Oh that's great, just GREAT.. now everytime I drive by the Catholic church while on my way to the liquor store to buy condoms, cigarettes and a bottle of JD, I'm going to think of you.

By the way, watch out for that Pastor Scott Stoogenheifer guy.. being Lutheran, after a rant such as your's he's bound to come and nail something to your front door at any moment now.
 

Reading the NT in context... especially within the context of the OT, is what lead me to become a Baptist.

The epistle of James is an excellent epistle. It shows how faith without works is dead, and how works is the evidence that one has been born again. For me to look at it as saying that works contributes to the chance of obtaining salvation would mean for me to just chuck the bible out as a book of contradictions.

Matthew 25: Read it in context with 1 Corinthians 3:15.

You might, in fact, come to the conclusion that "faith vs. works" is really a political matter born of the Reformation and that it isn't really relevant to anything that Christ actually taught.

I don't mean to insult your denomination, but are you aware of the abuses that were going on throughout history perpetrated by the Catholic church under the concept of "works"? "Works", by what I have read, usually took the form of giving money to the RCC. The distinction of faith vs works needed to be drawn.

John the Baptist
Hey, make sure you don't use that shapre on Matthew 3:14!!!
Or on the SECOND part of Luke 1:41, as it was the HOLY SPIRIT who caused John to leap when He filled Elizabeth!

Mary
...or on Luke 1:47.

true Christian faith can't really be separated from true Christian practice.
Indeed you are correct.

BTW, Romans 3 is a good chapter for that former Deacon of yours to read.

Matthew 16:17-19
I see that as a fortelling of how Peter would be the first to preach the Gospel to both the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius. After all, James is demonstrated as the head of the church in Acts 15.

If you are going to take John 6:35 literally, then I'd say receive the eucharist at church, then don't eat or drink anything else and we'll see how long you live, for . Personally, I believe John 6:47 is the key to that section, showing that faith is necessary and that the bread and wine he was speaking of was his sacrifice. I believe Communion is a symbolic memorial of that sacrifice, or Christ would not have refered to the wine as "This fruit of the vine" in his next breath after saying the wine was his blood.

The first thousand years of Christianity... well, from about 350 to 1500-ish, scares quite a number of people away from Roman Catholicism. It was a bloody history, one that all Christians share in, as we all have equal claim upon the early church. I've heard Catholics say that the RCC never tortured or put anyone to death. This is one of those litmus tests on how I know if I am dealing with a rational person or, if they profess it, one who is willing to fill themselves full of delusions and lies in order to justify the "prefection" of their denomination.

I attended Roman Catholic School from grades 8 through 12. I've attended more masses than I can count. I enjoy the Catholic Mass. I enjoy the tradition. And I have great respect for the Catholic Church. I merely disagree with some of what I see as fuzzy and extrapolated logic to arrive at the doctrine, hence I can not become Catholic.

Well, I fully expect to be flamed for this response. And in fact, I shall be disappointed if I am not. ;)
 

"I don't mean to insult your denomination, but are you aware of the abuses that were going on throughout history perpetrated by the Catholic church under the concept of "works"?"

Yes, the Catholic Church has and does acknowledge that there were abuses in the past and that Martin Luther had serious points to bring up about those abuses. We don't shy away from our history. We accept it for its faults and learn from it.

"If you are going to take John 6:35 literally, then I'd say receive the eucharist at church, then don't eat or drink anything else and we'll see how long you live, for . Personally, I believe John 6:47 is the key to that section, showing that faith is necessary and that the bread and wine he was speaking of was his sacrifice. I believe Communion is a symbolic memorial of that sacrifice, or Christ would not have refered to the wine as "This fruit of the vine" in his next breath after saying the wine was his blood."

Why did Jesus not say, "Take this bread as a symbol of my body". Jesus didn't give us an unending supply of his actual blood, thus the fruit of the vine. Which, thru transubstantiation, does become 'the body and blood' of Christ. If the Holy Spirit can make John the Baptist leap in the womb, why can He not come down and convert wine to blood?

"I've heard Catholics say that the RCC never tortured or put anyone to death."

They are idiots who don't know their history...or are ashamed of it.

"I merely disagree with some of what I see as fuzzy and extrapolated logic to arrive at the doctrine, hence I can not become Catholic."

What totally floors me is that people will take the Bible nad read it themselves, interpret it themselves with help from the Holy Spirit and ignore the group who has been studying and debating this work for 2,000 years. If the Holy Spirit correctly interprets the Bible for the individual, then why is it that there are so many fellow Bible readers who have been given a different interpretation? The fuzzy logic is that if the Holy Spirit is a part of God, and cannot be anything than good and cannot represent anything BUT the TRUTH, has individuals running around down here with contradictory interpretations? You would think God would want everyone on the same page when it comes to His Bible. There are something like 60,000 Protestant denominations now. And all from splits because of disagreements about what the Bible told them personally? And why do you use the Bible? The RCC came up with this canon? Why not have the Holy Spirit tell you as an individual which books belong in your version of the Bible? Why would you take the RCC's word on which is the proper canon? I would submit that you've had bad experiences with Catholics just as Darrell has with Fundamentalists. I know quite a few Catholics that I don't particularly care to associate myself with. All denominations, all faiths have people like that. No denomination and no faith is blameless for horrible acts commited by people. We are human. And we're all supposed to be acting like Christians. I hope we all keep that in mind as this blog stokes the fires of Hell with righteousness and pride. Amen.
 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Roman Catholics certainly do NOT have a corner on the "crazy killins done in the name of God" market. Yeah, our forebears did some BAD things, but no worse than what was done to them by Romans, and no worse than those crazy Puritans did to "witches". Insane acts are committed in the name of God ALL the time. Check out the Lafferty Brothers someday. Or Islam. Look up the name Warren Jeffs for some good old-fashioned "religious" atrocties being committed in America this very day.

I guess what I'm saying is that abuses of a doctrine don't make the doctrine wrong.

Now, as for this Sola Fide business. Well, I'm a simple-minded rube with no intention of citing my sources or talkin' real good. I did all that ad nauseum at Saint Vincent College, and that diploma means I don't hafta anymore. Or it's an excuse for my academic laziness. But I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about faith, and reading about it, trying to figure out what the word means. I am always led back to the same guy: Soren Kirkegaard. Soren said that faith is a willingness to act as though you KNOW something is true. Well, he kinda said that. But he said that every step we take is a leap of faith that we won't go through the floor. The very step shows faith. But just standing there and never walking exemplifies nothing. To me, faith must be a quiet act of trust. But it is, most definitely, an action. Without the action, it's empty. God made Abraham prove it, didn't he?

As NH knows, I like to unapologetically paint with a GIANT brush. I will tell you that it is my experience, WITHOUT FAIL, that the loudest Christians act the least like Christ. I could give you a hundred examples, but it's your blog, not mine.

You're kicking some butt, Darrell. Please keep it up. I'm really enjoying it.
 

Unseen Blogger,

Hey, before I respond to anything specific here I want to relate to you something from my afternoon that I think you’ll see some humor in. I wrote today’s Armchair Apologist post this morning and then went to work, on second shift, this afternoon. As I was driving to work I was mulling over what I’d written and something occurred to me:

I’d indicted the Fundamentalist Church that Wendy and I used to go to for “cherry-picking” verses from the Bible to justify this or that belief… and then, in my list of “ways to not become Catholic,” I myself had cherry-picked several verses to justify my own beliefs!

DOH!

I literally winced when I realized what I’d done, what a hypocrite I’d been… and I was absolutely sure that you’d bust me on it. I figured I could see that coming a mile away. I was really shocked when your comment didn’t call me out on my blatant hypocrisy… so I have to ask, did my hypocrisy just slip past you, too… or did you intentionally just cut me some slack on it? Either way, thank you for not smacking me with the flyswatter of shame. I now have no choice but to smack myself with it. SWAT.

Anyway, in response to some of what you said:

Yes, it was the Holy Spirit that inspired John the Baptist to leap for joy at the presence of Mary… but it was still the presence of Mary that he was leaping for joy about! I believe that. I deep down believe it. I honestly believe that Mary was quite a wonderful, special woman who probably didn’t have an equal among Christians. Her faith and obedience set the best of all possible examples.

Regarding the corruption of the Church prior to the Reformation… I’m well aware of it. The selling of indulgences, the violence committed by Catholics, etc, etc… I’m aware of all of it and I won’t justify any of it. Ever since I announced to my friends and family that I was converting to Catholicism it seems that I’ve been taken to task for everything from the second Crusade to the horrific sexual abuses committed by some priests. I think I've had to make about a zillion vicarious apologies. That, I think, is an experience that only other fellow Catholic converts can relate to. I don’t think there’s another kind of Christianity where converts are expected to answer for every sin committed by every members of your church for the past 2000 years. Anyway, no, I don't claim that everything done by everyone who ever represented the church was right. In fact, some of it was downright horrible. The church admits it too, by the way. Part of RCIA was learning about our own Church's painful past. Our priest seemed to be in some personal pain about it as he told us about some of the terrible things that had been done in the name of Catholicism over the past 2000 years. The whole time he was talking I wanted to say "It's OK, Father... I've had these things drilled into my head by Catholic haters for 37 years now. I've forgiven the church a long time ago."

As far as early Church fathers and early Church documents that I think of as distinctly Catholic, a couple of things come to mind. Justin Martyr, for instance, described the Mass around the year 150 AD, and his description was basically the Mass just as it’s still practiced today. Plus, there’s the work called the Didache. Check that out sometime. Catholic or not, I think all Christians should read it, it’s an early Church document that’s just beautiful and inspirational. Of course, I see it as distinctly Catholic… but I’m sure you’ll enjoy it as much as I do and see it as in keeping with Baptist doctrine.

So, anyway, back to sola fide... yes, Martin Luther had some genuine reasons for wanting reform in the Church… and I think that he played a huge role in bringing about the reform that was so desperately needed. Nonetheless, I remain convinced that you can’t really separate Christian faith and Christian life. If you have one you have the other. If Martin Luther had argued that we are justified by faith without the corrupt practices of certain powerful members of the church, that would have been one thing. He’d have been correct to make that argument, I can’t deny that for a second. The idea, though, that we can separate genuine faith from the works naturally and unavoidably produced by genuine faith and say that one takes precedent over the other… I just don’t see the point.

It’s like saying that the apple tree is more important than the apples it produces. Sure, you can’t have apples unless the tree you have really is an apple tree… so in that way, the tree’s apple-treeness is extremely important. However, if the tree isn’t producing any apples, I gotta wonder if it’s really an apple tree or just a faux-apple tree.

How’s that for a convoluted metaphor?

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if what we’re arguing is entirely academic and not at all really relevant to the Christian life.

According to this book that I'm reading currently (written by a Presbyterian, by the way)the first Christians called their practice simply "The Way." That was the first name for Christianity. Not "The Faith" or "The Belief," but "The Way." I don't know about you, but the phrase "The Way" implies a way of living (works) to me.

With regard to the real presence, I suppose that because we’re coming from two diametrically opposed points of view, we’ll never see eye to eye on it. I think that by “fruit of the vine,” Christ was referring to himself as the vine and his sacramental blood as the fruit. Remember the parables along the lines of “I am the vine, you are the branches.” That’s where I’m coming from with regard to that.

Beyond that, all I can offer for proof of the sacramental value of the Eucharist is that I honestly feel the presence of Christ in my life in a much more real and powerful way now that I’m a practicing Catholic than I did as a Protestant. Now there are a thousand other possible psychological and/or spiritual explanations for that and there’s no way I can disprove any of them, so make of that what you will. All I know is that when I receive the Eucharist I know that I am partaking of the sharing of my Salvation between myself, my Church and my Savior. It is, in my opinion, my first true experience with something I’d describe as “Communion.” Now, do I say that you HAVE to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ in order to be saved? Of course not, and neither does the Roman Catholic Church. We’re not saying “receive the Real Presence or you’re going to hell.” However, I AM saying that I never felt Christ in my life as strongly as I do now that I have a way to access him physically AS WELL AS through prayer, meditation and deep contemplation. Until I received the body and blood of Christ, I had no real life within me.

Regarding comparing the Old Testament and the New Testament, I can’t believe that I forgot to mention how important that was to me during my discernment of my faith. The concept of “Typology” was huge for me. It was the first time I ever found a way of making sense of the Old Testament. How ironic that we both found that unique and important relationship between the old and new covenants and we were each lead in a different direction through that discovery.

Now I'll respond to a few specifics:

Matthew 25: Read it in context with 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Dude, you realize that's more likely referential to Purgatory, right? Are you testing me?

John the Baptist -- Hey, make sure you don't use that sharpie on Matthew 3:14!!!

Matthew's gospel is actually my favorite, even though it doesn't do as good a job of presenting what a deeply conflicted man that John the Baptist was. For that, you have to turn to Luke. Luke gives us the best info on John the Baptist, Mary, and Judas, too, in my opinion.

Mary ...or on Luke 1:47.

Dude, you don't have to worry about me forgetting Luke 1:47… or ANY part of Mary's Magnificat. I'm a Catholic with particular devotion to Our Lady, remember? ;)

James is demonstrated as the head of the church in Acts 15.

Huh? You've been using that Sharpie on Acts 15:7-12, right? ;)

If you are going to take John 6:35 literally, then I'd say receive the eucharist at church, then don't eat or drink anything else and we'll see how long you live, for

Dude, I've just reread John 6 and I can't for the life of me figure out how it says that we're supposed to receive the Eucharist and then not eat or drink any other food. In fact, with regard to eating other food, the food that sustains us on a purely physical level, I'd suggest that the only passages in the New Testament that I'm aware of that comment on that with relation to the Eucharist are those in 1 Corinthians 11. In that Chapter, Paul specifically instructs on the difference between eating regular food and eating the Eucharist.

With regard to those who reject the True Presence, the verse that always jumps out at me from John 6 is the one with the ominous number: John 6:66, which reads: As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. In other words, the idea of receiving Christ through a physical sacrament involving eating and drinking was a major turn off to some people even as Christ stood among us and proclaimed it's necessity. Even then there were those who wanted to pick and choose which of Christ's teachings they'd accept.

Anyway, thanks for your comments. I’m sorry if I’ve failed to “flame” you to your satisfaction. I enjoy and value your input too much, I guess.

I suppose I should offer some kind of flaming. How’s this: Bassett hounds suck! ;)

Later, Jambander wrote: And why do you use the Bible? The RCC came up with this canon? Why not have the Holy Spirit tell you as an individual which books belong in your version of the Bible?

I'd suggest that the reason that Protestants don't mess with the New Testament is simply that they know better. The Canon of the New Testament is the only remnant of the Mother Church that most protestant churches have retained. If it were still my only link to the Parent Church I suppose I'd treat it with reverence, too. I suppose I might even be tempted to be overly reverent about it and to go all Sola Scriptura about, considering that it would be the only tangible link I still had to Christ.

Kristine: To me, faith must be a quiet act of trust. But it is, most definitely, an action. Without the action, it's empty. God made Abraham prove it, didn't he?

Amen, lady!
 

Hi Darrell,
I'm glad you checked into the word "antinomian." Here's a couple of other $5 words which you probably already know but for the sake of your readers: Antilegomena and Homologoumena. In my understanding of biblical hermeneutics, one doesn't base a doctrine on antilegomena. Not saying you've done that - because you haven't - just a mild caution. It's why it's a bit squishy to prooftext from books like James or Revelation. The early church simply was not unanimous on their authenticity. So from the catholic, ecclesial, historical perspective, one oughtn't use them in that way. Not that your arguments were solely dependant on them in any case, I realize.

You are right that one cannot and must not separate living faith from a life of faithfulness. But one must distinguish them. In other words, how is Scott Stiegemeyer saved? By Jesus or by Jesus and Scott? To me, it's a matter of not robbing God of His glory. Soli Deo Gloria.

And by all means, keep reading all that good stuff. If I may make a recommendation, take a peek at a book called "The Proper Distinction Btwn Law and Gospel" by a dude named Walther. Or anything at all by Martin Chemnitz. And finally, the Book of Concord. If for no other reason than because it'll help you fine tune your approach to Sola Fide. Know thy opponent.

When doing apologetics, we all have to beware of the Straw Man fallacy. That is, we don't want to prop up our opponents like a straw man, stuffing them with fluff, so that it's easier to knock them down. Probably every debater and polemicist is guilty of doing this to some extent. And certainly modern politicians build careers by doing it. That's because typical Americans with their short attention spans simply cannot ... uh ... what was I saying?

What I'm trying to say, I guess, is it's necessary to attack what our opponent actually teaches instead of caricatures of what he teaches. This is every single bit as necessary for me as you as anyone AND it's one of the most difficult parts of apologetics. That's because it requires serious study of what the opponent writes and not only what our team says of the opponent. That, I think, is the calling and burden of the apologist.

It's also important, I think, to be quite specific in one's critiques. Are we talking about Luther, Calvin, or Wesley? They are very different in many ways. Of course, I am biased but I think that Rome's chief ecumenical responsibilies are toward the Eastern Orthodox and the Lutherans. I'd include the Anglicans, but it's nearly impossible to know what they believe, teach and confess about anything.

For anyone who wants to really get down, I suggest a thorough exegetical study of the word "righteousness." What is it? And how does one get some? Before God, whose righteousness may I claim? Do I point to my own or to Christs? So as Mike Meyers used to say, "talk amongst yourselves."

Anyway, party hearty and - as always - your mileage may vary.
 

Jambander,

Why did Jesus not say, "Take this bread as a symbol of my body".
I don't know. You'll have to ask him. While you're at it, ask him why he and Paul refered to the Lord's Supper emblems as bread and wine post-"transformation". Also, ask Him why, if the Eucharist is so important to salvation, is it not hammered over and over and over again in the Epistles like Faith is.

why can He not come down and convert wine to blood?
I never said He couldn't. I just said I don't believe He does, based upon Scripture.

been studying and debating this work for 2,000 years.
Christian Doctrine has changed over the past 2,000 years. I've read the Church Fathers. While some of their writing is more "Catholic", much of it is more "Protestant".

I believe the practice and application of Christianity was hindered by Christianity's power, especially over medieval Europe. Mixing government and religion rarely has good concequences, as we see today in the Middle East.

While you say I am ignoring the past 2,000 years, I say I am not. Remember, there were MANY MANY MANY "Protestant" type groups as far back as Christianity itself. However, they were deemed heretics and most of them were executed because of said power. Now I'm not trying to point my finger and say "Look at what you Catholics did." No sir-re bob! After all, as a Baptist, my theological forebearers were responsible for quite a number of lynchings in the south (pull that card on anyone who brings up the Catholic Church's history, Darrell). I am merely pointing out historical facts. I believe that had it not been for the printing press, the Reformation started by Luther would have gone the way of the Waldensians and countless other "heresies" throughout the first 1500 years of the Catholic Church.

has individuals running around down here with contradictory interpretations?
It is because people are prideful and don't listen to the Holy Spirit, and their pride causes them to break fellowship. There are things within the Baptist denomination that I don't agree with, but I'm not going to split over it. Unfortunately, many people have. But that is immaterial, as being in universal agreement over something wrong is still being wrong. After all, everyone once thought the earth was flat, believe in the Phlogiston theory, and Spontaneous Generation.

There are something like 60,000 Protestant denominations now.
Just to warn you, quoting Barrett's Lie to me is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Feel free to read the post on my blog on why this ever-inflating number is a complete fabrication.

The RCC came up with this canon
The Holy Spirit came up with this canon. Saying the RCC did is like saying Michaelangelo's paintbrush gave us the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Did you know that the "RCC"'s first crack at a canon was wrong? Feel free to read about it in my post here. The canon was pretty much set by 100 AD, by the way.

I would submit that you've had bad experiences with Catholics just as Darrell has with Fundamentalists.
Indeed you are correct, as I have stated many times in the past. After all, Catholicism is the largest denomination here in Pittsburgh, as Fundamentalism is in Darrell's area. We've both commented on how our paths have come from opposite directions, but are remarkably similar.

That's all for now. I'll hit the rest of the responses to the comments later. Still having trouble concentrating and the "fun police" is wondering what I am doing. ;)
 

"Why did Jesus not say, "Take this bread as a symbol of my body".

I don't know. You'll have to ask him."

Read John 6:22 thru the end of chapter 6. There were Jews who took Jesus' word literally and thought he was referrign to cannibalism. As a consequence they left Him. He did nothing to correct their understanding. he didn't say, "Hey, wait a minute, you misunderstood, I just meant as it as a symbol." He let them go.

"While you're at it, ask him why he and Paul refered to the Lord's Supper emblems as bread and wine post-"transformation"."

Have not heard about the "species" of wine and bread? When we take the Eucharist, it doesn't taste like meat, nor does the wine tasete like blood. They retain their chracter as wine and blood. Just as we cannot see God, we don't taste blood and meat, but we know what is there.

"Also, ask Him why, if the Eucharist is so important to salvation, is it not hammered over and over and over again in the Epistles like Faith is."

There are many things that Jesus said only once. I can't say it any clearer than Jesus does. Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. -John 6:53

Pastor Scott said, "It's also important, I think, to be quite specific in one's critiques. Are we talking about Luther, Calvin, or Wesley? They are very different in many ways. Of course, I am biased but I think that Rome's chief ecumenical responsibilies are toward the Eastern Orthodox and the Lutherans. I'd include the Anglicans, but it's nearly impossible to know what they believe, teach and confess about anything."

God Bless you, Pastor Scott. And I'd say a big Amen to that also.

Name Hidden said, "Christian Doctrine has changed over the past 2,000 years. I've read the Church Fathers. While some of their writing is more "Catholic", much of it is more "Protestant"."

Basically every idea that the Protestants now have today was debated in the Early Church. It was also rejected by the Early Church through centuries of study and comparison with tradition. As we Catholics claim today, if you believe God told you something, you discern it by comparing it with what has been 2,000 years of tradition and scripture. If you stick to Sola Scriptura, you risk error in interpretation because you have nothing to compare it to. At best, you can throw yourself into categories of other like-minded Protestant theologians that have written over the last few hundred years. As I said before, there can only be one truth, The Truth, if it truly omes from the Holy Spirit. Why do you believe that the Holy Spirit guided the RCC to come up with this Canon and did nothing else to lead the RCC through its interpretation of the Bible.

To speak to Barrett's Lie, I'd never heard that term before, I'd only heard the figure. Whether it's 20,000 or 60,000...it's huge. Come down here to the South and I can show you in every town dozens of churches that line the main streets with names like The Pentecostal Church of the Living Brethen or the First Community Christian Church who have NO AFILLIATION WITH ANY OTHER CHURCH. They were started up by a guy from a church down the roadd who read the Bible and started to disagree with the church he was in and decided to become a Pastor and start his own church. It happens all the time. So it's easy for me to believe a figure like 60,000 when in a community of 2,000 has 20 churches with about 5 who have mainstream denomiantion affilations.

"Remember, there were MANY MANY MANY "Protestant" type groups as far back as Christianity itself. However, they were deemed heretics and most of them were executed because of said power."

You're going to have to site your sources and give examples on that.

" It is because people are prideful and don't listen to the Holy Spirit, and their pride causes them to break fellowship. There are things within the Baptist denomination that I don't agree with, but I'm not going to split over it. Unfortunately, many people have. But that is immaterial, as being in universal agreement over something wrong is still being wrong. After all, everyone once thought the earth was flat, believe in the Phlogiston theory, and Spontaneous Generation."

Again, how do you know who is being pridefull and is delivering you the truth? If your neighbor has a different interpretation do you say, "Well, he's ebing pridefull and not listening to the Holy Spirit?" That's why Catholics put such an emphasis on tradition. It helps maintain consistency and truth. We have a history of study to compare our ideas to.

" The canon was pretty much set by 100 AD, by the way."

It absolutely was not. That debate took several hundred years to settle.

Now, I'd like to end this diatribe by saying I hate apolegetics. Darrell mentioned that he was guilty of quoting book:chapter:verse. However, when you are debating Christianinty between Protestants and Catholics you are bound by Sola Scriptura because the Bible is the only thing you can draw your arguements from that teh Protestants share a common belief. Short of saying, "Read the Gospel of John" to make your point you have to quote book:chapter:verse. Darrell correctly pointed out that I'm against this blog entry. We aren't going to change your minds and you aren't going to change ours. At best, we come to a draw. At worst, we sin and make fools of ourselves showing our egos...or pride and thinking that we are the only ones who are right (what I meant when I mentioned righteousness). Or worse still, our debate turns an undecided person away from Christianity all together. When you are throwing around political ideas, the worst thing that can happen is your candidate loses. Spiritual debates are much more incendiary because we're talking salvation and eternity. I'm uncomfortable seeing this type of thing consume the SouthCon blog. Before, when I would stop by, I would see a group of like-minded people having a good time. Now, I see lines being drawn. And it's not that it's gotten ugly...yet. Everyone has been civil and respectful. But I fear that blood is in the waters of the Internet ocean and newcomers could bring that civility to an end. :-{
 

Oh man, oh man! Darrell, I just bumped into a quote from a recently deceased and much beloved Lutheran pastor. He said: “People are anxious over the necessity of good works for salvation; God is anxious over the necessity of salvation for good works.” This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say. OK, now I'll shut up on the Sola Fide thing.
 

Yes, since before 100 A.D. the NT canon WAS pretty much set. When the Apostles times on earth were coming to a close, much of their efforts switched from verbal to written communications. The Pauline epistles were generally considered scripture soon after they were written, as were the four canonical Gospels. Peter refered to Paul's letters as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Paul considered the Gospel of Luke as scripture (1 Timothy 5:18). The other books were generally considered scripture, but some groups did not. Also, many groups didn't consider Paul's letters scripture either (the Nazarenes and the Ebionites).

Fast forward to the Synod of Laodicea in 363 A.D. The New Testament canon is decided upon. However, through what I believe was human pride, they didn't fully listen to the Holy Spirit and omitted the book of Revelation! So, they got it wrong. There was a strong outcry from the rank and file Christians to include Revelation (an outpouring of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church? I think so).

Then, at the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397, the NT canon was affirmed as it is in its present state.

As for the sources sited, feel free to do a search on Ana-baptists, Montanists, Paulicians, Waldensians, Arnoldists, or any others in this chart. Mind you, I don't support the conclusions of the chart, just providing it as a source of information on early Christian "Heresies", as Rome saw them.

And here is an example of an OT verse which I believe put things about the Eucharist into context:

"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts." (Jeremiah 15:16)

Also, Ezekiel 3.

As Darrell said, one must read the Bible in context. Picking out verses to support one's own beliefs while ignoring others leads one into a world of hurt.

Also, back to a previous comment (studying for 2,000 years), remember that prior to the Reformation, very few people had access to the scriptures. Those that did were steeped in tradition, which causes one to read meaning into the scriptures, something we are ALL guilty of. And most of those that had the scriptures read them in Latin, which is an imperfect translation of the original Greek and Hebrew. I've heard several people offer up proof of Mary's sinlessness that the angel said "Hail, Mary, full of grace". The fact that he said "grace" meant that she was sinless. Yet, the same Greek word is used to describe King David in Acts (I can chase down the exact verse if you want).

Who knows. Maybe it is my personality that causes me to question everything and find answers on my own. Following others on their word is just too dangerous.

Again, I'm not bashing the RCC. If you take it that way, that's you, not me. I simply don't agree with its doctrines.

Anyway, we'll find out on the other side of that last breath.


Darrell, sorry I haven't had a chance to respond to your comment. When I get more time, I shall.
 

I can't believe how much this is all hurting my brain. Now, capacties diminished, I have to type this as word verification: gygylmzt. OW.
 

At the present I only have a second, but...

Here's a good history lesson about the formation of the Canon if anyone is interested.

I don't believe that you can use verses from the OT to contradict verses from the NT, or to change their meaning. Remember, it's fairly standard Christian belief that the NT reveals the OT, not the other way around. Besides, once you go in that direction, you're good luck getting through Deuteronomy! ;)

After all, as a Baptist, my theological forebearers were responsible for quite a number of lynchings in the south

As a white southern male, I'll never get off the hook for that in the eyes of liberals, and it doesn't matter if I'm Catholic, Baptist, or if I worship roosters.

Whew! I'm in way deep here!
 

Not contradict, but explain.

Anyway, I'm done.

These argurments have been hashed over time and time again by many others in the past, and many others smarter than any of us here.

All in good fun, but without work to occupy my brain, this stuff becomes all encompassing. So, in the interest of mental health, I respectfully declare that my participation in this thread is at a close.