is true, then you should already know this.

He’s not Roman Catholic. Not that that’s relevant here. You’re just wasting everyone’s time.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

First of all, I would have assumed that you’d have enough common sense to know that I can’t cite something that doesn’t exist.

Scripture doesn’t exist?

Second, this understanding is not unique to me. It’s one of the basic principles of hermeneutics.

Again, you avoid actually explaining or defending your position. Instead, you take this lofty tone as if anyone who challenges you is thereby proving their ignorance.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

Why don’t you define the term so that everybody is on the same page.

Well, that is a separate topic I suppose (really this should be another thread methinks).

I think he means the “analogy of faith” – the idea that “Scrpture interprets Scripture” apart from any other reference point.

 

[someotherguy]

I think he means the “analogy of faith”

No, I’m pretty sure I mean the analogy of scripture.

 

[mozart-250]

No, I’m pretty sure I mean the analogy of scripture.

Then why don't you define the term and explain its relevance since the term "analogy of scripture" is not found in the Bible.

 

[someotherguy]

Then why don't you define the term and explain its relevance since the term "analogy of scripture" is not found in the Bible.

Of course it’s not found in the Bible but if you’re going to make the claims about Roman Catholicism that you all are, then you should at least have some understanding of hermeneutics, shouldn’t you?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Actually, John 3:5 has nothing to do with baptism.

So the Apostles were wrong when they taught other men that Jesus did mean baptism in that passage?

You shouldn’t worship the Bible but you should defer to it’s authority.

Where does the Bible say that it’s my authority?

The Bible doesn’t make any disctinction between “completely saved” and “kind of saved” or “temporarily saved”.

It does but I have a feeling you wouldn’t believe me if I showed you. Check out the parable of the seeds and sower if you have some time.

If you’re not completely saved now, then you need to get saved before you stand before God and are judged for your sin.

I can’t be completely saved now, and neither can you. Our redemption isn’t complete until we are in Heaven in our perfect, glorified bodies.

The word “Trinity” or the teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity?

The word.

 

[mozart-250]

Of course it’s not found in the Bible but if you’re going to make the claims about Roman Catholicism that you all are, then you should at least have some understanding of hermeneutics, shouldn’t you?

Am I making claims about Roman Catholicism?

I’m not even Catholic.


You’re the one that is claiming that baptism is not a part of the gospel. I am just curious how you defend this assertion…that’s all.

Oh yes, you also made the assertion that the Scriptures that Edwin and others here cited concerning baptism should not be interpreted according to their plain meaning that a simpleton like myself would read them (the scriptures that reference baptism…do indeed mean…baptism). I am just curious as to why I should not read these scriptures in that way.

It seems to me that since you are the one asserting I should not read them according to their plain meaning, the burden of proof rests upon you to tell me why. So far I have seen little to nothing.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Of course it’s not found in the Bible but if you’re going to make the claims about Roman Catholicism that you all are, then you should at least have some understanding of hermeneutics, shouldn’t you?

Mozart-250 is not Catholic and is making no claims about Catholicism, Roman or otherwise.

 

[someotherguy]

You’re the one that is claiming that baptism is not a part of the gospel. I am just curious how you defend this assertion…that’s all.

I don’t need to defend it. It’s absence speaks for itself.

Oh yes, you also made the assertion that the Scriptures that Edwin and others here cited concerning baptism should not be interpreted according to their plain meaning that a simpleton like myself would read them (the scriptures that reference baptism…do indeed mean…baptism). I am just curious as to why I should not read these scriptures in that way.

That isn’t exactly what I said.

What I said is that the verses they cited should be taken in light of the context of the passages they’re in and in light of the analogy of scripture.

 

[someotherguy]

So the Apostles were wrong when they taught other men that Jesus did mean baptism in that passage?

Where did they teach this?

Where does the Bible say that it’s my authority?

2 Tim 3:15-17

It does but I have a feeling you wouldn’t believe me if I showed you.

That’s a copout.

Check out the parable of the seeds and sower if you have some time.

That parable says nothing like that.

I can’t be completely saved now, and neither can you.

The Bible says that I’m saved and that I can have assurance that I’m saved now.

Our redemption isn’t complete until we are in Heaven in our perfect, glorified bodies.

The word.

Your word.

 

[mercygate]

I think the exchanges of the past few hours answer the title of the thread – why do we equate Protestantism with Fundamentalism? The mozart-250s, contarinis, GKC’s, Huguenots, and Zooeys of this world do not make half the racket nor propose anything LIKE the absurdities you will hear from one militant Fundamentalist on lashing out against the Catholic faith.

We get focused out of proportion to the facts.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Where did they teach this?

It’s found in Scripture and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers - those men who learned the faith at the feet of the Apostles themselves.

2 Tim 3:15-17

15And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The Scriptures Timothy would have known from infancy would have been just the Old Testament.

16All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

17That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Hmm, I’m not seeing “Scripture has authority” here anywhere. Profitable, but not authoritative. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul says the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not the Bible. (1 Tim 3:15)

That’s a copout.

Not really, just pressed for time right now. I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8),
but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12),
and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).
Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12),
with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).

That parable says nothing like that.

If you say so.

Your word.

No, I was asking for the chapter and verse where I can find the word “Trinity” in Scriptures. Also, the list of books that belong in the Bible, within Scripture. The Table of Contents isn’t inspired Scripture, is it?

 

[mozart-250]

I don’t need to defend it. It’s absence speaks for itself.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Just because you say baptism is absent from the gospel doesn’t mean it is the case.

Your say so is not a convincing reason.

That isn’t exactly what I said.

What I said is that the verses they cited should be taken in light of the context of the passages they’re in and in light of the analogy of scripture.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

There have been numerous scriptures cited on this thread that contain the word baptize, baptized or baptism. You are the one that is claiming that the words baptize, baptized or baptism does not mean…baptize, baptized, or baptism. Since you seem to be the one that is saying I should not use the normal English meaning of these words when interpreting these scriptures, it seems to me that you should tell me why this is the case.

Anyway, methinks I will take a break from this and go out and water my veggies. My Red Sox just blew another 3-0 lead.

 

[someotherguy]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Just because you say baptism is absent from the gospel doesn’t mean it is the case.

Your say so is not a convincing reason.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

There have been numerous scriptures cited on this thread that contain the word baptize, baptized or baptism. You are the one that is claiming that the words baptize, baptized or baptism does not mean…baptize, baptized, or baptism. Since you seem to be the one that is saying I should not use the normal English meaning of these words when interpreting these scriptures, it seems to me that you should tell me why this is the case.

I think you’ve banged your head a little too much. It looks like it’s given you brain damage. I never said that baptise doesn’t mean baptise. I said that baptism is a response to salvation, not a means to it.

 

[Contarini]

I think you’ve banged your head a little too much. It looks like it’s given you brain damage. I never said that baptise doesn’t mean baptise. I said that baptism is a response to salvation, not a means to it.

Then why, when Peter is asked “what shall we do,” does he respond, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins”? (Acts 2:38)

Why does Paul say (Acts 22:16) that Ananias said to him, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord”?

Note that this “calling on the name of the Lord” is mentioned in Acts 2:21 as a *precondition *for salvation. Yet here “calling on the name of the Lord” is mentioned as an accompaniment of baptism.

This is context. This is “the analogy of Scripture.” Over and over again the NT writers mention baptism as if it were one of the things leading to salvation, not simply something you do once you are “saved.” What you call “the analogy of Scripture” is, I suspect, simply the extraction of a radical doctrine of “faith alone” from certain (misinterpreted) passages of Scripture, and the use of that doctrine as a Procrustean rule into conformity with which all the rest of Scripture must be tortured.

Of course, I could be wrong as to what you mean by the “analogy of Scripture,” because you refuse to tell us.

Edwin

 

[Cardinalsong]

And I teach my 10th grade, which is confirmation in my parrish, that they have a moral obligation to conform their will to the teachings of the Church. There is no I in Church, no me in faith, no my in Catholic.
Sometimes it takes, sometimes, it doesn’t. All year I had one boy who refused to accept the Church’s teaching on Abortion. “His” faith allows it.

Ohhh I like that much better than the “There’s no ‘I’ in team” slogan. It just make so much sense (as well as the rest of your post!).

[SIGN]Go Teim…ER, I mean…Team![/SIGN]